Washington Journal on May 2, 2026, recaps a chaotic week featuring a White House security breach attempt, King Charles III's congressional address, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's Iran War hearings. Viewers debate Spirit Airlines' collapse, the Supreme Court striking down Louisiana's map, and James Comey's indictment for threatening the president via seashell posts. The Farm Bill discussion highlights pesticide label restrictions and a $12 billion bailout from the Commodity Credit Corporation, while callers question Trump's fitness amid dementia concerns. The episode concludes with an AP Government exam review covering Marbury v. Madison, judicial review, and federalism principles. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
Time
Text
Washington Week Recap00:11:30
Along with your calls and comments live, Politico's Grace Yarrow will talk about efforts in Congress to reauthorize the five-year farm bill and economic challenges facing America's farmers.
And then teachers Kevin Jackson and Ryan Warenka will take questions from students across the country in preparation for the Advanced Placement U.S. Government and Politics Exam.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
Join the conversation.
Good morning.
It's Saturday, May 2nd.
It has been quite the week in Washington.
A week ago today, a gunman attempted to breach security at the White House correspondence dinner where the president, vice president, and most of the cabinet were in attendance.
Monday, King Charles addressed a joint meeting of Congress, his first visit to Washington as king.
Wednesday and Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced back-to-back hearings on Capitol Hill, fielding sharp questions on the cost of the Iran war and the administration's interpretation of the War Powers Act.
Also Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling striking down Louisiana's congressional map, decision that could reshape majority minority districts across the country ahead of November's midterms and beyond.
And that's not even all the news.
But we're opening the phones to you to hear what you thought was the top story of the week.
Democrats, call us on 202-748-8000.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can text us at 202-748-8003.
Include your first name in your city-state.
And we're on social media, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN, and X at C-SPANWJ.
Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
We're glad you're with us.
Let's start with a few news items that you might have missed.
First is Fox Business News with this headline: Spirit Airlines to cease operations after federal government bailout fails to materialize.
It says Trump previously said government is open to taking a stake in spirit for, quote, the right price.
Also on Iran, Politico states, Trump tells Congress the Iran war has terminated.
As legal deadline hits, it says the letter to lawmakers attempts to justify why the president is not seeking congressional authorization after the conflict reaches a 60-day threshold.
Now, on Iran, the president was leaving the White House yesterday, and he said this to reporters.
They're not getting along.
They're very, very confused by what's happened because essentially most of their military has been wiped out.
But we just had a conversation with Iran.
Let's see what happens.
But I would say that I am not happy with the people.
Their leadership is very disjointed, very argumentative with each other.
They come back, one says one thing, one says another.
They're very confused.
Obviously, their country has been frankly decimated.
Their Navy is gone.
Their Air Force is gone.
Many of their soldiers, unfortunately, are gone.
They've got to come up with a regular.
At this moment, I'm not satisfied with what they're doing.
And this is the New York Times on that topic.
Trump not satisfied with Iran's proposal on ending war.
It says the details of the latest plan were unclear, and President Trump did not specify his objections.
It said that Iran sent its latest proposal in negotiations to end the war with the United States.
Iran's state news agency reported on Friday.
But hours later in Washington, President Trump said, quote, they want to make a deal, but I'm not satisfied with it.
And wonder what your top news story of the week is.
Let's hear from Gene in Louisville, Kentucky.
Democrat, good morning, Gene.
Yes, my name is Gene Watkins.
I like to talk more in 30 seconds.
Be like, I'm talking about the Pfizer ones.
Be like Pfizer ones, the FBI got cameras that see through walls and see through clothes.
And they've been making arrests of people and everything for 20 years or 15 years and been making arrests with those cameras.
That's a violation of your Fourth Amendment right with those cameras.
And they just passed that law, Pfizer law, about like last week or something like that.
And the feds are using cameras to see through walls and see through clothes and everything like that.
And the NBC sold them cameras to the feds, and they're the ones who made them cameras and they sold them to the feds.
That's all I have to say.
So FISA does not include surveillance that way.
I think that might be something else, Gene.
But this is the latest on FISA Section 702, which was passed.
This says CNBC Congress passes short-term surveillance program extension just before the deadline.
That was this week.
That was a 45-day extension passed on Thursday.
It says the surveillance program was due to expire at the end of Thursday and allows the U.S. to collect the communications of foreigners, even when interacting with U.S. citizens.
So that was the kind of the issue at hand there was that it is already lawful for the government to collect surveillance on foreigners.
But once those foreigners start communicating with American citizens, that's when that becomes an issue.
And that's Section 702 of the Foreigns Intelligence Surveillance Act.
It says the extension sets up further debate on the controversial spy program when the House and Senate return from a pre-planned recess in mid-May.
Alexis in Detroit, Independent, what's your top news story of the week?
My top news story was the hearings with Pete Hegseff and also the announcement of layoffs of Mark Zuckerberg's company, which I refuse to name.
I just, being from Michigan, I am just, and I lean liberal, but I cannot stand Alyssa Slotkin.
I just think she is not good.
And I think recently I heard rumors that she is, you know, trying to, whatever they do, throw their feet into the water to see, test the waters about being a presidential candidate.
God, no, she, no.
Anyways, I thought those were interesting hearings, how he really couldn't answer anything about specifics, about costs, or any of that.
So since you mentioned Alyssa Slotkin, Alexis, what did you think of the question that she asked Secretary Hegseth?
I do not have any respect for Pete Hegseth.
I think he is a drunk.
But he was right.
It was a hypothetical question.
That's what these politicians do.
And like I said, I just cannot stand that woman.
Anyways, so on to the layoffs.
I really think the government needs to step in and protect workers from this AI boom where all these companies are doing mass layoffs.
Yes, it may be mostly the tech sector right now, but it's going to migrate into regular corporate America.
And I think that is very scary.
And just one final comment, not about a TOPS news story, but I have to say I called in a couple of Saturdays ago with the other guy, the new guy, and the screener kept asking me questions because she didn't know what my topic was, which was it was bank week, and she didn't know what that was.
Today's screener did a lovely job.
Thank you.
This is so Alexis brought up a couple of things.
The first was the layoffs at Meta.
This is Business Unsider.
It says Meta just told staff it isn't ruling out further layoffs.
That is in Business Insider if you'd like to find out more about that.
And this is from Alyssa Slotkin.
She's a U.S. Senator from Michigan, a Democrat.
Her website says this, a head of armed services hearing a review of Hexa's answers to Slotkin on illegal orders and use of the military against Americans.
She had asked him about the military seizing ballots, and he said that that was a hypothetical.
Sylvia Etlon, Virginia, Independent Line, good morning.
Good morning, and thank you for C-SPAN.
And I was watching the news correspondents dinner on C-SPAN, and my mouth was just hanging open.
I couldn't believe what happened.
I had to wake my husband up.
It was horrible.
And people that think it's fake, it wasn't fake.
I watched it in real time.
And I wish President Trump would wear a vest, but he said, no, he's not going to.
Thank you so much.
John in Tennessee, Independent Line, good morning.
Yes.
The tech says, the tech says, the tech technical expansion is exploding all over.
In my county in Tennessee, there's a fight going on between a previously undisclosed server that's going in right next to the high school.
There's a lot of controversy about that because in limestone that's nearby, one thing went on and it is insufferable from the noise circling the area.
These things are bomb dation.
And the problem is, is that they come in under non-disclosure agreements.
And so it's sort of sprung on the residents without warning in the area.
And these are the data centers, John, that you're talking about?
Yes.
And, you know, these things are spawned by venture capitalists who have an economic advantage over each other.
But the problem is, it doesn't seem to me as if these AI centers are making much of a profit right now.
And sustainability of their economic model is in severe question.
And the problem is, is suppose they put one up, the entity eventually falls, and you're sort of stuck with it there.
I mean, county governments need the capacity to be able to regulate these things.
And the expectation that you can just come in, take the water, take the electricity from the current infrastructure and go on.
You know, that's just not something that's consistent with democratic principles.
All right, John.
Democratic Principles Under Fire00:13:13
And also happening this week, or happened this week, was King Charles addressed a joint session of Congress.
Here's a portion of his remarks.
I am mindful that we are still in the season of Easter, the season that most strengthens my hope.
It is why I believe with all my heart that the essence of our two nations is a generosity of spirit and a duty to foster compassion, to promote peace, to deepen mutual understanding, and to value all people of all faiths and of none.
The alliance that our two nations have built over the centuries and for which we are profoundly grateful to the American people is truly unique.
And that alliance is part of what Henry Kissinger described as Kennedy's soaring vision of an Atlantic partnership based on twin pillars, Europe and America.
That partnership, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is more important today than it has ever been.
And if you missed that address, we do have it in its entirety at c-span.org.
We did cover that in its entirety.
The numbers are on your screen.
We're asking for your top news story of the week.
What happened this week that really stood out for you?
Democrats are on 202748-8000.
Republicans 202-748-8001.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
And Paul is on the Republican line in Idaho.
Good morning, Paul.
Good morning.
Had a hard time getting on.
I must have rang it about 40 times.
And then the time I said, this will be the last time.
It was the time I got through.
I love your guys' show.
Look forward to it once a month in between when I'm not going to be able to get in.
And the top story for me would have been the king and queen of England coming to visit.
It sounds to me strange that the Queen is somebody different than what I've grown up knowing.
And so I'm just getting used to that.
But I don't know who did most of the writing for the king while he was visiting, but he had some pretty funny stuff in there, which I thought was entertaining.
And I certainly hope they ironed out the problems that Trump and the UK had as far as the blank, sorry.
Okay.
But we got your top news story, Paul.
Let's talk to Christopher in Baltimore.
Democrat, you're on the air, Christopher.
Hey, good morning, Mimi.
How you doing?
Good.
No, I have to give you and all your fellow C-SPANers credit because you do it for a lot of phone calls.
And what gets me is how they blame C-SPAN.
You can't blame C-SPAN.
You are just a moderator and you're allowing America to voice their opinions.
That's what I wanted to say first.
And we appreciate you.
Thank you.
Another thing, I'm disturbed, and I was trying to notice whenever Mr. Trump is speaking to the female people that are interviewing him, if he don't like it, he calls them low IQ.
He said that to Jasmine one time when he was interviewing her at the White House, but he does that to all women.
I never noticed him say that.
You're stupid.
Why would you ask this question?
He never kicks back on the men that ask him difficult questions, but he's always doing that to women.
And that's kind of, that's disturbing to me, disrespectful.
Another thing, my top story is Pete Hesse.
I had to give it to the gentleman.
He's very articulate.
And he causes me to get my dictionary out to see what words he's using because he's using a lot of big words.
But he's just doing what, like they said, he's playing to one person, Donald Trump.
And look, I don't want to tie up the radio, but I just want to, I mean, the telephone.
But I just want to say I hope all Americans would just stop.
Take a deep breath.
We all breathe.
We all cry.
We all go.
We put our clothes on.
Some people are doing worse than others.
And as you can tell, like I was looking in the news, the oil, look, we're paying high prices in gas, but the oil companies are making a bunch of money.
I don't understand it, Mimi.
Look, have a wonderful weekend.
You have a wonderful day too, Christopher.
We've got some text.
This is from Harry in Mount Lebanon, Pennsylvania, who says his top story is minimal security at the White House Correspondents Dinner.
Mimi, were you there?
Yes, I was, Harry.
I was.
He says, if so, was any DC VIP not in attendance?
He says, see, wait till you need cataract surgery or a walker.
You'll find there's no place like home.
And Sandy in Bloomington, Indiana says the gutting of the Voting Rights Act was for me the biggest news of the week.
It has caused a rush by the GOP to rig future elections.
Well, this is what President Trump's reaction to Wednesday Supreme Court ruling limiting the Voting Rights Act.
Here's what he said on 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 any of that.
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 is.
This is a very good.
We can end this news conference.
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.
Republican governor.
What about it?
Early voting begins Saturday there, for instance.
Should they redraw the map in the next couple of weeks?
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.
This is also some news for you from this week.
The Trump administration is pulling 5,000 troops from Germany.
It says President Donald Trump threatened to do so earlier this week following criticism by the German chancellor over the U.S. and Israel-led war with Iran.
NBC News is reporting that.
Regina in Lutz, Florida, Republican, good morning.
Hi, good morning.
Actually, I'm not in Lutz today.
I'm actually in Braveheart County.
But I wanted to talk about what I'm observing here.
I'm actually from California, new to Florida, and I'm noticing a discrepancy with sheriffs in different counties and how they're handling human trafficking.
I'm a Seroptimus for a global women's organization.
And I'm noticing in different counties, actually, there's multiple counties here not familiar with that.
That's not how we have it in California.
But each location, each county has a different organization where they have sheriffs.
They do not jurisdictionally handle each other.
They do not speak internally.
When you call 911, you get a DPO, which is an outsourced company.
Clearly, one county doesn't know what the other one is doing.
I called in personally what I observed firsthand as human trafficking.
As a Siroptimist, it's something I speak to from a global perspective.
We work with the United Nations.
Last month was International Women's Month.
I can speak to that directly.
I'm a subject matter expert in that.
I personally observed human trafficking in Stewart, Florida, called it in.
No one wanted to talk to me.
I stayed on the phone.
I told them, do you realize what I'm observing here?
There's something wrong with this picture.
You need to help these children.
You need to help this woman.
I vetted her personally.
I got to the 911 line.
Again, no one could help me.
Pretty much told me to get off their line.
So I left that county.
I went to the second county, which was St. Lucie.
I told them exactly what I observed.
They said I had to go back to Stewart, Florida.
I was ping-ponging between the counties.
Then I asked, do you have something like what you have in California, which is a California Highway Patrol?
They told me they have a Florida Highway Patrol.
I called in to that.
Again, it was roundabout.
One had to talk to another.
They actually were very rude to me.
I was calling in a complaint of what I saw as human trafficking.
Having been here now for the past three weeks, talking to people on the ground, there's a big problem here with human trafficking, and it's going unnoticed, and something needs to be done about it.
So, Regina, have you tried your members of Congress or your senators?
Not from here.
I just got here.
Actually, I'm, yeah, this is new for me.
I'm a troubleshooter.
I do this in California.
I just happen to be here in Florida and observing this.
Oh, I see.
I see.
I just, I want to make sure that I get on the record that clearly someone needs to be doing something about these counties.
There's too many of them.
Jurisdictionally, they don't collaborate.
They don't talk to each other.
And they ping pong back and forth.
And if you call 911, I don't know where you're calling.
So clearly it's not.
So that might be an issue for the governor then, the governor's office.
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
Thanks, Regina, for your efforts there.
Joe in Long Island, New York, Independent Line.
What's your top news story?
How you doing, Mimi?
Did I say that right?
Mimi, yes, that's correct.
That's a nice name.
What I want to say is I only got two points I want to come out with.
The first one is, I watch TV, I watch and MSNBC and Fox News, and it's pathetic to see how simple not only news people think Americans are, but even politicians think we are a bunch of a litter.
It's like we have the IQ of a mannequin because you go to the stations and one station is praising the Trump administration, what they're doing, rightfully so.
And then you go to CNN, MSNBC, ABC.
And all they got to do is, all they're doing is talking negative about the presidency, which is in charge of our country.
They're talking negative in this and that.
And that bothers me.
And another thing which I think that they think that we're stupid, Americans think that we're stupid, not all, is that when they keep on lying and they say that nobody is above the law, they are looking at us and we are very like with the eyes crossed because they are above the law.
Democrats and Republicans are above the law.
And I give you, for instance, they could break the law and get away with it.
Like, well, who is that guy?
The board is on Alexander, Mayorkis, Joe Biden, who opened up the border, said nothing was going on over here, that they got the border secure, going back to that.
