President Trump pauses Project Freedom amid Iranian attacks, sparking debate over the war's success as polls label it a mistake. While an emerging nuclear deal offers hope, critics argue the strategy lacks long-term goals and violates the War Powers Act. Simultaneously, the U.S. national debt surpasses GDP for the first time since WWII, threatening fiscal stability despite proposed tax cuts. The episode also examines conservative media's regained Pentagon access following legal challenges to press restrictions and analyzes how redistricting could shift congressional power, all while callers clash over media bias, economic policy, and the legitimacy of current leadership. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
Time
Text
Tactics Versus Strategy00:14:53
C-SPAN as a public service.
Coming up on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Concord Coalition Executive Director and former Democratic Representative Carolyn Bordeaux on the rising national debt.
Then Robert Bluey with the Daily Signal on the Trump administration's relationship with the media and other political news of the day.
And the Cook Political Report's David Wasserman will talk about how the recent Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act is leading to a redistricting arms race.
Washington Journal starts now.
Good morning.
It's Wednesday, May 6th.
Secretary of State Rubio said yesterday that Operation Epic Fury is over, but President Trump has not ruled out resuming a bombing campaign.
And last night, the president announced on Truth Social that Project Freedom, the U.S. effort to guide commercial ships out of the Strait of Hormuz, is being paused, saying great progress has been made toward what he called a potential complete and final agreement with Iran.
The pause comes after days of Iranian missile and drone attacks contesting the mission.
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the editorial board argued that the blockade is working and that Iran is under serious economic strain, but that the conflict's outcome depends on whether the president holds firm.
Our question this morning, has U.S. military action against Iran been successful?
We want to hear from you.
Democrats calling 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 you can post to social media, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and X at C-SPANWJ.
Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
Let's start with the Truth Social post from yesterday from President Trump.
That's the latest news.
This was 6:52 p.m. Eastern Time yesterday.
He said this, based on the request of Pakistan and other countries, the tremendous military success that we have had during the campaign against the country of Iran, and additionally, the fact that great progress has been made toward a complete and final agreement with representatives of Iran.
We have mutually agreed that while the blockade will remain in full force and effect, Project Freedom, parentheses, the movement of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, will be paused for a short period of time to see whether or not the agreement can be finalized and signed.
And Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, briefed reporters yesterday at the White House.
Yesterday, he said this about the offensive operation in the war against Iran.
If the fighting were to resume, because you've said that Operation Epic Fury is over, the president also said that the U.S. would bomb them off the face of the earth if they tried to go after U.S. ships.
So if the fighting resumes, are you saying that it would resume under Project Freedom?
And I ask, as it relates to the War Powers Act.
Yeah, look, the Operation Epic Fury is concluded.
We achieved the objectives of that operation.
I'm not going to, you know, we're not cheering for an additional situation to occur.
We would prefer the path of peace.
What the president would prefer is a deal.
He would prefer to sit down, work out a memorandum of understanding for future negotiations that touches on all the key topics that have to be addressed, a full opening of the straits so the world can get back to normal.
And he preferred that that be negotiated through the route that Steve and Jared have been working and that all of us have been supporting.
That's the route he prefers.
That is so far not the route that Iran has chosen.
And so the result has been that the United States has to do something about the fact that we're the only nation on earth that can do anything to open up a lane within the Straits of Hormuz to get product and to rescue these people that are trapped in there.
And that's what we're undergoing now.
What that may lead to in the future is speculative.
I'm not going to speculate about what it would take or what it would do.
But look, the message to Iran, these guys are facing, they are facing real catastrophic destruction to their economy, generational destruction to their economy, generational destruction to the wealth of their country, imposed on themselves by the actions that they're taking.
They should check themselves before they wreck themselves in the direction that they're going.
That was the Secretary of State yesterday, and some polling.
The latest poll is from the Washington Post ABC Ipsos poll.
This was taken last week.
The question: the same question we're asking you: have U.S. actions in Iran been successful?
Here's what the poll said.
It says this, 19% of U.S. adults overall say it has been successful.
39% say it has not been successful.
And 41% say it's too soon to tell.
Wonder where you fall in that if we are asking you that same question.