And we all seen it wasn't true.
But there's just so much.
One lies and the other one swears on certain things.
And the other stations are just going against each other.
They are, I don't know.
We need an oversight committee in the government, and it's got to be an independent.
If you can't do your job right, then you got to either get fired or get arrested if you're doing something illegal.
That's all I got to say.
All right, Joe.
Edward in Delaware, Democrat, what's your top news story of the week?
Hi, good morning, Mimi.
Morning.
Yes, I want to talk about the White House correspondence dinner and the lack of security.
Ballroom Funding Controversy00:03:14
What they said was, and then it's very ironic that Donald Trump hasn't attended one of those functions or one of those dinners forever.
And conveniently, after all that happened, instead of whisking him away to a secure place, he gets up to the podium and asks for $400 million for his ballroom.
It just seems very suspect every time Donald Trump's poll numbers are tanking, butler, other incidents where security seems to be lax.
He gets up there and he requests more money for his pet projects.
The ballroom was supposed to be funded 100% by all of these friends of his, millionaires, billionaires.
And all of a sudden now, he wants the taxpayers to pay $400 million for one of his pet projects.
We are being taxed to the hilt with this president.
Wars and gas prices, groceries, everything is going through the roof.
And he conveniently, all of a sudden, now, and all of his Republican friends get on X is start demanding that we pay $400 million for his ballroom.
Well, he whisks away every weekend to Mar-a-Lago, plays golf for the weekend, comes back, and he complains about how horrible the Democrats are because they don't support his agenda.
He is catering to all his rich friends while we struggle to make ends meet.
My daughter, who just turned 21, they can't afford to drive to work.
$4.80 now, I guess, up in PA.
She puts it.
Well, Edward, let me update people on that ballroom.
So this is the Hill.
Senate, it says Senate GOP pushes back on Trump ballroom amid affordability worries.
It says Senate Republicans aren't in the mood to vote on legislation to greenlight President Trump's controversial plan to build a 90,000 square foot White House ballroom, as some GOP lawmakers see it, as a bad political move in the current political climate, especially if it would require taxpayer funding.
It says Republicans, Senators generally support Trump's call for the construction of a ballroom where the historic East Wing once stood, but some of them are warning that spending any taxpayer money on the project would be politically tone-deaf.
That's at the Hill, and this is Kinte in Sacramento, California, Independent Line.
Empire and American Collapse00:02:09
Good morning.
Kinte, are you there?
Yes.
Yes.
Hi.
Good morning.
Hey, how are you doing?
My top story is how the fulfillment of prophecy is really taking place in the collapse and the fall of America.
And really listening to when the king of the empire, as he states, of Europe came over here and crafted that speech talking about the alliance of America and the empire have from four centuries.
So I said, why did they mention four centuries?
Because that's 400 years.
400 years is how long black people has been brought to this country.
And now it's time for restoration.
So that's why you see the collapse of the foundation of America right before your eyes.
All right, Kente.
Here's Ken, Tampa, Florida, Independent Line.
Good morning, Ken.
You're on the air.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mimi.
How are you?
Good.
Well, anyway, it's so many for your top news story.
But my top news story is how you, you, Mimi, and your other, and a couple of your other correspondents, how you all would not be when people would call in, and I noticed mostly on the Republican side, and complain about what you all are doing.
Or it seems like they want C-SPAN to be like Fox News.
Very seldom do you hear any one of the other people, liberals, I guess, will call in and complain that, oh, you're not being like MSNBC or whatever other ones.
And the deal is, Mimi, I'm a retired military.
I'm a 65-year-old black man, served 20 years in the military.
And my other top news story is Pete Hescheff.
Nuclear Threats and Gas Prices00:15:43
The reason why he's firing all those generals and all those colonels and that is because he is incompetent.
And those people see that he is incompetent.
That's like a general is an 010.
Pete Hescheff made it to 03.
That's like you send in a person when an officer becomes an 05 or 06, they go to the war college.
Pete Hescheff never even made it to his advanced officer school to where to dictate how wars are thought of and fought.
He is so incompetent, that's why he fires everyone that's around him.
Because if these people, if we have the best military ever, why is he firing the top people in the military?
And the reason is because of his incompetence.
And when you get people who call in and always supporting what's going on, that's because they are comfortable with the things that Trump says and do.
I really appreciate what you guys do.
Thank you, Ken.
Let's hear a portion of Secretary Hegsa's testimony before the House Committee.
Here is what he said about Iran.
So what is the plan to actually turn all of this lethal kinetic action into an improvement in the nuclear situation?
Because we haven't gotten there yet.
Play it out for us.
How does that happen?
How does it actually lead to that result?
Well, I would take issue with the premise of the question that nothing was done.
Operation Midnight Hammer was a very effective.
Well, I didn't say nothing was done.
I said in this war.
Ultimately, under this administration, unlike other administrations, which cut bad deals and pallets of cash with no ability to oversee whether Iran is actually pursuing a nuclear program.
So if we want to litigate JCPOA or the Iran deal, our view, the president's view, is that was a very bad deal.
It gave them a bunch of money up for the fund.
You talked about negotiated deals, funded, allowed them to fund their proxies and spread Hamas and Hezbollah all around the region, build up nuclear capability.
What are we going to do?
President Trump has been clear-eyed from the killing of Qasem Soleimani to the pulling out of the Iran deal to Midnight Hammer and now to this effort to recognize that you have to stare down this kind of enemy who's hell-bent on getting a nuclear weapon and get them to a point where they're at the table giving it up in a way that they never haven't.
So they haven't broken yet.
Okay, we haven't gotten there yet for all of the nuclear facilities have been obliterated underground.
They're buried and watching 24-7.
So we know where any nuclear material will be.
We're claiming my time for watching a second here.
We had to start this war, you just said, 60 days ago, because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat.
Now you're saying that it was completely obliterated.
They had not given up their nuclear ambitions, and they had a conventional shield of thousands of people.
So Operation Midnight, nothing of substance.
It left us at extremely important.
You're missing the point.
We're not in the place we were before.
So much so.
Their facilities were bombed and obliterated.
Their ambitions continued.
And they're building a conventional shield.
Let me try again.
It's the North Korea strategy.
You know this very well.
The North Korean strategy was to use conventional missiles to prevent anybody from challenging them so they could slow walk their way to a weapon.
President Trump saw Iran at its weakest moment, took an action to ensure in a way that only the United States of America could do with our Israeli partners to ensure their conventional shield.
That happened this week.
If you'd like to see the whole thing, it's on our website, c-span.org.
We're wondering what your top news story is.
John, Ventura, California, Republican, you're on the air.
Good morning, Mimi.
Good morning, everyone.
I think my top story is the redistricting down in the South and forming an all-black voting district.
And I've been thinking about this for a long time: that the black Americans are mostly Democrats and they want to be all as a group.
And I'm just thinking that this is not a good strategy for civil rights or for the advancement of colored people.
I marched in the 60s and it was desegregation and integration.
And I look at this as a lack of integration.
So what's the result is that if you have the Republicans have found out that they can get elected without the black vote, with only 10 or 15 percent of the black vote.
And so they're not going to cater.
You don't see a lot of cabinet members that are black because they're Democrats.
If the Democrats take the black Americans for granted, because they know they've got a whole big group here, and they don't, how much did Barack Obama do for them?
Nothing.
And so we have this situation where the black Americans are grouping together and it's not working.
All right, John.
Got that.
Anthony, South River, New Jersey, Independent Line, you're on the air.
Hey, Mimi, thanks for coming in.
Appreciate you.
I appreciate C-SPAN.
Just trying to figure out who has the best hair, you, Kimberly, or John McCartle.
So I think it's you.
But anyway, get your hand off that button.
Come on, Mimi.
There's a delay, Anthony.
I do not have my hand on the button.
Don't look at the TV.
Just talk to me on the phone.
I know.
I'm sorry.
So I appreciate C-SPAN.
Thank you.
Anyway, my top story is that, you know, my top story is the same top story every week, how the politicians lie to us, and then they keep saying the same things over and over.
So even if it's not true, that people believe it.
I'll give you one example.
Give me an example from this week, Anthony.
What's that?
Give me an example from this week.
So when we have someone like Hakeem Jeffries saying that tens of millions of people will lose health care, will lose medical insurance if we eliminate the Obamacare subsidies.
And you say he says that 100 times, people believe it.
So here's what I see, and I did my research.
Okay.
So he will say that they'll lose the health care subsidies.
If he said that 100 times, he didn't say the enhanced subsidies.
He may have said that 10 times out of all those times he said that.
But when you go back to the facts, the tens of millions of people that didn't, if you go to the Kaiser Institute, only 1.3 million people didn't sign up.
So all of that, they're pushing that narrative.
My thing is, I was on Obamacare, but you know what raised my went up 24% this year.
You know what went up?
The insurance company went up 24%.
It wasn't a subsidy, but nobody says that because they're all on the take from the subsidies.
I appreciate you listening to me.
Let me say one thing about C-SPAN because I've been listening and I don't even call in anymore because I get frustrated.
It's just too much negative and we're divided.
So on the case of being divided, I would really wish that number one, I have two points.
Number one, we would go instead of Republicans and Democrats, because there's nothing in the Constitution that says we need Republicans and Democrats.
If we can go to the regional calling like we do for some topics, you know, Eastern, whatever, and let's just people call in, you know, who call in, you know, one, two, three, four, five.
Okay.
Yep.
Thank you, Anthony.
But on the enhanced subsidies, the New York Times actually has an article in the front page of this morning's paper.
Sign-ups plunge for Obamacare as prices soar.
It says millions drop plans and many can't afford costs after Congress ends enhanced aid.
It said millions of Americans appear to be dropping Obamacare coverage in the months since Congress failed to extend the generous subsidies that had become a defining feature of the Affordable Care Act.
Initial sign-ups had already fallen by about 1.2 million people, but insurance companies, state officials, and industry analysts are reporting that many more have lost Obamacare coverage now that people are facing long-term higher costs.
Federal government has yet to report current enrollment data.
That's at the New York Times.
If you'd like to read that.
Richard, Chicago, Illinois, Democrat, good morning.
Good morning.
I'm glad to have, this is my first time calling.
And my story is about the veterans.
And not the veterans, but the military people.
The story about them, two stories.
One story was about them not getting enough food and mail while they're sitting out there fighting for us.
And the second is not being protected, being set to bases and the bases not being protected.
We can argue about a whole lot of things.
We can dislike each other, but we should take care of our troops first because those guys are volunteering to protect us.
And we can squabble with each other and we can dislike each other.
But we're sending those young men and women out there in the middle of the ocean and around the world.
And we should give them every tool they need first before anything.
And to hear that they're not getting mail, are they not getting their food?
Are their parents can't send them their packages?
They're worried about being on bases that aren't protected.
And that's because we're spending a lot of money with an air war.
And those weapons are going fast.
I really believe that the only reason that there's a peace right now, and they're not fighting right now, is that both sides are running out of weapons.
And the cost, money is what brought down, lack of money is what brought down the Soviet Union.
Lack of money for war is what's going to bring us down too.
We need to do something about and make sure our troops are protected.
I got that point, Richard.
Yep.
Dennis in Janesville, Wisconsin, Independent Line.
Go ahead.
Yeah.
My father was a first lieutenant in Korea.
And so, you know, scariest thing, I don't usually get too upset, but this idea of Trump.
You know, when Trump went first term, he went and was with Putin and his people and told everybody, including his personal interpreter, to leave the room and spend, I don't know how much time alone with Putin and his people.
And now he's going to pull 5,000 troops out of Germany.
You think the Russian people have forgotten the 25 million people they lost in that war to Germany?
At the beginning of the summer, here, you're going to pull 5,000 people out of Germany.
Is this an invitation to World War III with Germany being the first target?
This is incredibly, this is the most repugnant, idiot-ass thing I've ever seen in my life.
Bob in Ohio, line for Democrats.
You're on the air.
Yes.
Hi.
My reason for calling is that, you know, I used to be from New York, and I grew up with this guy having gone through a number of bankruptcies and a number of scams because that's who gives you the scammer.
And what is a con artist, okay?
And you know what?
I used to sing out to people about it, whatever their party, okay?
And it doesn't matter what party I'm subscribed to, Dawah, but I've always been more or less liberal.
But that's okay.
This guy, it's not about for him.
The only reason he attached himself to the Republican Party because the Democrats were smart enough not to tie themselves to this scammer.
So, Bob, can you give me an example from this week since we're just wanting to stick with news from this week?
Sure.
He's trying to tell people that price gets price and everything going to come down the minute that the war and what he's claimed is the war has ended, which is crazy, right?
We all know it hasn't.
Troops are still in the ram.
And he claims the minute it stops, all the prices are going to come down.
You know, how many months because the straight-of-home move thing that he started, okay, that's been caused.
And now, You know, he's trying to have the United States people have to have control to any part of Australia.
Hamouth, ridiculous.
The God is nothing but a scam artist.
And people better start waking up.
I don't care what party you're in.
All right, Bob.
And since you mentioned the price of gas, the average national average for a gallon of gas for regular is $4.43, according to the AAA.
Last year's average was $3.18.
So that's the current information for regular gas.
Donovan and Arkansas Republican, good morning.
Good morning.
Thanks for taking my call this early morning, Mimi.
I'd like to remind, first of all, the last caller that gas prices were around this price when Biden was president, and we didn't have a war at that time.
And I would guarantee you he wasn't all that upset at that time about gas prices.
Yes, Donovan, so it was $5.02.
That was the highest it got in 2022 after the invasion of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
That's correct.
Correct.
And yeah, right.
We were helping them, but we were not in war.
But I'm saying, you know, politics was harder.
But what actually called in about was, you know, I keep hearing about Pete Hag said that we're in a quagmire, that, you know, he doesn't know what he's doing.
You know, I would like to remind people that, you know, back when Secretary Austin, who was a decorated general, pulled out of Afghanistan.
You want to see what a quagmire is?
That's a quagmire.
Okay.
Now, I'm trying to be objective.
Now, Iran may go good, it may go bad, but let's see what happens.
Our goal is to keep them from having nuclear bombing.
I think almost everyone would agree that's a good thing.
It may not work out.
It may work.
But the thing is, is that we have to be able to go in and do this.
We're already there now.
So, you know, I would ask people to wait and see what the completion is before they come to any kind of conclusion.
Thank you.
Homeland Security Failures00:10:54
All right.
And this is Jason, Benton, Arkansas, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mimi.
I tell you, Mimi, I sure do.
I know a lot of the majority of your audience, and you're going to remember this, but I sure do wish that this country could go back to the unity and the patriotism of September the 12th of 2001.
This country couldn't be shaken back then.
You know, I've watched all week on C-SPAN 3.
I've watched the committees hound Secretary Hegseth.
And you see that the Republicans go up there and they praise him.
They praise their man.
But then you see that the Democrats just go in there and scold him, you know, and tell him how horrible of a job he's doing.
And I mean, it's just, it's like a three-ring circus.
And I mean, I call in on the independent line now because officially yesterday I left the Republican Party to become a Democrat.
I don't want to be associated with either one of the parties.
I'm so ready for every incumbent that's in there right now to be taken out of office.
And I want term limits so bad it's not even funny.
This country's not the country that I served the military in for nine years and I hate it.
And I wish there was some way that somebody, myself or somebody, could go in there and do a major cleanup and just make it where we're unified again like we were on September the 12th of 2001.
It's sad that something like that had to happen on the 11th to make us that way.
And I'm afraid something would have to happen again for it to happen and I don't want it to.
But that's really the way I feel is that this country will never be unified again until something like that happens.
So Jason, tell me about Your congressional district and what you're thinking about for the midterms.
Well, I'm very much, I said what I said about the incumbents, but I live in the third, second congressional district of Arkansas, which is French Hills District.
And I mean, it's so, it wouldn't matter what I thought because I mean, it's so, I mean, I'm going to vote as his opponent, but I mean, we're so in that area, we're so Republican.
It doesn't matter how much money a Democrat raised or how much money anybody, it just seems like whoever's in there on the Republican ticket, you know, our governor, whoever, they're going to win no matter what.
Because, I mean, it's just the way Arkansas has switched.
You know, it used to be all when Clinton was in there, it was all Democrat, but now it's all Republican.
And I get so sick and tired of the Republican.
I mean, I know that there's a lot of things that I think that the Clintons did that were shady.
And there's a lot of people that every time they come in there, they're going to lock one of them up, lock one of them up, either do it or stop talking about it and leave them people alone.
All right, Jason.
And we got this from Kareem on Facebook.
He says, U.S. debt has reached 100% of GDP for the first time since post-World War II, 1946.
So much for that fiscal conservatism.
I don't ever want to hear these people mention the debt again when a Democrat is in office.
And here is the Wall Street Journal about that topic.
Headline: U.S. debt tops 100% of GDP.
Federal debt exceeding the size of the economy is a potent symbol of the gathering fiscal stresses on the U.S.
That also happened this week.
We're asking for your top news story.
Rob, Tampa, Florida, Democrat, good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I have two things I want to talk about.
The first thing was about the caller who just called in.
I want to say, you know, good job on opening your eyes and stepping away from this Republican Party.
You know, and it's great that you stepped away, but it's also good that you hold those guys accountable.
He's not a Democrat.
He said, I guess he's independent, which is also great.
You know, he actually sounded more of a populist progressive, or maybe like one of those 2016 MAGA Republican guys.
But, you know, good for him.
You see that on the Republican side.
A lot of these influencers are starting to jump ship.
They see what's going on.
Congratulations to that guy.
And hopefully, more Republicans and Democrats open up their eyes and hold those accountable.
You got to do it in the primaries.
You got to do it in the midterms.
So, Rob, we got that point, but you were going to talk about something that happened this week.
Oh, yeah, this week.
The immigration via DHS.
Did that pass?
Oh, it did.
Yes.
So everything passed except for ICE and CPB funding.
Oh, it didn't.
Great.
So, however, yes, but ICE and CBB funding are being funded by the Big Beautiful bill that passed last summer.
So now everything else is being funded.
So what passed this week was TSA, the Secret Service, Coast Guard, FEMA, CISA, which is cybersecurity, all that got funded.
All the stuff that's already been passed before, except for ICE, right?
So everything else in DHS besides ICE and Border Patrol.
That's what I'm saying.
And that's what I was calling it in about mainly because Democrats, good job, I'm still holding out.
I know Republicans hate that because they want to lump everything in together, but it's not.
They're two separate issues.
I'm glad that the Democrats, at least hopefully, were holding out, except for federal men, of course.
But I'm glad that they're holding out or they're still trying to.
Good job.
Don't.
And the little things that they're asking for, like the names, the cameras, the identification, all that, that's great.
That's good for the aesthetics.
All right, right.
Yep.
Oh, sorry.
You had something else?
One last thing.
Sorry.
What the Democrats need to fight for in this DHS is bringing up the issue with the Supreme Court again about racializing immigrants on race, creed, color, where they work, what they look like, how they speak, doing that just on the whim.
That's what caused this whole thing to go.
Thank you.
Okay, let's hear from House Speaker Mike Johnson.
He was asked about the House vote to end the partial government shutdown.
This is from 30.
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're 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.
And this is Betty in Blacksburg, South Carolina, Republican.
Good morning.
Yeah.
Can you tell me what the Democrats is doing now?
Have they done anything?
All I hear about is the Republicans.
That's all I hear about.
It's Republican.
And you think the Democrats is just angels.
Why don't you show what they did when they were in office?
Why don't y'all show that?
Because, you know, it's all about Trump.
They hate him.
They're jealous over him or whatever because he has tried to do everything to help the American people.
And I know you're going to hang up on me, but because they hang up on me when I call in, they hang up on me.
They don't want to hear what I got to say.
Well, I'm telling the truth.
So C-SPAN and Washington Journal is Democrats.
I wish that.
Betty, I'm sorry you feel that way, but the Republicans are in charge of the White House, the House, and the Senate.
And that's why you will probably see more of coverage here where we're giving you your unfiltered view of your government.
This is Westfield, Massachusetts Independent Line Ariello.
You're on the air.
Good morning.
Yeah, my name is Aurelio actually.
Aurelio.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I hope you're having a good day.
I'm calling because the story of the week for me is actually something that should be a story for everybody.
We had an alleged pedophile host and alleged pedophile's brother at the White House this week.
And the way that these two countries are controlling this whole narrative around the F-GM files is pretty incredible.
The way I see it, Great Britain went through their Jimmy Sebill stuff, and it's horrible that they had to go through all that, but the pedophile stuff all came out.
The United States appears to be going through our own Jimmy Sebill stuff and it's going through right now.
Anyways, that is my opinion.
This should be an opinion for everybody, not just a Democrat or Republican.
All right, and later on the Washington Journal, teachers Kevin Jackson of Petaluma High School in California and Ryan Rarenka of Troy High School in Michigan take questions from students across the country in preparation for the Advanced Placement U.S. Government and Politics exam.
C-SPAN Democracy Unfiltered00:02:49
But first, up after this break, Politico, Food, and Agriculture Policy Reporter Grace Yarrow discusses efforts in Congress to reauthorize the five-year farm bill and economic challenges facing America's farmers.
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 non-profit service has offered Americans unfiltered gabble-to-gabble coverage of their government in action.
C-SPAN, bringing your democracy unfiltered.
C-SPAN is brought to you by the cable, satellite, and streaming companies that provide C-SPAN as a public service.
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.
Farm Bill and Soybean Fights00:15:45
Only on C-SPAN.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
Joining us to talk about the Farm Bill reauthorization and challenges facing America's farmers is Grace Yarrow.
She is Politico's Food and Agriculture Policy Reporter.
Grace, welcome to the program.
Thank you for having me.
So let's set the stage.
What is the Farm Bill?
What goes in it?
Why is it so important?
Yeah, so the Farm Bill is this massive legislation that governs a lot of food and agriculture policy.
It's traditionally reauthorized every five years.
The last one that was passed by Congress was back in 2018.
So if you do the math, we're a little bit behind.
Congress was supposed to pass a new one back in 2023.
They've been stalled over a lot of disagreements on climate-smart agriculture, nutrition policy, just partisan disagreements on that.
So this week has marked the most momentum a farm bill has gotten since the last one was passed really in 2018.
I would say this version of the farm bill is a little bit, lawmakers have been calling it the skinny farm bill.
A lot of Republicans passed their big farm bill priorities in their one big beautiful bill last summer.
So this was just kind of some policy tweaks just to tweak the outdated policy, they would argue, because it hasn't been updated in a long time.
So when you say massive, how massive is this?
What kind of cost are we talking about?
Yes, this is traditionally like a $1.5 trillion package.
Some of that was included in the mega bill last summer, but it's still really massive.
A lot of that is because it governs what SNAP and Nutrition Aid does, and that's one of the most expensive programs in the country, and it takes up a lot of USDA's budget.
And it also governs a lot of the farmer-facing programs and big farm subsidies.
How there are some, you'd mentioned that there are some provisions that are a little controversial.
So let's go through some of those one by one and why they're controversial and where does it stand.
Yeah, so there's sort of a handful of really big ones.
One of the biggest fights that we saw this week was over some pesticide language that was in the bill.
That language is a little bit wonky, but it basically doesn't allow states to create labeling for pesticides that differs from EPA guidance on the federal level.
So Republicans, farm state Republicans in particular, argued that that would make sure that no states are creating a patchwork of different laws and things for pesticide makers.
But the Make America Healthy Again movement was really upset about this.
Chemical use and pesticide use is a really big part of that movement.
So we had a lot of advocates who were getting pretty loud about this language.
So it ended up being stripped out, which was one of the biggest fights this week, and I'm sure we'll come back to it.
Another thing that was...
So wait, wait, before we go on from that, let me put that on the screen so that people know exactly what got taken out.
So here it is.
The pesticide side provisions would prevent states and courts from penalizing pesticide makers for failing to include warnings on their labels about health effects that go beyond those formally recognized by the EPA, would seek to bar localities from adding regulations that go beyond those imposed by states or the EPA, and would block the need for additional permits for pesticide use.
So it's a little confusing.
This got taken out.
So localities and states can impose restrictions on pesticide use.
Yes, and a lot of individual states are still trying to include some similar language to this because basically the big question is Bayer, which acquired Monsanto, which creates Roundup, which is a huge pesticide used by a lot of farmers, very common.
They are facing hundreds of thousands of lawsuits for alleging that they failed to warn customers and users of the health risks associated, which is why the Maha advocates think that if the farm bill did include this language, that it would not allow people to sue.
And the Supreme Court is hearing the same case, so there's a whole lot of pesticide talk this week.
If you'd like to join us, and if you've got a question for our guest, Grace Yarrow, she is going to be with us for this segment.
You can start calling in now.
Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
Republicans 202-748-8001.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
We also have a line set aside.
If you're a farmer or you work in agriculture, please call us on 202-748-8003.
That's the same line you can use to text us if you can't get to a phone right now.
Okay, so that's the pesticides.
What's the next thing?
The next thing I would say is this language on, it basically addresses California's Prop 12.
This is a ballot measure from, I think, 2018 as well, that established confinement limitations for, or requirements for pork producers.
So a lot of farmers, basically the pork industry argues that this is a similar situation of creating a patchwork of different regulations across states.
And so the language in the farm bill is called the Save Our Bacon Act.
That was kept in despite some fights.
I know it's a bit of a...
So you should probably not talk about pork in Congress.
No.
It's got negative connotations.
Yes, yes, which is why they use bacon.
But yeah, so they kept that in.
A couple of Republicans told me ahead of time that they were going to vote against the bill unless it was stripped out or they were really concerned about the precedent that this language sets.
So some advocates argue that this could affect thousands of different state laws and regulations.
And because Republicans traditionally are concerned about states' rights, a couple of them were really worried about this language in particular.
So another wonky sort of thing, but it's really important for some districts, especially the folks who have a lot of pork producers.
They were really pressured to make sure that this language was still in the farm bill.
So it is in the farm bill.
It still is in the farm bill.
Yes.
There's also talk about rotisserie chickens.
Yes, this was a big one.
I was sort of surprised, honestly, by the final vote on it.
It received really overwhelming support.
I was in the chamber the night before for farm bill debate that started at like 1130 and they were talking about this amendment.
And the thing is, a lot of Democrats are concerned about this language because they are supportive of the idea of adding rotisserie chicken to SNAP.
So just to take a step back, this would allow people on SNAP to buy, to use their SNAP funds for hot rotisserie chickens.
Yes, hot rotisserie chickens.
Which I'm surprised they're not allowed to buy that.
Yes, there's language around banning hot foods because folks are concerned about restaurants being able to offer to take SNAP as a payment.
It's just, it's a little bit silly to some folks, I would say, because hot rotisserie chicken is currently not allowed to be purchased with SNAP benefits, but you could sell someone with SNAP benefits a cold rotisserie chicken.
So if it's still cooked the same way, but then just refrigerated afterward, then it's one of those things on SNAP that's a little bit difficult to navigate.
But at any rate, Democrats were worried that it just singled out rotisserie chicken instead of all hot foods, like soups and sandwiches and kind of stuff that you'd find at like a hot bar in a grocery store.
And Republicans were concerned that this would open the door to expand SNAP to a bunch of different things that aren't currently allowed on it.
So that did pass?
It did pass in the end.
So as of right now, SNAP beneficiaries can buy a registry chicken?
No, because the farm bill only passed out of the House.
So my next question really is going to be whether that language is included in the Senate's text, which we haven't seen yet.
But Senator John Bozeman, who chairs the Ag Committee, could just put that in the base text and then it will pass because it did receive a really overwhelmingly supportive vote.
So we'll see, I guess.
So what is happening in the Senate?
What's the timeline?
Yeah, there is no specific timeline.
Senator Bozeman has told me that it's going to be a matter of weeks and not months for him to release text.
That said, the Senate has been a lot more focused in the last few months on trying to develop a second round of financial aid for farmers.
They've taken the lead on that while the House has been running on their farm bill.
So obviously they're still working on the farm bill in the background, but the Senate is also really concerned about getting another farm aid package passed, which I'm sure we can come back to.
So I just want to show you Representative Angie Craig.
She's a Democrat from Minnesota.
She's a ranking member on the Ag Committee in the House.
She was talking about how the farmers, and then you can respond to it.
The full congressional district in Minnesota is 40% covered in corn and soybeans every single summer.
And right now, those farmers, they have nowhere to sell their crops.
And why is that?
Because we have systematically, under this administration's policies, created a situation where there are no export markets.
Folks, I don't know where we're talking to family farmers, but the ones that I talk to, their input costs are so high, and that's being driven by bad policy.
Their input costs are high because fertilizer costs are out of control.
And apparently, the administration doesn't even know how much farmers have already secured their fertilizer.
It's just nonsense what the Secretary of Agriculture said about, no, they've already bought their fertilizer, so this doesn't matter whatsoever.
And what about diesel cost?
We know that farmers are facing a loss.
And instead of standing here today and talking about more farm relief because of the bad policies of this administration, the Farm Bureau, the Farm Bureau says that our farmers have lost $54 billion in the last year.
And the administration offers $12 billion in relief, a small fraction of what is needed.
Well, we have a bill.
We had an amendment.
It wasn't made in order.
$17 billion in additional relief to our family farmers, but this administration, they don't want to do that.
They want to keep promising the world and telling the farmers that they love them and then absolutely doing nothing to help our family farmers.
So she mentioned a couple of things there.
Grace, what does she mean when she says there's no export markets for farmers that they don't have anybody to sell to?
Yeah, there's a lot to unpack here.
So basically, President Donald Trump, his very aggressive tariff regime designed to open more markets long term for farmers.
Even the administration has acknowledged that in the short term, that will hurt farmers because of uncertainty.
Essentially, whenever I talk to farmers, their number one concern is they need more certainty.
Even if it's bad news, they just want to know what's coming next, basically.
So with corn and soy, as Representative Craig is saying here, soy, we export a lot to China.
That was one of the big fights of last year.
It was a really big political pressure point for Republicans to try and figure out a deal there.
And they did, but it's basically just to bring back soybean exports to China to levels before the tariffs were announced.
So the soybean industry is still really uncertain about that.
And because of the sort of year or so of uncertainty before that deal was made, there's a lot of concern about competitors like Brazil being able to sell soybeans cheaper to China because China was able to source what they need from another country.
And with corn, we saw a really high yield of corn last year and just not enough markets.
It was something that the corn industry had really hoped the White House could prioritize.
And there were some trade deals that we're still waiting for full details on and a timeline on.
That were positive news for some farm groups.
But largely, there's just more corn than they know what to do with.
And we're expecting maybe not as high of a yield this year, but still a lot of corn production.
And we just can't consume it all in the U.S.
So they need more places to set up.
She also talked about fertilizer costs.
And we are expecting that number to go up because of the Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Have those increases hit farmers yet?
Absolutely.
So basically, when the conflict in Iran started, it was right around the time that farmers were about to put their seed in the ground.
Obviously, it depends by crop and region, but especially for big commodities like corn and soy, they were really preparing to put their seeds in the ground for planting season right when this all was starting.
And again, it comes back to the certainty question.