Has U.S. military action against Iran been successful?
Let's hear from Lucas in Stevens Point, Wisconsin, Independent Line.
Good morning, Lucas.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I don't think the Iran war has been successful by any stretch of the imagination.
Even in the clip that you just played of Marco Rubio at this press conference, he says the goal is to get it back to where we were, back to freedom of navigation that we already had before the Iran war even started.
They've now completely done away with all the other reasons they stated for this war, regime change, the ballistic missile system, the nuclear program, all of that.
Even in the proposal that was just released, they talk about allowing Iran to continue having their enriched uranium potentially or shipping it to a friendly country and having them being able to buy it and having them ship it in for civilian purposes.
So they've lost all containment on this conflict.
All right.
And what do you think should be done, Lucas?
Do you think we just completely pull out?
And I mean, now that we're in it, what should we do?
What do you think?
Yeah, I mean, we should completely pull out.
We should pull out from the region.
We have no business there.
We've been there for the last 40 plus years, whether that be CIA or direct military involvement.
We have no reason to be there.
We've destroyed the Gulf State countries.
We've destroyed their economies.
Iran has been under sanctions for the last 40 plus years.
They've developed a sovereign economy that is not reliant on the American dollar.
And Pakistan has already allowed them to do land transfers for their supplies.
They don't have to ship out of the Strait of Hormuz.
We've completely destroyed any hope of rehabilitating the Gulf Coast countries.
All right, Lucas.
And this is Reuters from early this morning.
U.S. and Iran closing in on memorandum to end the war.
According to a Pakistani source, it says the Pakistani source says, quote, we will close this very soon.
Iran demands fair, comprehensive deal in talks, according to their foreign minister.
Trump claims great progress towards agreement, pauses ship escorts through Hormuz.
French container ship hit in strait.
The crew has been injured.
And blockade of straight, ongoing conflict disrupts oil supply and global economy.
That's a summary from that Reuters article.
Tashar in Daly City, California, Democrat?
Amy, yes.
I believe, even though I'm a Democrat, that the intervention in Iran was a success because I feel very safe in the United States of America.
I think it's enhanced my opinion of Donald Trump because he's a president.
And I mean, I have all types of other opinions about Donald Trump, but I think this is success because I feel safe at home.
All right.
And Tom in Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Hi there.
What I seem to think is that it really depends how you're defining success.
I think that really the White House has had a tremendous success with this.
They're able to promote this safety element, as the last man just expressed.
And then the man before that put all of the counterweight to it that really makes it seem unsuccessful.
So I really think you're not going to be able to get a conclusion on success or not unless you determine personally inside whether or not having a bomb, thorium-based nuclear energy type going forward, is what to you is a success.
So I don't think you're going to be able to do that.
So Tom, tell us what you consider success in this case.
Transparency, more so, more freedom of press.
I hear that they want to drop leaflets.
Well, how about dropping those little Royoku devices so there's more internet?
Sort of alternatives for communication that, in my opinion, bolsters transparency.
So do you think the regime would have to change?
I think this regime has changed like a chameleon over the years to accommodate, and it isn't ever going to really, again, be enough because of the moving goalposts of what each administration is determining success really is.
Before we had a fat tow against nuclear power, we killed that man and everything around him.
So now is success then the next guy ends the fatwa on nuclear bombs and says, I guess we really need one like North Korea, Pakistan, Israel.
So I don't know what success, if we're going to kill the regime that has a fatwa against nuclear bombs, I don't understand.
You see what I'm saying?
Where the success changes with the administration and people's feelings.
So how do you determine consistently?
All right, Tom.
Let's hear from Deborah next.
Republican, South Bend, Indiana.
Good morning, Deborah.
Good morning.
How are you doing?
Good.
Okay, how I see it, Andrew.
Okay, all I want him to do, we got to be real careful how we go in and address this human rights.
If you can see the human rights policies, I'm not strong enough.
We need to tell these people, you cannot cut somebody's head off.
You cannot cut their fingers off.
You cannot cut their toes off.
It's got to be.
Okay.
And this is Representative Jason Crowe, a Democrat from Colorado.
He was on Face the Nation on Sunday criticizing the Trump administration's approach to the war.