And especially for corn, which is really nitrogen-intensive, they were concerned about the strait being closed because a lot of fertilizer comes through there.
The Trump administration has tried to soften the blow, but I mean, administration officials have told me that there's basically nothing they can do to fully resolve the fertilizer cost issue beyond opening the Strait of Hormuz, which is a lot more complicated.
So yeah, this is something that I've heard from a lot of, I mean, agricultural lobbyists, of course, but also farmers who call and email me who are really concerned about this.
Well, we have a farmer calling you right now.
Roger is in Abilene, Kansas.
Good morning, Roger.
Morning.
I guess what I wanted to call in, first I was going to call in and ask a question about SNAP, but I've heard her run on to crops.
And here in the last 60 days, soybeans, wheat, and corn have all hit three-year highs.
So on the markets, they seem to be going up.
And soybeans have hit a high.
They're over 12.
They were over $12, which we haven't seen that for four years, I think.
But anyhow, what I was the SNAP program, you know, it's become such a big program, they should call it the SNAP program that the farm bill is added to it because the SNAP is a large part of it and what keeps it going.
And this is a rumor I've heard is SNAP, can you buy, can you order from McDonald's with a SNAP with a SNAP card and pay for it with that?
And then if it comes, can you give your tip through the SNAP program?
I'm just curious about this.
I'll hang up and listen.
Yeah, lots of good questions.
The SNAP being a large part of the farm bill is a really crucial part of just like the origin of SNAP.
And I will say, just to take a wonky moment here, the big beautiful bill of last summer where Republicans cut a lot of SNAP has raised really existential questions about what the Farm Bill coalition looks like.
Traditionally, that's because Democrats can secure their nutrition priorities in exchange for Republicans' farm program priorities.
And that's just kind of shifted a lot since Republicans went ahead and cut SNAP without going through the farm bill process.
So that's a good point.
That SNAP is a large part of it.
And as I said, it's a large part of USDA's budget.
It's a really big program.
The McDonald's question, a lot of the answers for SNAP and what you can use it for depend by state.
Broadband Access for Rural Areas00:14:33
So I know like in California, I do believe you can use SNAP at certain McDonald's.
I don't think that you can use it to tip, but you can check me on that.
But yeah, it really does depend by state, which makes it hard to firmly answer.
But I know for sure, at least in a state like California, you can go to St. McDonald's and purchase using SNP.
And actually, Sue in Whiting, New Jersey sent us a text.
Why is the SNAP program tied to the farm bill?
Yeah, it's a good question.
That's exactly with the Farm Bill Coalition traditionally.
That's sort of the reason that the Farm Bill is considered traditionally bipartisan is because Democrats are able to work on their SNAP, you know, whatever reforms they want to SNAP, and then Republicans will come to the table in exchange because they can increase the farm safety net, crop insurance, all of that stuff for farmers.
I mean, obviously, that's a very black and white way to put it, but that's sort of the traditional farm bill coalition that we refer to.
So Roger mentioned that soy, wheat, and corn were at three-year highs in price.
So is that a good thing for farmers?
Yeah, yes and no.
I mean, obviously, it's a great sign anytime that we see higher prices for farmers, that's a good thing.
I do think that could benefit bigger farmers rather than smaller farmers.
Coming back to the fertilizer thing, the folks that I hear from who are most concerned about fertilizer are the ones who are younger farmers, beginning farmers, smaller farmers who just didn't have that much capital coming out of last year to prepay for their fertilizer.
A lot of folks are going to be fine with the fertilizer issue, even if they're concerned about supply because they already locked in a price.
And that's what we've heard from the White House repeatedly.
But there's a good portion of folks who just didn't plan to do that or haven't locked in that price because they couldn't afford to yet, or they were waiting for the Trump administration's farm economic aid to hit before they could purchase that.
So it depends who you are, I guess.
And I am super curious to see sort of what the numbers look like a little down the road once we see the full impact of the Iran conflict.
Like, I'm not sure what that's going to look like.
I'm not a market expert, but I do watch very closely because I'm very curious to see.
On the independent line in Kentucky, Woody, you're on the air.
Happy Derby Day, folks.
Hey, SNAP, it ain't what I want to talk about, but SNAP, my girlfriend, she went and applied for SNAP and they turned her down.
So I guess that's for the people that don't live in this country.
But man, my friend, he wanted to take his dad to Minnesota.
We went to Minnesota and the doctors came out and they told us, asked his son, is your dad a farmer?
And he said, yeah, that's why we're up here.
He said, well, there's nothing we can do.
It was because of Roundup.
And they tested me and my friend of why he said, well, why are y'all up here?
Come up and we're going to test y'all.
See how y'all do.
We're all right.
But he had been farming for like ever since he was two year old.
And he'd been spraying this stuff.
But I was shocked that you said that about them protecting Roundup because here in Kentucky, Andy Barr was really big on this bill.
And I was like, I never heard this.
I'm glad you brought it up.
So there you go.
It's protecting the big corporations.
And my last question is, does China and Brazil have anything to do with our beef?
Is it Brazil or Argentina?
Is it Brazil?
But does China does China and Argentina or Brazil?
Ain't they gotta get you an answer, Woody?
Yes, okay.
I have a lot to say.
Well, happy Derby Day.
On the Roundup issue, exactly what you're referring to in your experience here is the concern that the Maha advocates that we've seen on the Hill outside the Supreme Court this week have been expressing.
It's a lot of really sad anecdotes about health risks that people are alleging are tied to Roundup.
And that's the pesticide that I was talking about earlier that uses glyphosate, that big chemical.
So, yeah, I mean, that's part of the argument here is that people are warning that Republicans are trying to protect pesticide makers rather than farmers or people's health.
And I think politically it will be interesting to see the impact of that vote on the pesticide amendment.
If people are upset that the representative didn't vote for the amendment to strip out the language, or even if pesticide makers are upset that Republicans did move to strip it out.
So I'm watching that certainly.
And then on the beef issue, yes, there's been a lot of interesting talk about the move to increase imports of beef from Argentina in particular.
I know obviously Brazil is a big competitor for U.S. beef producers.
And the Trump administration has said that that's not necessarily a move to bring the cost of beef down, though the White House has been meeting to try and figure out how to bring beef prices down.
It's a really big concern for them.
There's a lot of demand for beef right now, especially because of the Maha movement.
People love protein.
They really want to buy beef.
And they're still buying it, even though prices are high.
But the Trump administration really wants to bring those costs down, especially ahead of the midterms.
That's a good example of a concern that they have.
So part of the plan was to bring in more beef from Argentina.
It's a different kind of beef than we raise in the U.S.
But it still really angered a lot of beef industry allies who were economically doing pretty well and were supportive of the Trump administration, but they were pretty upset.
I did think something that was interesting was in the farm bill markup back in March in the House for the House Ag Committee.
They included an amendment to congressionally disagree, or I don't know the exact language, but they included language to say that they disapprove of Trump's move to import Argentine beef.
So when you say that the price of beef is still high, how high is it, historically speaking?
Yeah, it's a good question.
I would have to check like the most recent numbers.
And I'm super curious to see if it'll go up again because of the Iran war.
I mean, it's obviously very indirect, but we import chemicals and materials that we use to feed cattle.
Also, of course, corn and soy being impacted will raise the price of folks who are trying to purchase cattle feed.
And there's a lot of other issues with the beef industry.
For instance, the screw worm, which is a whole other thing.
The New World screw worm is this pest that has been detected within 60 miles of the southern border with Mexico.
It's a really big concern for the administration.
They're trying to figure out how to prepare for that in case it comes into the U.S.
But that could raise.
That doesn't sound good.
It's not great.
Brian, Massachusetts, Republican line, good morning.
Good morning.
Thanks for letting me speak.
I'd like to know, I have two questions.
One is regarding the West Virginia is the only state that legally has greyhound racing.
And I guess animal rights people are happy that the House passed legislation that will prevent paramutual betting or whatever they're how are they going to stop it.
And so I was wondering why is that something like that in the farm bill?
I just don't understand it's going to put a lot of West Virginians out of work and people involved in the recreation industry.
I don't see why that's in the farm bill.
And the second thing is, do you think that the sterile fly plants that are being built on the Rio Grande are going to prevent infestations?
So I'll take my answers offline.
Thank you for letting me ask questions.
Yeah, those are great questions.
The greyhound racing and animal welfare stuff is included in the farm bill just because it's like animal welfare, which is regulated by USDI.
So the greyhound racing piece of the farm bill did end up being a pretty contentious piece.
I mean, their only two tracks are in West Virginia, so it's a really big issue for West Virginians, and they did not want this legislation or this language to be included in the farm bill to ban greyhound racing.
There's also other animal welfare sorts of amendments that were included, like the shipping of roosters.
There's a lot of little policy tweaks that just haven't been brought up since 2018, as I was saying.
And then the sterile fly thing on the screw worm, essentially the best way to, or the only way we really know how to combat the screw worm is to release sterile screw worm flies into the environment.
So the Trump administration has established a sterile fly dispersal facility in Texas.
But the key is that it's a dispersal facility.
It doesn't create the flies.
So the only, we're still having to rely on countries like Panama that have a sterile fly creation facility.
But we can, I guess, redirect them to try and target where the sterile flies go in case things come closer to the U.S. border or come into the U.S.
I know that the USDA is hoping that they can figure out a way to have a facility that would create sterile flies, but they're really worried about this.
I think it's going to be something that everyone should be watching in terms of beef prices, animal welfare, animal disease.
It's something I'm keeping my eye on.
It could be really bad.
Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, it's just, it's fatal for cattle.
There's already, like, the reason for the high beef prices is because we're at a record low in the herd size in the U.S., and that's for a number of reasons, including environmental policy, et cetera.
And that's something that the administration is trying to address, but because of the lifespan of cattle, it just takes a really long time.
Like, there's no quick fix to bring a bunch of cattle into the country.
And that would be economically a little bit interesting if we were to bring a bunch of cattle in.
But anyway, there's already a shortage of cows here.
Jay Vicksburg, Mississippi, Line for Democrats.
You're on with Grace Yarrow.
Yes, I wanted to ask about the provisions in the bill around rural broadband expansion.
We've had some initiatives in the past that didn't seem to be effective on a large scale, I guess is what I'm trying to say.
I just wanted to know your opinions on the or get you to talk about the rural broadband expansions and whether or not this time it'll be effective in your opinion.
Yeah, I mean, it's a little bit hard to tell how effective this will be.
What I will say about this version of the farm bill is that it is budget neutral.
So with that, as I was mentioning, there was a lot of investments in the farm safety net and the really expensive parts of the traditional farm bill that were passed last summer.
So this version of the bill is pretty skinny and doesn't include a ton of new investments on things.
It just sort of moves money around, which is why you saw some fiscal conservative support it this week.
But with that said, I think on broadband, it's mostly just policy tweaks in terms of expanding what is considered like an underserved community.
So it does strengthen USDA's ability to potentially help more people on broadband, but I will be curious in the longer term to see if the farm bill does become law this year, what that actually looks like on the ground, because as you're saying, that's a real concern for rural constituents and voters.
So it's definitely on the mind of Congress members for sure.
And isn't the infrastructure bill supposed to address some of those or that's all in the farm bill?
No, it's kind of two and two.
It's some through the farm bill because USDA does have some rural developments in broadband.
That's a big part of the department, but there's also an infrastructure question, which is a whole other situation in this Congress.
Tom, South Carolina, Independent Line, you're on the air.
I had three real quick little questions for her.
First one is, how come it is that all of the representatives from California, House and Senate, have some degree of good sense, and none of them in South Carolina have any sense of brilliance.
The second question is, did this lady say that the tax would be on prepared foods in a hot bar in the grocery store?
And the third question is, whatever happened to I'm trying to think of the name of it, but it was a little pin that ladies used to use to pin back their hair.
I noticed that most of the ladies are every so often they push their hair back over their bobby pens, I think is what I'm trying to think about.
Whatever happened to those?
Now tell me how it is that people from California are so smart, people from South Carolina are stupid, and is this tax going to be on prepared foods in the hot bar in the grocery store?
You can forget about the bobby pens.
Thank you and have a great weekend.
All right, Tom.
You know, I don't know if I could speak to the California versus South Carolina piece.
What I can speak to is the hot food situation.
I think, I don't know if I miscommunicated, the provision that's in the farm bill would allow SNAP participants to use their benefits to purchase rotisserie chicken.
That's hot.
It doesn't include any other hot foods.
That's something that Democrats disagree with.
That's something that Republicans are okay with.
This is not a new tax.
No, it is not a new tax.
Yes, it is just expanding what is eligible under the SNAP program.
So, yeah, I just wanted to clear that up.
Tony in North Carolina, Independent Line, you're on the air.
Yes, hi.
I just read, I think it was yesterday or the day before, that in this House bill, they have overturned some of the animal rights issues, including gestation crates for sows.
Tariff Revenue Disputes00:03:19
And I just wanted to find out if you know if they have done that, in which case I'll have to call my senators to make sure it doesn't pass through the Senate.
Thank you.
Yep.
Yeah, so that language is included in the House version of the bill.
That was the one that I was talking about.
That's California's Prop 12 involves the gestation crates for pigs.
So yes, that is included in the House version of the bill.
I do think, I mean, calling your senators about it is not a bad idea because they have not released the text.
And Senator John Bozeman, who I've been talking about, who's the chair of the Senate Ag Committee and is going to lead the Senate version of this bill, he told me in December that they're less likely to include something like the Prop 12 fix in their version of the farm bill because the Senate will need to get more Democratic support.
But that said, some folks who were really proponents of Prop 12 and really didn't want this language in the bill, I'm thinking of like Congressman Jim Costa, who's from California, where Prop 12 is.
He still voted for the farm bill, even though he disagreed with that language that you're talking about.
That's in the bill.
Richard, Grove City, Ohio, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Yeah, good morning.
I got a question about the Roundup.
Are most of the lawsuits or all of them coming out of the United States?
Because it's used in Europe a lot.
And are lawsuits prevalent in Europe as much as they are in the United States?
Yeah, I don't have the numbers on that off the top of my head.
That is a good question.
I do think what the Make America Healthy Again advocates that I talked to are concerned about is that there are other chemicals that are less frequently used in Europe.
The Europe comparison comes up a lot with Maha.
And I will say there is concern about chemicals, not necessarily Roundup, but other chemicals that are used in food production in the U.S. that Europe has already banned.
That's something that Maha advocates bring up a lot.
So that is a good comparison to make, but I would have to check on the exact numbers there because I don't want to get anything wrong.
I have one more question for you, and that's about the $12 billion bailout for farmers.
Where does that money come from?
I believe that was supposed to come from tariff revenue going back to farmers, but with the court decision on emergency tariffs, that money might not be forthcoming.
So can you explain where that money's coming from and what's it supposed to be used for?
Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up.
So during the announcement of that $12 billion, President Trump did say that it was coming from tariffs.
That's not the case.
It's not coming from tariff revenue.
The $12 billion was authorized through USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation, which is this, you know, a slush fund basically at USDA that can be used for emergencies, aid, this sort of thing.
And it maxes out at about $30 billion.
So we had heard for months beforehand that they were preparing $12 to $13 billion for this bailout package that was announced in the fall.
But no, so it won't be impacted by the Supreme Court decision on tariffs because it's not coming from tariff revenue despite what the president said.
But yes.
And then, of course, Congress is now looking at a whole other round of aid that would come through congressional appropriations.
Supreme Court Immigration Ruling00:08:57
All right.
Well, we'll watch that.
Grace Yaro, Politico's food and agriculture policy reporter.
Her work is at politico.com.
Grace, thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you.
Later on, the Washington Journal, teachers Kevin Jackson of California and Ryan Warenka of Michigan will take your question will take questions from students across the country that are preparing for the advanced placement U.S. government and politics exam.
But up next, it's time for open forum, your chance to weigh in on any political or public policy issue that matters to you.
Here are the phone lines.
Democrats are on 202748-8000.
Republicans 202-748-8001.
And Independents 202748-8002.
You can start calling in now.
While you're calling, we want to show you a portion from this week's ceasefire.
Former Trump White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha.
They break down the implications of that Supreme Court ruling on Louisiana's redistricting efforts.
We'll be right back after the break.
I think we've already been in the redistricting awards.
Last cycle, the Democrats started this in New York.
The court ruled that they couldn't do it mid-cycle.
We went back at it this year, started in Texas, then California.
We've been going at it state by state.
There's a big difference between redistricting mid-cycle and the pluses and minuses of that and what the court ruled on, right?
So voting rights districts exist not just in southern states.
Massachusetts has one in the Boston area.
A lot of Illinois has one, right?
So what they're doing is making sure that they can't draw districts purely on race.
And let's face it, these all benefited the Democratic Party.
Black Republicans, Byron Donalds, John James, Wesley Hunt, they all, Burgess Owens, all win in majority white districts.
This ruling just protected black Democrats.
And I think, by the way, beyond this, this is going to be a real reckoning for the Democratic Party in terms of what do they do to the congressional black caucus.
What part, what role does that have going forward?
Because it may be a much smaller caucus than it has been today.
Black caucus has 67 members.
If this table is a state and each one of these beautiful arrows is a congressional seat, let's say that there's four congressional seats.
That one in the middle is the city in that state.
And there's an equal amount of people in all three of these congressional districts and this city in the middle that is majority black with a black mayor and a black city council and have elected a black member of Congress because this is in Mississippi and the Supreme Court said you had to have a black congressman.
They just did away with this.
And what the Republicans will do now is go in and say based off of demographics, not demographics, alpha partisanship, which is legal with the Supreme Court.
They split that district into four pieces and divide it up amongst here, getting rid of that.
So the question becomes, what will Democratic states do in response to that?
What we've seen so far in California and Virginia is the same, except for in those states, those Democrats had to take it to the voters because that was the law and the voters voted on that.
That's the big difference.
But I think this is not behind us yet.
Because if you're walking down the street and some old boy just comes up and cold cocks you, you're not just going to lay down.
You're going to get up and fight back.
And that's what the bases demanded.
And so what do you expect for 2028 and 2022?
I think there are two or three seats now that will happen before it have late primaries.
For 2026.
For 26.
There's an estimate up to four, but I think it'll be more like two.
But then after this year, they go right back to the drawing board because now they're not beholden to that.
And there'll be some more redistricting.
I'll be surprised, by the way.
Louisiana is a definite one.
The court ruled they had to do it.
So that picks you up one.
Alabama, I think Governor Kay Ivey is going to be under a ton of pressure.
State and national Republicans are telling her to call that special accession.
Tennessee.
She's refusing so far.
She is so far.
I think the pressure is going to mount.
But that's potentially two seats for Republicans.
I'm not so sure it happens.
Memphis?
No, no.
So that's and then you've got to go Tennessee, South Carolina.
Again, those are the other two states.
Florida was going to happen regardless.
So that has nothing to do with this ruling.
But those are the only two other states.
I reported this two months ago, by the way.
The dissent on this got no attention.
You remember, this is a 6-3 decision that was heard twice.
The last time, on October 15th, 2025, the court's minority slow-rolled the dissent on this intentionally to prevent additional states from redistricting ahead of the midterm.
So there's a whole bunch of stuff to unpack here.
But I think that I agree with Chuck.
I mean, maybe an additional two.
And the big additional question that still has to get asked is what happens in Virginia?
Because right now, the lower court has said that the election that was held was not valid.
They violated on four different occasions Virginia law to redistrict.
Well, won't there be legal challenges in Florida as well?
There will be, but I think the way that Governor DeSantis and the state legislature have crafted this, those arguments are going to be a lot harder because there's no, the basis is not the same.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We will take your calls for open forum until our next segment starting at about 9 Eastern.
So we'll start with Christine Woonsocket, Rhode Island, Independent Line.
Yes, hello.
The reason why I'm calling is I'm very concerned about animal welfare that is not being included in the farm bill.
I know the pork producers, they want to produce more pork.
However, the Supreme Court said that upholding Proposition 12, it was passed in California, they want just minimal, just minimum space to allow animals that are confined in these crates the ability to stand up, to move, to roll over, to move their extremities, or if it's a bird, to move their wings.
It's terrible because they want to produce more pork, but yet they confine these animals to this terrible life in a factory where they can't even move turn or have a normal kind of a life that they would have if they were on a farm.
And it's just terrible.
Yeah, so Christine, are you going to call your senators to express your views?
Done that already.
I'm going to call the Farm Bureau.
I'm going to start writing letters because if most Americans realize how these animals that feed us are being cared for, where they're not being treated humanely and cruelly, it's a torturous life.
And I don't think most Americans would want to consume animals who have led this kind of life just to feed ourselves.
We could find other sources of proteins other than animals that are treated cruelly.
All right, Christine.
We got that.
Let's talk to James in Florida.
Democrat, you're on open forum.
Hello.
Hi.
My question today is why the government hasn't done the 25th Amendment because my mother had frontal love, temporal frontal love dementia before she died, and he acts just like my mother did.
I find okay during the day and after dark start falling asleep in public, falling asleep in church and the same goofy stuff.
So I don't understand why he's still allowed to run our country.
All right.
And this is Ingrid in Colorado Independent Line.
Go ahead, Ingrid.
You're on open forum.
Okay, somebody else is still talking on TV.
No, no, don't look at the TV.
Just talk to me on the phone.
You're on the air.
Okay.
My big concern is all the investigation that's going on now in Illinois about the shootings and the additional shootings that nobody even knew about.
Why is that being aired on C-SPAN 3 instead of the main C-SPAN so everybody can see it?
Yeah, go ahead.
You can talk about it, Ingrid, if you'd like to say anything more about that.
Okay.
Well, it's, and I also would like to know where I can get footage of that.
Okay, you're talking about the Palatine, Illinois shooting?
I'm talking about the investigation that's going on currently about those shootings, all the lies that were spread and how they have the president with them has a code named, I think it's HEFE, something like that.
Okay, we'll get you some more information about that, okay?
Okay, thank you.
Threatening the President00:04:41
David Brook Park, Ohio, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
My question is kind of a legal one.
I'm not a lawyer, but it's been kind of floating around in my head.
It's in regards to immigration.
Sanctuary cities that constantly arrest illegal immigrants that commit crimes and then are let go.
When ICE has to go look for them, would they be considered fugitives?
And if so, if the city is releasing them, would that be considered harboring a fugitive or harboring the felon or criminal?
Okay, David.
And this is what our previous caller was talking about.
Illinois Commission recommends investigating federal immigration agents for misconduct and criminal charges.
Federal agents in Operation Midway Blitz, quote, committed flagrant and egregious abuses of power and force that went unchecked.
That's a quote from Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois.
The article says that an Illinois commission tasked with investigating the Trump administration's mass deportation operation in the state last year said it had identified multiple incidents in which federal agents should be investigated for misconduct and potential criminal charges.
That is at NBC News if you'd like more information on that.
Sam in Michigan, Line for Democrats.
You're on the air.
Morning.
I think we could stop a lot of this turmoil and confusion going on in the United States today if we would simply turn loose the Epstein files so that all the people across America and the world will find out that Donald Trump indeed is a pedophile.
So if we get to that, I think that would stop a lot of confusion.
I think he would be on his way out the door.
So to all you mob is out there listening, I think you ought to join me and have everybody turn loose the Epstein files.
We all take a look at it.
Thank you.
Well, speaking of the Department of Justice, here are DOJ officials briefing the press on the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey.
Here is Acting General Attorney General Todd Blanch.
Today, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned an indictment against James Comey on two counts.
The first count is that on or about May 15th of last year, he knowingly and willfully making a threat to take the life of and to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States.
Count two, same day, May 15th, 2025, that the defendant, James Comey, knowingly and willfully transmitting in interstate commerce a communication that contained a threat to kill the president of the United States.
Both of these counts carry a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.
So I think it's fair to say that threatening the life of anybody is dangerous and potentially a crime.
Threatening the life of the President of the United States will never be tolerated by By the Department of Justice.
Over the past year, this department has charged dozens of cases involving threats against all sorts of individuals.
We take these seriously, every single one of them.
For example, just today in the Northern District of Florida, there was a guilty plea from an individual who threatened multiple political leaders, including President Trump.
In the Eastern District of North Carolina, where this case was indicted earlier today, there are multiple threats cases very similar to this one, including one where the defendant pled guilty recently to threatening former President Biden, another one that's scheduled to go to trial this summer, another one indicted, an individual was indicted for threatening Tom Homan.
I say that to say that while this case is unique and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute.
Proving Criminal Intent00:04:20
Go ahead.
Yes.
Sir, how will you prove intent when, as the director had acknowledged, Mr. Comey said he did not associate 86 with doing harm and he took it down promptly, said it was political speech, not an intent to harm the president.
Well, it's not, it's not, this case was indicted today.
This conduct occurred about a year ago, May 15th of last year.
There's been a tremendous amount of investigation, and how do you prove intent in any case?
You prove intent with witnesses, with documents, with the defendant himself to the extent it's appropriate, and that's how we'll improve intent in this case.
And so I think that talking about what Mr. Comey will or will not do if there's a trial, when there's a trial, it's very premature for me to do that today.
That was on Tuesday.
This is what CNN says.
Former FBI Director James Comey indicted over alleged threat against President against Trump.
This is the post in question.
Those are seashells on a sand, apparently on a beach, with 8647.
And that was taken down once that was brought to his attention.
Sunrise in St. Albans, West Virginia, Independent Line.
You're on Open Forum.
Hello.
Hi.
Hi.
Yes, I am West Virginia, and I just wanted to say that I vote independently.
I want that to be known that I am not a Republican or a Democrat.
Okay.
What did you want to say during Open Forum?
I don't really know what an open forum is.
Okay.
You just wanted to share that you were an independent?
Yes, because I feel like just people won't know what I want.
Okay.
And what are the biggest issues for you?
What were the biggest political issues that you've been thinking about lately?
The homeless population and the people that are getting sent to war.
In Iran, do you mean?
In the Middle East?
Yes.
Okay.
Thanks for sharing that with us.
April in Country Club Hills, Illinois.
Democrat, you're on the air.
Hi, how are you?
I'm okay.
I'm glad to be talking with you all this morning in this forum.
You know what my concern is?
And I just want to address the elephant in a room about a lot of things.
And I just would like to express that we forget that we, the people of the United States, we are the government.
And we have forgotten that we are the real power holders in this country.
We have forgotten that we place these people in office.
And if they are not doing according to what we feel is improving our countries, our communities, our states, our cities, then it's up to us as the people to replace the representatives in Congress and in the House that controls the majority of these measures.
President Trump is the president right now, but he is not the full power holder.
The full power holders are us, Congress, the elected officials that are here to govern and manage this country appropriately according to the people's needs, not the government officials' needs.
And I just find it so strange as well that we have a 34 convicted felon as our president, which is so shameful to this country because it's just strange to me that a convicted felon cannot even vote.
A convicted felon cannot even get housing in a lot of areas are denied employment, are denied housing.
But yet we have a convicted felon that was allowed to be our president.
Tracking Convicted Felons00:07:21
All right, April.
And this is former FBI Director James Comey posted this statement on his SubstackStack account in response to that indictment.
Well, they're back.
This time about a picture of seashells on a North Carolina beach a year ago.
And this won't be the end of it.
But nothing has changed with me.
I'm still innocent.
I'm still not afraid.
And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.
So let's go.
But it's really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country.
This is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be.
And the good news is we get closer every day to restoring those values.
Keep the back to the phones.
Michael in Orlando, Florida, Independent Line.
Good morning, Michael.
Hi, good morning.
Thank you.
You're doing an outstanding job.
I have to say, very impressive.
I wanted to discuss a little bit about the we see the cliffs and the end of the cliff coming up when it comes to health care insurance and really concerned over we're seeing the numbers decrease on Medicaid and those who are qualified.
We knew those changes were coming and it seems like once the bill passed, everybody understood that there would be degrees coverage.
But I think now you can look into the future and see that less and less people are receiving health care.
Hospitals and providers continue to be strained with a lack of resources and financial resources.
The insurance companies have had zero changes.
They continue to rake in record profits.
It's just very concerning.
And then the rural health care transformation dollars, these states are looking for ways to do things that aren't securing.
The money's not going to hospitals.
They're going to all these other ideas and consultants.
And it's just terrifying to see what's going to be happening in the next five years.
Thanks a lot.
And there is this NPR article from yesterday with the headline, it's day one of Medicaid work requirements in Nebraska.
And people are worried.
This article here is at npr.org.
If you'd like to take a look at what's happening in Nebraska and why they're reporting on that.
Here is Norman, Bristol, New Hampshire, Independent Line.
Hi, Norman.
Good morning.
Hi, how are you?
Listen, you know, my concern is, you know, Donald Trump's behavior.
You know, I owe a debt of gratitude.
I'm a former Marines who served three years under three U.S. presidents.
I was raised in Massachusetts.
And, you know, we have our own understanding up here in New England.
But to see his cabinet being bamboozled and see him on TV talking about his cognitive skills and how wonderful of a person he is when Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil and, you know, these people that are being, you know, following him down a rabbit hole, and especially the military, they're in harm's way right now, and we don't need another law.
The Vietnam War was enough for a lot of people.
We need to get on the right track.
The Democratic Party has good cognitive skills.
And, you know, we need to work with people that are not always focused on wealth and money and good looks and some of the erratic things that Donald Trump talks of.
You know, so I'm just hoping that people will wake up and come around, especially people like the House Speaker, Mr. Johnson, and some of the people that want to follow him down this rabbit's hole because it's just too much for the American people to take.
We need to get on the right track.
Okay, hey, God bless.
All right, gentlemen.
David, Los Angeles, Independent Line, you're on the air.
Yeah, hey, I just wanted to comment on the indictment of Jim Comey.
I don't think the Trump administration realizes the term 86 simply means get rid of something or refuse service or kick out to be kicked out or banned.
It has nothing to do with killing somebody, number one.
And number two, the context Comey used it in was to get rid of Trump out of office.
And it just amazes me at the level of incompetence of these Trump administration officials.
If anybody should be indicted, it should be Kash Patel.
He's a drunken fool.
He's already been arrested several times for drinking in public, urinating in public.
This is just, it's a waste of resources.
And the sooner we get rid of Donald Trump, the better off this country will be.
Thank you.
And another David, this time in Goffstown, New Hampshire, Independent Line.
Go ahead, David.
Yes.
Hi.
Good morning, America.
First off, I'm calling on the Independent Line.
I've been registered independent for over 20 years now.
And part of the responsibility of being an independent is to try to listen to both sides of the aisle, if you will.
Now, I belong to an organization that has restricted cell phone use during meeting time as they are a distraction to all attendees from hearing potentially life-saving information.
Please shut off all cell phones has been part of all meeting formats since the inception of cell phones.
It's hard to go anywhere without seeing someone on their cell phone.
So on to my pet peeve.
I like watching the governmental hearings that C-SPAN covers.
However, I get distracted from what the speaker has to say, while almost all the persons seated behind the speaker are on their cell phones texting, especially considering the following, it is just plain self-centered and rude.
Most of these speakers are senators and only have five minutes to speak, yet they have spent numerous untold hours of planning airplane flights, hotel or motel reservations, taxis or rental cars and other plannings, only to be given five minutes to speak.