Do you think the U.S. can end the war or whatever we're in with Iran right now without clearing that Strait of Hormuz?
Do you expect a return to combat?
Well, first of all, it's Iran that's blockading the Strait of Hormuz.
We're blockading their blockade.
I think the real question that we should all be asking is, does America really want to continue to have conflict in the Middle East for another 5, 10, 20 years?
The problem is, is that we have confused as a nation.
We have confused as a nation tactics versus strategy.
Most of the conversation around Iran is about tactics.
Should we blockade?
How do we counter drones?
Who is moving oil around where?
What is our strategy?
We spent trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan to replace the Taliban with the Taliban, in Iraq to replace Saddam Hussein with ISIS.
We are not good at having off-ramps and accomplishing large strategic decisions in the Middle East, right?
And this is just yet another example of that.
So let's actually talk strategy and what it is we're trying to accomplish here instead of having a constant discussion around blockades.
So when Secretary Hagseth was before your committee this week and he was asking for this one and a half trillion dollar budget request, are Democrats going to say no until they get those answers or do you have to fund the troops who are in harm's way?
Well, I'm just going to say no, regardless of what's going on in one area, because we don't need that money, right?
The Department of Defense has never passed an audit.
Never in the history of that department is the only government agency in the U.S. government.
Do you want to tell us how they're spending money?
We have already funded munition stockpiles amounts.
And what I am not going to do is continue the pattern, like we continue to Iraq and Afghanistan, of throwing good money after bad and constantly funding conflicts that never end and will not end up in a good result for America.
And what do you think of what Jason Crowe just said, Democrat of Colorado?
We will take your calls on the question: has the U.S. military action against Iran been successful?
But a quick update for you, because yesterday was primary day in a couple of places, so wanted to make sure you knew about the results of that.
This is the Associated Press takeaways from Indiana, Iowa, and Michigan.
Trump's flex pays off, and Democrats win special election.
Says that those elections reinforced a picture that is becoming increasingly clear.
While President Donald Trump still dominates the Republican Party, Democrats seem to have the momentum ahead of November's midterm elections.
Biggest test of Trump's power came in Indiana, where he backed primary challenges against seven Republican state senators who rejected his redistricting plan in December.
Five of the president's candidates won with the help of an avalanche of cash.
Meanwhile, in Michigan, a Democrat comfortably won a state Senate race in a Bellwether district, latest in a string of special election victories.
And over in Ohio, primaries locked in candidates for two major races with national implications.
You could read the rest of that in the Associated Press.
Back to our topic on Iran.
Larry in Houston.
Democrat, you're on the air.
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
No, we've never done nothing.
And I mean, as a combat version of the first Gulf War and the Zone, I had two kids fought in Afghan.
My daddy fought in Vietnam.
Grandfather fought in World War II.
I mean, when will it stop?
You know, we started most wars than any other country since World War II.
Backing Oppression Abroad00:15:21
And people have to stop going with the rhetoric.
You know, the boogeyman, oh, Iran will attack.
Do we even know why Iran did have sanctions on Iran?
Because they had a revolution that kicked out the Shah of Iran, who was a puppet to America.
So if we did a revolution, would you expect other countries to sanction us?
Because we want to change it in our country?
So, Larry, what do you make of the Iranian regime being brutal to their own people, but also being adversarial to the United States and to our allies in the region and the whole death to America chanting?
What do you think of that?
Well, I mean, we got to go like, again, we got to start with the propaganda.
You see, people don't understand.
In 80, I remember 1978, I was eight years old.
I remember when they kicked the Americans out and when they took the hostages.
Turning back 10 years later, well, 12 years later, I'm fighting in Iraq, the country that we funded Iran to fight against.
You know, so what the main thing is stop with the rhetoric.
These people here, you know, who got the most atomic weapons up in nuclear weapons up in the Middle East that nobody knows how much they have?
Israel.
You know, do you hear?
We hear that.
We hear the boogie, the boogeyman, oh, they got Iran, get a nuclear weapon, they're gonna go blow up America.
First of all, they can't reach America, people.
So y'all might as well stop with that rhetoric and stop believing that.
We heard the same thing with North Korea.