I hope that they can change that five minute rule.
Then I see all the empty seats in The rest of the hearing room and I wonder why these cell phone hipsters aren't sitting elsewhere.
It is my contention that these folks are being rude and self-centered.
All right, David got that point and that does it for open forum, but after the break it's crammed for the exam.
We'll have high school teachers Kevin Jackson and Ryan Warenka taking questions from students across the country in preparation for that Ap U.s.
Bridging Political Divides00:02:35
Government and politics exam that's coming up right after the break.
Stay with us.
In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
According to a new Maggot Research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-span and they're almost perfectly balanced, 28 conservative, 27 liberal or progressive, 41 percent 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.
This weekend on C-span 2'S BOOK TV.
Watch our live coverage of book festivals all weekend long.
On saturday at 10 A.m, eastern BOOK TV is live from the Annapolis book festival in Maryland.
Guests include South Carolina Democratic congressman James Cliburn, USA Today sports columnist Christine Brennan and former U.s ambassador Michael Mcfaul.
On sunday at 130, Eastern BOOK TV'S coverage of the San Antonio book festival in Texas.
Topics include the history of Mexico, the evolution of Latino television in America and the importance of El Paso as a border city.
At 8 P.m, Timothy Gegline on his book what really matters on the state of American culture from a conservative and Christian perspective.
And at 9 Eastern, former Clinton White House special counsel Lanny Davis with his new book Finding The Third Way hosts a book party in Washington Dc.
Watch BOOK TV this weekend on C-span 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at Booktv.org.
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.
Best ideas and best practices can be found anywhere.
But we have to listen so we can govern better.
Democracy depends on heavy doses of civility.
Reshaping Washington Power00:15:35
You can fight and still be friendly.
Bridging the divide in American politics.
You know, you may not agree with a document on everything, but you can find areas where you do agree.
He's a pretty likable guy as well.
Chris Kins and I are actually friends.
He votes wrong all the time, but we're actually friends.
A horrible secret that Scott and I have is that we actually respect each other.
We all don't hate each other.
You two actually kind of like each other.
These are the kinds of secrets we'd like to expose.
It's nice to be with a member who knows what they're talking about.
Let's did agree to the civility, all right?
He owes my son $10 from a bet.
I never paid for it.
Fork it over.
That's fighting words right now.
I'm glad I'm not in charge.
I'm thrilled to be on the show with him.
There are not shows like this, right?
Incentivizing that relationship.
Ceasefire Friday nights on C-SPAN.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
It's our annual Cram for the Exam review session for high school students for the Advanced Placement, U.S. Government and Politics AP exam.
For the next hour, we'll be taking a look at that exam.
It is coming up for most students on Tuesday, and we'll be taking calls throughout this hour until the end of the program from students only.
And joining us for this year's review session are the teachers, Kevin Jackson of Petaluma High School in California.
Kevin, welcome to you.
And Ryan Rorenka of Troy High School in Michigan.
Ryan, welcome to you.
And Ryan, I will start with you.
Tell us about the information students cover as part of this Advanced Placement Government Politics course and how recent are the topics students are going to be learning about.
All right, I'll be happy to.
But first, we do want to say on the eve of America's 250th birthday that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all of the fantastic students around the country taking the AP government exam are going to do great.
Mr. Jackson and I are here to help you with that today, and we are excited to take your questions and answer your questions.
So please keep them coming.
And make sure to give shout-outs to your fantastic AP GovTeachers that have prepared you all semester.
People like Lois McMillan in Oregon and Kevin Klein in Indiana and my own partner Justin Nelson here in Michigan.
So make sure to give your teachers those shout outs.
AP government has five units.
So Unit 1 is really all about foundations of American democracy.
It's about the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution.
It's about federalism.
Article 2 is really about the interaction between the branches of government.
So Congress, the President, the courts, bureaucracy.
Unit 3 is about civil liberties and civil rights.
Unit 4 is about American political beliefs and ideology.
And Unit 5 is about political participation.
And so, you know, that's really the crux of what we've been learning all semester or all year.
Some schools do it over the course of an entire year.
It's not a current events exam.
So as much as students might want to talk about or be worried about Supreme Court decision, like this week we had one in the case of Louisiana v. Calais, that's not going to be on the exam.
So don't worry too much about studying what's happened over the course of the last week or couple of weeks.
Now, you can certainly use those current events as examples in the free response question section, but none of those things are going to appear on the exam.
So, we're really excited to be here today, and I'm excited to be working with Mr. Jackson again this year.
All right, and we will get to Kevin Jackson, but want to let students know how they can reach us.
So, you can start calling in now.
Again, high school students only.
This is if you're in the Eastern or Central time zones, call us on 202-748-8000.
If you're in Mountain or Pacific time zones, your number will be 202-748-8001.
You can also text us at 202-748-8003.
Make sure you include your name and where you're texting us from.
And you can send an email to journal at ch-span.org.
You can post on X at cspanwJ.
Use the hashtag CRAM the number for the exam.
That's also going to be our handle on Facebook.
So, Kevin, let's talk about the overall format of the exam, the different kinds of questions students should expect.
Definitely, and thank you, Mimi, for having us.
And Ryan, good to see you.
So, students are looking at a three-hour test.
It goes in two main sections.
You're going to have 80 minutes to complete 55 multiple choice questions.
Those questions could have a short reading attached to them.
It could have some kind of graphic or chart or something to look at, or it could be very basic of, you know, which of the following is an example of implied powers of Congress.
From there, you get a short break, and then you have 100 minutes to complete the four free response questions.
And Ryan and I are going to take a minute here in a little bit to go over a couple of those.
But there are four different types of questions and 100 minutes.
Ideally, you should spend about 20 minutes on each of the first three, and then 40 minutes for number four, that argumentative essay that you put together there at the end.
It's one big block of time, so pace yourself.
And my advice, I'll probably say this multiple times in the next hour, you have the time.
Pace yourself, slow down, especially on those free response questions.
And, Kevin, how does the scoring work?
And what do students need to do on this exam in order to receive college credit?
Sure.
So, the test as a whole gets scored on a one-to-five point scale, depending on how well you do.
Five being the best you could do, one being the worst you could do.
And colleges have slightly different credit policies depending on the school, but to be considered passing the exam is scoring a three, four, or five.
And, you know, obviously, we want you to pass, obviously, we want you to do well.
And then, whatever college you're attending in the future years or here in the fall, their credit policy will determine: do you get elective units?
Do you bypass the intro to poli-sci course that they would want you to take?
So, a three or better.
All right, and Ryan, it is Saturday, so most students will be taking the exam Tuesday this coming Tuesday.
So, how should they be using their time between now and then to prepare?
Yeah, definitely take the time over the course of the next few days to review the Supreme Court cases.
There are 14 mandatory Supreme Court cases, so you want to make sure to know kind of the ins and outs of those cases: what clause, what is the, you know, the fact or two about the case, and kind of what was the course outcome.
So, if you know those, those are going to be paired with, you know, a non-required case in the free response question section, and there could be multiple choice questions there.
You also want to take time to review the foundational documents.
There are nine foundational documents, so again, kind of know the premise of each document.
And then, if you really wanted to dig into the units, my recommendation is to look over units one, two, and five.
If you have really limited time, go over those because those could make up anywhere between 60 to 80 percent of the exam when you bring them together.
And most often, a lot of the free response questions come from units one, two, and five.
So that's really where I would focus.
But definitely take time this weekend and study those things.
There's Quizlets and there's all these kinds of things online that you can do.
You can go to AP Classroom.
You can go into the Blue Book app where you're going to be taking the AP exam and they should have sample questions.
And then, of course, bring questions to your teachers and bring questions to us today.
Well, we've got some students that are already starting to call in, but before we get to them, I want to ask you, Kevin, about this concept application question.
This one is from 2023.
We'll put it up on the screen.
It's about Taylor Swift.
If you can go through that with us, definitely.
So this concept application question, I call it FRQ1.
It's the question you'll see first when you get to the free response session.
And what they'll give you is, just like you can see here, a paragraph or two about some kind of news story, or in this case, a Taylor Swift 2018 Instagram post in which she's encouraging young people to register to vote.
And so, again, in your block of time, you've got roughly 20 minutes to work on this one.
So look at what it's asking you.
Generally, the answer to part A is going to be a word or phrase somewhere in this reading.
And so slow it down.
What's the question asking me?
And so in this one, right, referencing the scenario, what's a structural barrier to voting?
Well, in her last sentence in this quote, she says, but first you need to register, which is quick and easy to do.
And so for A, they're looking for you to say, you need to register.
Jumping to Part B, you know, how does this barrier vary from state to state?
Why can it be harder or easier?
Well, hopefully we've talked about in class, you know, different states have slightly different rules on how to register to vote.
And so you could speak to that about whether it's deadlines or ID or online or in person.
Any of those are structural barriers that can vary from state to state.
And now here's what I think is kind of the meanest part of this Part C. Part C asks you if youth voter turnout increases.
So in your answer, you needed to say if youth voter increased.
And so they asked you a very specific question.
A thing that I find fascinating about the college board is they're going to ask you some very, very precise questions sometimes.
And if you're not slowing down to look at it, oh, well, if voter turnout increases, that's not going to get you the point.
They wanted to know about youth voter turnout.
All right.
And I'll just remind students that you can start calling in now.
We're taking questions from students only.
The lines are by region, so you can call.
And when you do call, you can either ask a question of our guests or you can take a challenge question.
You can do both, of course.
If you answer our challenge question correctly, the first five students to do so will get a C-SPAN hat, which will be really cool for you to wear around town and at your college next year.
Let's go to Ryan and talk about the 2025 argument essay on social media participatory democracy.
Describe that for us.
Yeah, so thank you.
This is one that I've been working with with my students all week where we kind of chopped it up and looked at all the different parts.
So the first part in the argument essay, it's going to look different than all the other free response questions because the other ones are going to have an A, a B, and a C, or an A, B, a C, or a D prompt.
And when you get to the argument essay, you don't see that.
Now, that doesn't mean there's not A, B, C, and D points.
There are.
They're just kind of in as little bullet points.
So for this one, you don't get a big, huge writing three paragraphs or a graph or any data or anything.
It's just they're going to give you a prompt.
Here's what this question is about.
And then they're going to ask you to take a position.
So on this free response question argument essay, it was about the use of social media and whether it helped or hindered participatory democracy.
So where a lot of students are going to lock on to, oh, social media, I use that, I know that, that's really not what the premise of the question is asking.
It's really more about participatory democracy.
So they're going to ask about things like that, and then you have to construct an argument that ties back to that concept.
So the most important point on the argument essay is the first prompt where it's going to ask you to create a defensible claim or thesis with a line of reasoning.
So you want to really take your time to think about which position can I argue better?
Here's what I think.
And then you want to work in, and I call it the magic word, it's because.
Social media, the use of social media helps participatory democracy because, and then you need to establish a line of reasoning.
Why does it help?
Because then you're going to spend the rest of your argument essay kind of building upon that point and proving that point.
Then in the B points, you have to use one piece of evidence from the documents presented.
So in this one, you had the 10th, excuse me, the First Amendment of the Constitution, you had Federalist number 10, and then you had Letter from Birmingham Jail.
So one of the documents should usually always go to one document, one of the sides of the argument, one will go to the other side of the argument, and one you could kind of use for both.
So Letter from Birmingham Jail, if you're arguing for participatory democracy, Dr. King's telling people, get active, do things.
So that would be a help.
If you're looking at hinders, well, you're thinking Federalist 10 because James Madison's warning about factions.
And I could take social media and turn a faction, create a faction in a matter of minutes using a hashtag.
And then the First Amendment, you can make the argument kind of of either side.
So you're saying, well, social media is a help because people can speak their mind, they can share information, so that's a positive.
But at the same time, there could be misinformation that gets shared.
So that would be a negative.
So you can do that.
Then you have the reasoning point.
So once you've presented your evidence, how does your evidence show causation?
How does my evidence caught like show that I'm proving my point in my line of reasoning?
And I always tell my students, try to give reasoning for both pieces of evidence.
That way you get two bites at the apple at the C point.
And then you go to the D point where it's going to ask you to acknowledge an opposing viewpoint and then to either give a rebuttal or a refutation.
So really be careful about that because again, don't say, well, you know, they make some valid points and they might be right.
If it's asking you for a rebuttal, you have to prove why the other side's wrong.
So the rules that I always tell my students for free response questions, this is true of all of them, are APBS.
And this is what Mr. Jackson was saying.
Answer the prompt.
What's it asking me?
AP and BS, be specific.
And our other one is RSVP.
Restate the language of the prompt in your answer and vanish the pronouns.
If you're talking about social media, say social media.
If you're talking about Congress, talk about Congress or the Supreme Court or the bureaucracy.
Don't be generic.
All right.
You ready to talk to me?
Maybe I have a question for Ryan.
Oh, yeah, go ahead.
Maybe can I ask Ryan a question?
So about that argument essay, Ryan, the ongoing debate I see with my students is when I develop that claim or thesis, am I allowed to use the documents as my reasons or do I save those for the body paragraphs?
I would suggest saving those for the body paragraphs because what you'll want to say is this document proves my claim.
So that's usually what I tell my students.
Thanks.
So hold off till the evidence.
Yep.
All right.
Now we're going to talk to students.
In Reno, Nevada, Najari is up first.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Oh, so my question is, well, you already answered my question about the argumentative essay, but I was wondering what unit you thought would have the DESCON get to study.
Ooh, all right.
And Najeri, do you want to take a question after we give you this answer?
Do you want to take a challenge?
I'd like to take a question.
Okay.
Okay.
So, Kevin, go ahead and answer.
Or you are going to do that, Ryan?
Either way, I can.
You know, I'm teed up for it, so let's do this.
State Versus Federal Authority00:10:21
You know, yeah, typically for unit, like for the units, you never really know.
What a lot of times they try to do, though, is give you some sort of large philosophical question or term.
That a lot of times comes from Unit 1.
So if we think about participatory democracy, that's those models of democracy.
They like to ask that.
They also like to ask things from Unit 5.
They like to ask a lot about linkage institutions.
And so they might ask you, like, how this concept or this concept are linkage institutions.
How do they link people to government?
So again, I would say, you know, before I said units one, two, and five, that's kind of their sweet spot.
They could do it from anything, but a lot of times that's really what you want to focus in on for the argument essay.
Okay, Najeri, here's your challenge question.
If you get this right, you get a hat.
So focus.
Identify and explain two factors that influence political socialization.
Oh, family and schools.
Great job.
Great job.
And yeah, Nigeria, a hat.
Okay, stay on the line, Najeri, because our screeners are going to get your information so you can get your hat, okay?
Okay, thank you so much.
All right, good luck.
Thank you.
Good luck.
Zuan, Fargo, North Dakota.
You're on the air.
Good morning.
Good morning.
How are you guys today?
Good.
Good morning.
Well.
Yeah, so my question for you today is, what is your favorite Supreme Court case and why?
Kevin.
All right.
I mean, I love the First Amendment, so I'm definitely going to go to Tinker v. Des Moines.
I think it's a wonderful story with a wonderful kind of end result that, yes, students, you have freedom of speech rights.
You do not shed your freedom of speech when you enter the schoolhouse gate.
So that's my favorite.
I have a question for you, though.
Do you want to shout out your teacher?
Yes, absolutely.
I'd love to shout out Miss Homas from Cheyenne High School.
She's a wonderful teacher.
She's done so well this year preparing us for the AP test.
So, yeah.
Are you willing to take a challenge question, Zuan?
Yeah, absolutely.
Okay, here it is.
Identify one of the landmark cases centered on the civil liberties of students and describe the background and holding of that case.