Have North Korea attacked America?
They got a nuclear one, a nuclear weapon.
Have they attacked?
People do not understand that.
First of all, if you send off a nuclear weapon, we send one off.
So there go your country.
All right, Larry, let's go to Missouri Independent Line.
Ron, what do you think?
I think everybody's in panic.
Just this morning on the business channel, they're saying oil is down to $89 a barrel.
So that means gas prices are going to be dropping.
You know, they never give Trump a chance.
Every time he does something, it's right off there.
If he gets to needs to just kill out a little bit, thank you.
All right.
And I mentioned a Wall Street Journal editorial, and I want to read you a portion of that and get your reaction to it.
This is from yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial.
It says this: When Iran runs out of oil storage, it will have to stop production, causing permanent damage.
Relying on imports, Iran also faces a gasoline crisis, which is politically combustible.
While Trump critics say Iran can hold on forever because it withstood sanctions in the past, the situations aren't comparable.
Iran has already lost some 40% of its GDP in two months.
No wonder Iranian businesses are closing.
Inflation is rising and the currency hit a new low.
Wednesday, down another 15% in two days.
All as the regime's costs rise from salaries to food and fuel subsidies.
Maybe the regime thinks it can hold out, but its resolve may not be as great as critics of the war suggest or hope in many cases, even in the U.S. Mr. Trump deserves credit for staying the course when so many around him are losing their nerve.
You can comment on that as well.
Here's Randy in Wisconsin, Republican.
Hi, Randy.
Good morning.
I tell you, that's the first time Wall Street Journal really said something that's truthful.
But Iran constantly said death to America, death to America.
The people, do you think they were lying?
Look at the underground tunnels and look at all the weapons that they stored up underground.
And they always said, well, we don't want, we're not doing nuclear weapon or have a nuclear bomb or nothing like that.
We'll come to find out.
They were constantly lying to the world.
And now they found them and they destroyed them.
Iran is not a nice child over there where I had to all of Khomeini or whoever the guy was, they were nothing but liars.
I mean, they were out to try to Take over all the oil and the world and everything else with all their weapons and their stoppers.
Regarding our question, you would say the U.S. military action has been successful?
Absolutely.
My goodness sakes.
So, what do we do at this point?
Do you think we stay the course?
I mean, are you going to be okay with the costs of the war, either in the price of gas or in the cost itself of the military action?
And for how long?
Well, yeah, hopefully it will not last much longer because Iran has got to make some kind of a consignment or a deal and give up their nuclear weapons.
That's a big thing they're trying to do.
And as far as doing what the United States is doing, keep it up because they've taken out all their military, you know, everything from the Navy.
They don't have nothing left to really defend themselves.
But we're not going to do, and you notice that Trump is not bombing the people.
Although Iran killed last month, killed 45,000 of their own because they were protesting against the regime.
Now, stop and think about what kind of country that is.
This has to be done.
The world is going to be much safer.
The Middle East is going to be much safer.
Everybody's going to come together.
And if you think you're going to get a Democrat on here today, that's going to be for Trump.
You've got another thing coming because everybody hates, they got the Trump syndrome.
All right, Randy, let's talk to Gene.
We are getting your comments on: has the U.S. military action against Iran been successful?
You can call us.
Gene is calling on the independent line in Yorktown, Virginia.
Good morning.
Good morning, America.
As a retired soldier, senior non-commissioned officer in the U.S. Army, who I'm not red, I'm not blue.
I am American.
I do go independent, but I am an American.
So I don't think that the reporter yesterday, I'll just stick to this point.
The reporter and Rubrio briefed, a reporter asked him one question.
So have we met our mission as far as in regard to their nuclear weapons?
Do they still have them?
Have we met that goal?
Because ultimately, I thought that was the goal of trying to strip them of their nuclear weapons.
And he couldn't answer it because we've lost a lot.
Now, there are jobs that have been created because in the federal government, defense contractors.
So people are making money, but the goal still hasn't been met.
So we've disrupted order over in the Middle East, over in the United States.
People are paying gas prices, and people talk about what the Irans do to their people.
But then, come on, look at what's happening in the United States.
Anytime we're fighting against each other, Democrat, Republicans, are we any better?