Tinker versus Des Moines.
The students were protesting the Vietnam War, and they wore black armbands to protest.
And this extended like the First Amendment rights that students have.
All right.
Is that right?
Correct.
Sending a hat to North Dakota.
You win a hat.
Stay on the line.
Let's talk to Jerry Mil Pittis, California.
You're on the air.
Go ahead.
Hi, good morning.
Morning.
Good morning.
Good morning.
So first off, I'd like to shout out my teacher, T-O-T-Y Cummins.
And my question is, what Supreme Court case do you think will be on the comparison question this year?
Or at least related?
What sort of case?
Oh, you know, that's a great question that unfortunately we're going to have to kind of dodge because it could be any of those 14 mandatory Supreme Court cases.
You know, some years you can kind of game plan and look and see what cases or concepts have they used in the past.
And so they've used the Commerce Clause a lot lately, so they've used USB Lopez.
It doesn't mean that they can't use it again because there's a lot of Commerce Clause cases.
So, unfortunately, you kind of have to be ready for everything.
You know, I've told my students, though, you know, okay, my spidey senses think that maybe possibly it could be equal protection or maybe it could be freedom of the press.
We haven't seen one of those in a while.
But really, truly, you never know.
So, it's a good thing to kind of review all those cases and then be ready for any of them.
And, Jerry, are you ready for a question?
Jerry?
You want to take a question?
Yeah, yeah, I'm ready.
Okay, here it is.
Identify and explain a formal and informal power the president can use to respond to congressional actions.
One formal power the president has is a pocket veto, where he can simply choose to not act on a bill that Congress passes.
And one informal action is he could come out and make a public announcement expressing his support or disapproval of certain items within a bill.
What do you guys think?
Great job.
Great job.
Yeah, we'll take that.
Milpitas, California, showing up for the Bay Area at 6 a.m.
I'm proud of you.
All right, Jerry, stay on the line.
Philip in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I was wondering, what is your go-to document for an essay about federalism versus one about individual liberties?
That's a really good question.
Do you want to start one?
I mean, sure, if I'm thinking federalism, I'm going to look at either necessary and proper coming out of Article 1, Section 8, or I'm going to look at the 10th Amendment and the reserve powers.
And then on individual rights, I don't know where to go on that one, Ryan.
I'm going to pass it to you.
Yeah, I mean, that could be any number of things.
Now, if they're going to ask questions and what they've done in the past for the argument essay, if they've asked questions about the federalism, they're going to usually frame it in some way where it wouldn't necessarily be individual rights.
It would usually be state versus federal power.
So they have done in the past 10th Amendment and 14th Amendment as two different examples of, you know, for a federalism question.
For individual liberties, if you were using it as an evidence in the argument essay, you know, you could do First Amendment, talking about freedom of speech or freedom of religion, maybe Fourth Amendment.
That kind of tends to get underused a bit about protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
But, you know, generally speaking, those are kind of where I think that you'd want to go with those documents.
Philip, do you want to answer a question?
Yeah, that'd be great.
Okay, you ready?
Yep.
Identify the fundamental goal of interest groups and explain one of the ways they seek to achieve it.
The fundamental goal of the interest groups is to search out their interests.
So by forming an iron triangle with a bureaucracy and congressmen, they're able to achieve these interests.
So for example, like tobacco industry would have congressmen and bureaucratic interests in which they would all three mutually benefit from it.
Well, I'm getting a lot of head nods, Philip.
So you got it right.
That's a good answer.
Yeah, you said that.
And I would say the magic board loves to ask you.
Yeah.
Iron Triangles is a college board favorite.
So great job.
All right.
Good luck, Philip.
And Haley, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Welcome, Haley.
Hi, good morning.
Morning.
Good morning.
Who's your teacher, Haley?
I'd like to shout out Mrs. Daly from O'Gorman High School.
I'm also here with my friends Isla Carney and Alexei Bergwald.
All right, Do you guys?
Do you have a question?
Yes, I was wondering if you could give us a little recap on Brutus 1.
Oh, yes.
Sure thing.
Ryan, you want this one or I'll take it?
Yeah.
Let me, thanks.
Let me add them.
All right.
So Brutus is really the only anti-Federalist paper that you need to know.
And it is a just stinging critique of the Constitution.
Everything about the Constitution is bad.
It's going to produce tyranny from an executive.
Congress is going to make the state legislatures unnecessary.
The Supreme Court's going to strip all the power from the state courts.
All the tax revenue is going to go to the federal government, and the states will be bankrupt.
And there's a standing army, and the standing army is only needed by a tyrant.
And so all of these things.
So we don't need the Constitution.
It's really bad.
New York's one of the states that has, at that time, a really strong anti-federalist contingent, and they don't think we need the Constitution because their state government's working pretty well.
So Brutus is just showing, he's throwing spaghetti at the wall.
What's the argument that I can make against the Constitution that's going to stick?
So if you kind of have an idea about all of the objections, you don't need to know all of them.
But if you do get a question about for the free response section in the argument essay about having government that's too powerful or questions or concerns about tyrannical government, Brutus could be one of the documents and those are the arguments that he would make.
Haley, you want to Ryan, to your point.
Yep.
Go ahead.
I was going to say, sorry, Mimi.
One of the things that I really hone in on Brutus One is specifically the necessary and proper clause and the supremacy clause.
And so if Congress can do things that are necessary and proper to execute their powers, and if the Constitution is going to be supreme over all other laws, then in Brutus's argument, why do we even have states?
And Haley, do you want to try for the last hat?
Yes, of course.
Okay, here's your question.
What is the relationship between the president and the bureaucracy?
Could you repeat that, please?
What is the relationship between the president and the bureaucracy?
The bureaucracy is supposed to carry out the laws and the policies that the president supports.
Is that good enough for a hat, gentlemen?
I think that's...
Yeah, we'll take that.
I think that's hat worthy.
I'm worried, how are they going to share it?
Right.
They got three people on this call.
How are they going to share that hat?
Oh, they'll figure it out.
It'll be a rotation.
Yeah.
All right.
Good job, Haley.
Selective Incorporation Strategies00:15:36
And I wanted to ask Ryan, why don't you take this about task verbs in the free response questions?
Can you talk about that?
Sure thing.
So I'm a veteran AP exam reader, so do well because I'm probably reading yours, students.
And so when you look at the free response questions, at least for the first three, there are going to be different task verbs that they're going to give you at the beginning of each prompt.
So if they give you an identify or a define, that's really one where the college board's asking you to just show me that you know something.
Identify what this is.
Identify the common clause between these two cases.
Oh, it's the Commerce Clause.
Good.
You've gotten the point.
Or define selective incorporation, right?
And so it's, okay, well, that's this, right?
You're explaining just a brief little get in, get out.
If you see a describe, that's where they want a little more detail.
So they want a little more, here's what this is, and here's what it does.
So provide a little bit more.
So I usually tell my students rule of thumb, maybe two sentences for something like that.
You're going to see draw a conclusion.
And that's in the quantitative analysis for your response question, the second one.
So that's one where I'm looking at data, I'm looking at a graph.
Here's something I notice and here's what I notice about it.
Or here's what I think about that or here's why that is.
So, again, what's kind of maybe some causation or something, what's causing this trend.
And then you'll also see explain, and explain is the one where that's the one where you really want to go into detail.
So, explain is, you know, here's why something is happening, here's how it happened.
Provide the most.
If you're giving me a sentence for an explain prompt, it's probably not really enough to get the point.
I mean, I've done it as a reader in the past where a student has a really long sentence and it checks the boxes.
But generally speaking, if you see explain, slow down, take your time, map out your thoughts, and then really give detailed answers.
All right, let's take another call.
Sean Altoona, Pennsylvania.
Hi, Sean.
Hello, how are you guys doing?
Good.
Good, good.
How are you?
Good morning.
I'm doing pretty good.
Good.
I want to Mr. Blau from Altoona Area High School.
He's the goat.
Nice.
All right.
You have a question?
Fantastic.
Yeah.
My question for you guys is: can you summarize the main points of Dr. King's letter from a Birmingham jail, please?
Sure thing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Dr. King's letter from Birmingham Jail is going to be about encouraging the people to get together and push back against the government when it is repressing the rights of the people.
Yeah.
If we think about what, sorry, Kevin, do you mind if I jump in?
Yeah, go right ahead.
Nope, go for it.
Okay.
So you think of what Dr. King's doing.
It's a call for action.
So yes, when the government is doing things that are allowing unjust laws or creating unjust laws, you have a moral obligation to break those laws and to take the punishment for them to show the injustice of the law.
It's essentially a formal list of grievances.
These are all of the ways that the African American citizens in Ham are being treated unfairly.
And it's a call for action to change that.
In a lot of ways, it's like the Declaration of Independence.
I actually teach those two documents together to have my students notice the side-by-side comparisons.
And then when we think about what happens after Letter from Birmingham Jail, within a year, a lot of the things that Dr. King writes about are addressed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
So it's a really impactful document in that way.
But like I said, think about it in comparison to the Declaration.
You'll see a lot of similarities there.
Sean, would you like to answer a question?
Of course.
Okay, here it is.
Identify and explain a way that another branch can react to a Supreme Court decision with which they disagree.
Well, if you think like long term, eventually like one of the Supreme Court justice will either die or resign.
So like the president can then appoint a new one that's more favorable to his ideas.
And then the Congress, if he controls Congress, this political party, he can appoint that to the Supreme Court to kind of change their outcomes, the decisions in the future.
Okay, anything to add to that, Kevin?
I think that's a good point.
Yeah, that's a question we see come up sometimes in part C of that third free response question, those Supreme Court cases.
Ryan, did you want to say anything?
I tend to jump into either what could a state do or what could Congress do, but I'm going to tee that up for you, Ryan.
Yeah, so Sean, your answer is okay because it's kind of a long game answer.
It's long term.
Here's how they could react to a Supreme Court decision.
In the short term, yeah, Congress could pass a law.
They could say, okay, you've given us the parameters of the decision.
We're going to pass a law now that fits within that, but does what we want.
You could have an executive order, although again, it has to kind of abide still by what the Supreme Court does, or what Mr. Jackson said, which is a great one about federalism and about how state governments might react.
But he's absolutely right, too.
That is a C prompt in the SCOTIS FRQ a lot of the time.
So be ready for something like that.
All right.
Next call is Telfique in San Ramon, California.
Good morning.
Another early riser.
Yeah.
So my question is: should states have the power to set their own policies on like rights-related issues, even if it speaks to different rules across the country because they're not consistent on a national level, but different states have their own things.
Kevin or Ryan, did you get that?
Yeah, so fundamentally, you're asking about federalism civil liberties.
Is that right, Telfique?
Is that kind of the premise?
Yeah, okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, you know, the 10th Amendment does allow for states to make laws about things that are not necessarily, you know, in the Constitution.
And so if we think about driver's licenses, and now it's granted, that's maybe not exactly where you're going, but you can have different standards in different states for driver's licenses in the qualifications to be able to drive a car or speed limits.
There are certain things.
Sometimes you'll see the federal government allow for experimentation in different laws in the states where there might be something that is a national standard, thinking about like medical marijuana or recreational marijuana use, where technically, legally, it's still illegal according to federal law, but the Justice Department has let more and more states create policies involving that.
And so, again, what are the states' laboratories of democracy, as Justice Brandeis used to say?
And so they do allow for experimentation, even if it does conflict maybe with the national standards.
So it's kind of up to the federal government how much or how little experimentation they want to allow.
And Telfique, did you want a question?
Yeah, and if I could.
Oh, sorry.
Go ahead, Kevin.
I was just going to jump in.
And I think a thing to remember, and Ryan, you addressed this kind of early in the show.
When we talk about some of these kind of sticky issues, the APGov exam is not going to ask you a lot of political questions.
It's going to ask you a lot of constitutional questions.
Does Congress have the power to do blank?
What is a role that the president can fulfill?
You might be able to put some of your own opinion, obviously, into that argumentative essay.
But again, when we worry about kind of the issues of the day and why can this state do this and that state can't, those don't really appear on the exam as much.
So, like we've said, this is not necessarily a current events test.
This is definitely a structures of government and politics test.
And Telfi, do you want a question before we let you go?
Sure, yes.
Okay.
Here's your question.
Identify and explain one way the media impacts the American political process.
The media impacts one way by agendas I think, where they push certain ideologies across the people.
Definitely.
I talk about that as the gatekeeper.
And what the media talks about is what we tend to talk about.
All right.
And let's hear from Maggie in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Good morning, Maggie.
Hi, good morning.
How are you guys?
Good.
Good, good morning.
Wow.
Good morning.
Do you want to shout out your teacher?
Yeah, my teacher is Ms. Hoots in High Point, North Carolina.
Shout out.
My question is: How exactly does the due process clause of the 14th Amendment incorporate certain amendments to the states?
Ooh.
So, so you hit actually on the mentioned incorporation.
That's definitely a college board favorite.
They love the incorporation doctrine.
A lot of the cases actually that we deal with are 14th Amendment incorporation cases.
So, what the selective incorporation is, which is definitely a college board favorite topic, is kind of the case-by-case amendment-by-amendment application of the federal Bill of Rights into state law.
And so, the due process clause, if we think about a case like Gideon v. Wainwright, Clarence Gideon said, Hey, I have a Sixth Amendment right, I should have the right to an attorney in Florida.
Didn't give me one.
And so, when he appealed to the Supreme Court, they took the case and said, Hey, okay, this is actually really, again, a 14th Amendment case, saying, Did Florida deny this guy due process?
And then, when they said yes, it applied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, not the entire Sixth Amendment, but just that right to counsel component into states.
There was a SCOTUS FRQ a couple of years ago that combined, and it really threw students off, Tim's v. Indiana, which was a case about the Eighth Amendment excessive fines clause, with McDonald v. Chicago about gun rights.
And students were just confounded with I don't get like how these two are linked.
And it was the 14th Amendment and it was incorporation.
So, definitely study those SCOTUS cases and the 14th Amendment.
Section 1.
Don't worry about the whole 14th Amendment.
Just focus on Section 1.
Kevin, anything to add before we ask Maggie a question?
Yeah, I just like Ryan said, right, originally the Bill of Rights only applied if the national government was trying to take your freedoms away.
But through selective incorporation, more and more amendments are applied here at the state level as well.
Okay, Maggie, and you're going to answer a question, right?
Yes.
Okay, here it is.
Identify and explain two ways that policymaking differs in the House and the Senate.
Well, policymaking is different in the House because there's more representation from different parts of the country because there's more members in the House.
And in the Senate, there's more general policymaking because there's only two members from each state.
What do you guys think?
Good answer.
I would just add: Yeah, that yes, in the House, because there's so many people, there's a lot of rules.
In the Senate, it's a smaller crowd to have to deal with.
So there are fewer rules.
That's where you have things like the filibuster.
Boom.
Okay, Maggie, you don't get a hat, but you get bragging rights, okay?
Okay, thank you so much.
Good luck.
Good luck on the exam.
Ashlyn, Springboro, Ohio.
Good morning to you.
Good morning.
This is Veronica and Ashlyn.
Hi, good morning.
Go right ahead.
Good morning.
Okay, we'd like to first shout out our teacher, Mr. Class.
He's an amazing teacher.
And then our question: We were wondering if you could explain what PACs and super PACs were and then just some legal restrictions that are placed on them.
Good old campaign question.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, go for it.
Okay.
So, PACs and super PACs, right?
These are our independent organizations that do independent expenditures.
They're advocating for the issue that matters to them.
And if the issue that matters to them is, I want this person to lose, that's their issue.
So there are rules about how much money and how traceable that money is.
And yeah, campaign finance is always kind of one of my least favorite topics to address because it's a question of how far down the rabbit hole do you want to dive.
Ryan, do you want to add any kind of specifics for us?
Yeah, just thinking, obviously, Citizens United versus FEC is one of our mandatory cases, so a good one to go back and review, which is about campaign finance and free speech.
But yeah, thinking about, again, directly, how coordinated can a PAC or super PAC be with the politicians, right?
So PACs can give money directly to a candidate, whereas super PACs cannot.
They have to do everything just completely independent.
So they can make electioneering communications in favor of or opposed to a politician, but they can't coordinate with them in any way.
Which is a big reason why a lot of super PAC ads are negative.
They can say horrible, horrible things about a politician or a political party, and the candidate can't disavow it and say, well, I didn't tell them to do that.
They can't coordinate it anyway.
All right.
And would you like a question?
Yep.
We'll try one.
Okay.
Describe the process by which the Supreme Court selects a case for review.
Okay, so the process starts.
The Supreme Court has like thousands of cases every year.
So the process they do is wait, sorry, can we talk about it?
He's telling you four.
There's something about four.
Okay, instead of choosing the majority of the Supreme Court that want to select a case, it's only four of the nine that select the case.
You got it.
It has to be the girl.
All right, thank you.
Anything to add on that, guys?
No, I wish it was a cooler name than the rule of four.
But yeah, it's the rule of four.
So four justices want a case, they take the case.
All right, Kevin, I want to ask you about the two column questions, like the one that we're going to put on the screen.
It's about constitutional provisions and what the strategy is for those kinds of questions.
Yes, my students see questions like this pretty frequently because I think it's a good skill.
Remember, you've got 80 minutes to do these 55 multiple choice questions.
And this one's one that might take you a little bit longer than just, you know, what is this an example of?
So we're looking at kind of two columns.
And what I tell my students is take each column by itself and work down vertically.
Constitutional Provision Analysis00:10:20
So if we're looking at what's going to enhance federal power, does the necessary and proper clause give the federal government more power?
Yes.
Does the Commerce Clause give the federal government more power?
Yes.
Does the Supremacy Clause give the federal government power?
Yes.
And does the Fifth Amendment?
Not really.
Maybe.
So now let's look over at the other column.
What's going to enhance state powers?
Does the 14th Amendment?
Kind of.
Not really, though.
Does the 10th Amendment?
Yes, it definitely does.
So I'm thinking the answer might be B, but let me just check.
17th Amendment, Article 5, not so much.
So B is going to be my right answer because that's where looking at both columns, the answer is right in both columns.
Don't compare them side to side because you'll talk yourself into one.
Look at it vertically and the answer becomes much more evident.
All right.
And this question is.
Yeah.
Go ahead, Ryan.
Yeah, just real quick.
So Mr. Jackson actually gave you a really good piece of advice there where he talked about how some of these questions, like this one, might take more time.
I always tell my students, don't try to answer question one through 55 in order.
You can move around a bit.
So do the ones that you know right away, get those easy points, and save time for questions like this one.
All right, and Ryan, I'll give you this one.
This is from Riel in Abington, Pennsylvania.
She sent us a text.
I was wondering if you could explain the Marbury v. Madison mandatory case.
Yes.
So Marbury v. Madison, the facts of the case don't actually have a ton to do with what the ultimate decision is.
William Marbury is appointed and confirmed by the Senate to be a Justice of the Peace.
He's supposed to get this appointment.
John Marshall is consequently selected and confirmed as Chief Justice.
He was Secretary of State, who was supposed to be delivering the appointments.
He leaves to go take over the Supreme Court.
When James Madison comes in as Secretary of State, he's got this stack of appointments and he says, I don't want any of these people.
So he tosses them in the trash and Marbury's waiting and waiting and waiting.
And he sues to say, can I get my appointment?
I've been confirmed by the Senate.
And it goes to the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Marshall basically says, Yeah, James Madison, shame on you.
You did a no-no.
But we can't really have, we can't really compel him to give you this.
And oh, by the way, the part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that created these positions was unconstitutional.
So the Supreme Court now is claiming the right of judicial review to interpret what laws mean and what the Constitution means.
So again, it's like the facts of the case don't have a heck of a lot to do with the ultimate decision, but the ultimate decision is one of the really important ones because it gives the Supreme Court their biggest check on the power of the other or power over the other branches.
All right, Savannah in Altoona, Pennsylvania.
Good morning.
You're on the air.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Who's your teacher, Savannah?
Mr. Blau from Altoona, Pennsylvania.
Okay.
And do you have a question or would you just like to take a question?
Yes, I have a question.
I was wondering if you guys could explain the holding in Citizens United versus the FEC.
Yeah, sure thing.
Kevin, you want to take that one?
Or do you want me to?
Oh, yeah, I know finance isn't your favorite thing.
Okay.
Okay.
Yes.
So Citizens United is a, it's an interest group, and they make a movie called Hillary the Movie during the 2008 Democratic primary.
They spent a million dollars making this movie and it's really anti-Hillary Clinton.
And then they're told basically you can't air this because it's electioneering communications.
And so then they sue the Federal Elections Commission and the Supreme Court basically has to decide: okay, well, is this, do corporations, do labor unions, do interest groups have First Amendment rights?
Do they have rights to free speech?
Corporations are technically people, so they have corporate personhood.
So if you're a person, you are entitled to certain rights, like free speech.
And so that's where they effectively ruled in Citizens United that money is kind of a form of symbolic speech and that you can do electioneering, but again, it can't be coordinated with campaigns.
So that's why Citizens United is kind of the case that births super PACs into American politics.
And Savannah, do you want a question?
Sure, I can try.
Okay.
What are the three sides of an iron triangle and one way that iron triangles impact policymaking?
The three sides of an iron triangle are the congressional committee, the bureaucratic agencies, and the interest groups.
And could you repeat the last part of the question, please?
And how does it impact policymaking?
It impacts policymaking by it can show like lobbyists and it can encourage congressmen to help vote for their cause.
Okay.
Anything to add, gentlemen?
All right, good.
I would just add real quick, right?
Let's hit on all three points, right?
So an interest group wants something.
They're going to work closely with the members of a congressional committee to get this bill passed through so that it gets signed into law.
And now the bureaucratic agency is going to enforce that law in the way that the interest group originally hoped.
So make sure we close on all three points of that triangle.
All right.
Good job, Savannah.
Let's talk to Sarah next in Los Angeles.
Hi, Sarah.
Sarah, are you there?
Yeah, I'm here.
You're on the air.
Go right ahead.
Did you have a question?
Do you want to shout out your teacher?
Yeah, I have a question.
What is the difference between issue networks and iron triangles?
Issue networks.
Ooh, that's a good one.
Issue networks, here's the way I teach it.
An iron triangle is a very rigid three points like we just talked about, right?
It's an interest group working with a congressional committee who's going to hand something off to a bureaucratic agency if it passes.
An issue network is a much more nebulous, vague.
You know, the example I like to go to is, we all want you to pass your APGov exam on Tuesday.
So teachers and students and your parents and the college board and textbook companies and test prep companies and the Quizlet website are all providing resources to hopefully get you to pass, but we're not always working in the most coordinated way.
And C-SPAN, right?
This is a very coordinated work together that we're doing.
Sarah, does that answer your question?
Yes, it does.
Okay, would you like to answer a question?
Yes, but first, can I shout out my teacher?
Sure.
Please do.
I'd like to shout out Mr. Alvarez and his fifth period class in Los Angeles, California.
All right.
So here's your question, Sarah.
Love it.
Identify an expressed power of Congress and a way that another branch could check the use of that power.
A power of Congress would be making laws, of course, proposing bills.
And a way another branch could check that would be, for example, the executive branch or the president calling a veto to not pass the bill.
Excellent.
Very good.
You got it.
Good luck, Sarah.
Hadley is here in Washington, D.C. Hi, Hadley.
Hi.
Hi, good morning.
Good morning.
Go right ahead.
Well, first, I'd like to shout out my teacher, Mr. Petrie.
And I'm here, some people from our class, and we're all tuned in.
That's awesome.
Love a cram for the exam morning.
That's great.
What do you got for us?
Could you explain the difference between Federalist 70 and 78?
Yeah.
Gladly.
No problem.
Federalist.
Yeah, why don't you take 70?
678.
How about that?
Oh, take 70.
Go ahead.
Fed 70.
Fed 70 is the need for a dynamic leader, a strong president Who will respond in moments of crisis and why we need a single executive?
If you remember, the New Jersey plan in the Constitutional Convention was actually calling for possibly an executive council.
And Hamilton in Federal Assembly says, no, no, that's not going to work.
They're going to fight with each other.
And we need one person that we can all look to, especially in times of crisis, to unify the country.
And so, Ryan, tell us about Fed 78.
Yeah, and in Fed 78, Hamilton's arguing that the lifetime appointment for the court is going to be the thing that gives them judicial independence, where if they don't have to run for re-election or curry favor with politicians, they're going to be free to just make decisions, is what judges nowadays would say is just callballs and strikes.
And, you know, Hamilton is trying to also answer some of the criticism that Brutus had levied about how the Supreme Court was going to be too powerful by saying, hey, look, they don't have the power of the purse or the power of the sword.
They basically don't have any enforcement mechanism.
So they're just interpreting things, and then it's up to the other parts of the government to do what they say.
So it really is meant to, like, again, allay those fears, but also to lay out that case for independence.
Okay, Hadley, you want to answer a question for us?
Yes.
Okay, explain the difference between a delegate role and a trustee role for members of Congress.
Okay, so the delegate, wait, the trustee role is when they act trying to like trust, they think they're acting in the best interest.
The people that elected them are trusting them to act in their own best interest by like using their own thing.
And then the delegate model is when they act based on like what they think the people elected them would want them to do.
Judicial Activism and Restraint00:05:57
Okay, you got head nods.
That's right.
Good luck, Hadley.
And we got a text.
My name is Mia from Union City, Jose Marty STEM Academy.
I would like to shout out my teacher, Mr. Malazia.
He has prepared us greatly for this test.
The question: How does congressional oversight limit bureaucracy, and how is that limitation effective?
Kevin, go ahead and take that.
All right.
So when we talk about congressional oversight, remember Congress has the power of the purse.
And so in that budget-making process, how much money is Congress allocating to the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Defense, whatever it is.
And then Congress can call those secretaries in and say, hey, we gave you this money.
Are you spending it appropriately?
What if we need to adjust some budget?
We've seen definitely in the news, especially over the last, well, constantly really, but different bureaucratic agencies and different department secretaries coming in and having to testify in front of Congress about what they're doing, how they're implementing the law, and so on.
All right, and this is Ethan calling us from Colfax, North Carolina.
Go ahead, Ethan.
You there, Ethan?
Riley in High Point, North Carolina.
You're on the air, Riley.
Oh, boy.
We don't.
North Carolina.
What's happening to North Carolina?
Okay, well, we have this from Rhett in Columbus, Ohio on X.
He says, Hey, Cease Ban Cram, shout out to Ms. Glover's class.
His question is: How do you earn all the points in the SCOTUS essay without complete knowledge of all the cases?
Ryan.
That's tricky.
So do the best you can with the knowledge in the cases.
First of all, also, Ms. Glover, fantastic teacher.
We know Ms. Glover from Twitter.
She's great.
So do your best with all of the points.
Remember that the A points in the first two FRQs are probably the easiest ones to get.
So go through those.
The Supreme Court one, the place where people a lot of times leave points on the table is the B point.
So on the A point, it's going to ask you what's the common constitutional clause or what's the common civil liberty.
So be sure to answer that.
Make sure to address the required case.
And remember, do a couple of bullet points.
You know, here's what the case is about.
Here's what the case outcome was.
And then for the second part of the B prompt, they're going to give you three paragraphs on a non-required case.
They're just going to ask you to sort of explain that case in relation to the required case.
And then the last prompt, the C prompt, is again, they're going to ask you to apply it based on some sort of concept.
So, you know, unfortunately, you really do have to know enough about each of the 14 cases.
So if that's an issue right now, that's definitely one where you'll want to spend some time this weekend and on Monday.
Anything to add, Kevin?
I would just add, yeah, the unfortunate reality is you need to know each of the cases.
And again, like Ryan said, which part of the Constitution or which civil liberty are we talking about?
And then what happened in the case on the most basic level, a sentence or two.
And yeah, I think, like Ryan said, the B point on those SCOTUS FRQs, you know, why did the court reach a similar holding?
Why did the court reach a different holding across these two cases?
Address both cases, other than just saying, well, both were about.
Nope, you need to tell us something about each one.
Well, Kevin, I'll give you this one that we got on email.
All right.
A student from Mission Viejo, California.
Can you explain the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint?
And there's a shout out to Mr. Woods.
His passion for the subject is contagious.
That's awesome.
Thank you for that shout out to Mr. Woods.
Yeah, judicial activism versus restraint.
You know, most Supreme Court justices are going to say that they are practicing judicial restraint.
They are adhering to precedent.
They are following star a decision.
They are, like Ryan said a little bit ago, just calling balls and strikes.
Judicial activism is when the Supreme Court overturns a precedent.
Maybe it's to right a historical wrong.
Maybe it's to step in and say, yeah, previously we interpreted this way, but the times have changed.
We can look at something like Brown versus Board of Education compared to Plessy versus Ferguson.
And the dissent in Plessy versus Ferguson 50 years prior to Brown v. Board is what ends up becoming the majority opinion in Brown v. Board.
So people look at that as a case of judicial activism, writing a historical wrong.
Judicial restraint, maintaining the status quo, honoring the precedent of some similar case or cases in previous years.
And hey, we called it a strike before.
We're going to call it a strike again.
All right.
And Ryan, we got this from Michaela on X. What common mistakes do students make on FRQs and how can we avoid them?
Great question.
So thanks, Michaela.
Honestly, the biggest thing that students don't do is they don't fully articulate their arguments or fully close the loop on the evidence that they're providing.
So there was a sample question that I worked with with my class yesterday, actually.
And one of the things the students said about social media and participatory democracy was, well, there was the First Amendment, and the First Amendment's kind of a big deal.
And it's like, yeah, and so it was the start of a good answer, but then they didn't really articulate what the First Amendment did to help with participatory democracy.
AP Exam Final Tips00:01:56
So make sure that when you're writing your free response questions, you've got tons of time.
Mr. Jackson mentioned that earlier, and he's absolutely right.
Take the time to outline your ideas.
Look at your ideas, and are they answering what's being asked?
That's the biggest thing.
Answer the prompt and be specific.
And make sure that when you're doing that, reflect back: have I really answered what they're asking?
I always tell my students, don't tap your feet to the music, just get up and dance, right?
That's what we're trying to do when we write these.
All right, and we've got one minute left, so I'm going to give you each a chance to give your last bit of advice.
We'll start with Kevin on this exam that's happening very soon.
Go ahead, Kevin.
Ryan, I'm going so short this time.
No, It's a noon test this year, so get something to eat before you get in the test.
Ryan, go for it.
No matter how you do on this exam, we are proud of you for doing this.
There's around 400,000 students that are going to do this.
You are part of a really impressive group.
Democracy only works if we have committed citizens like you, and taking this class and this exam demonstrates that.
So, great job.
We love you.
Do it for America.
Do it for your school.
Do it for yourself.
You got this.
All right.
That's a nice message to end on.
That's Ryan Rarenka.
He is a high school teacher in Troy, Michigan.
Also, Kevin Jackson, a high school teacher in Petaluma, California.
Gentlemen, thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good luck, everybody.
Thank you so much.
And that's it for us today.
Good luck, everybody, taking the exam.
Make us proud.
We are going to see you again tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. Eastern.