So, Gene, now that we've started, what do you think should be done?
Do we keep going until we achieve that objective of no nuclear weapons and getting that enriched uranium out of the country?
Personal pride is keeping them going back to what former President Obama and Biden had.
We need to let that country, every country has the right to defend themselves.
We need to go back to the agreement that was already in order in place prior to the dismantling.
Now, I'm not a Trump bashing.
Again, I'm not red, blue.
I'm an American.
So we need to go back to that arrangement that we had, that agreement that we had.
And if it takes Obama making that agreement with them, hey, do what's right for the American for America.
All right.
Gene, let's talk to, let's see Secretary Pete Hegseth.
He also gave a briefing yesterday.
He said this about Project Freedom.
Well, as you know, President Trump has directed U.S. Central Command to restart the free flow of commerce through the Strait of Hormuz under the umbrella of Project Freedom.
To be clear, this operation is separate and distinct from Operation Epic Fury.
Project Freedom is defensive in nature, focused in scope, and temporary in duration, with one mission, protecting innocent commercial shipping from Iranian aggression.
American forces won't need to enter Iranian waters or airspace.
It's not necessary.
We're not looking for a fight.
But Iran also cannot be allowed to block innocent countries and their goods from an international waterway.
Iran is the clear aggressor, harassing civilian vessels, threatening mariners from every nation indiscriminately, and weaponizing a critical choke point for its own financial benefit, or at least trying to.
For too long, Iran has been harassing ships, shooting at civilian tankers from all nations, and trying to impose a tolling system.
Iran's plan, a form of international extortion, is unacceptable.
That ends with Project Freedom.
Two U.S. commercial ships, along with American destroyers, have already safely transited the strait, showing the lane is clear.
We know the Iranians are embarrassed by this fact.
They said they control the strait.
They do not.
So American ships led the way, commercial and military, shouldering the initial risk from the front, as Americans always do.
And right now, hundreds more ships from nations around the world are lining up to transit.
Secretary Hagseth, yesterday afternoon, talking about Project Freedom, that has since been paused by the President.
He put that out on Truth Social yesterday evening, pausing that in hopes of getting a permanent agreement with Iran.
On the line for Democrats, Palm Coast, Florida.
Ira, you're on the air.
Yeah, good morning.
Well, my take on this, this affair that's going on in the Middle East, the United States is totally wrong, and they're biased.
There'll never be peace there until there are two states, the Palestinians.
This is all about the Palestinians and the Israelis.
And the United States has started this war.
They invaded Iran, and the states was never closed before.
Iran wasn't attacking any ships.
So the United States is coming from this thing from a racist point of view.
Until they free Palestine and put Palestine back as a country so those people can have their own self-determination, then there would be peace.
Until then, there won't be no peace because they've been there for you believe that it would just take a Palestinian state and not the complete destruction of Israel?
Because the Iranians are calling for death to Israel.
These people are sick and tired of this.
The Israelis and the common people and the Palestinians and the whole Middle East is sick and tired of this.
They're exhausted from this fighting and wars.
But the United States is backing this, and the American taxpayers have enriched one side and gave them a country and dismantle the Palestinian side and the Israeli people occupying and humiliating, disrespecting the Palestinian race of people.
And the United States is backing it.
The United States is backing oppression, dear.
The United States need to get out of it if they're going to go to the table, stop assassinating the leaders.
Because they're the same representatives, same as the president here, same as Netanyahu.
But the United States let those people assassinate those leaders and they went over and killed the Iranian leader.
Stop that.
Go and what did you do?
Take that weapon out of Israel, the nuclear weapon.
Then they'd have something to go to Iran and talk about and come to the table with.
All right, Iran.
Let's talk to Mark.
New York, Independent, you're on the air.
Good morning, Mimi.
It's amazing how some of your callers don't know any history.
Was this a success?
What we did is we disarmed a country that would have eventually gone into Israel.
We all know it.
Your previous callers just don't know history.
We took their weapons away.
We stopped them from sending over nuclear weapons wherever they would have eventually done, maybe not in our lifetime.
And yes, we didn't get the uranium.
We shot our arrow really high and we got a high mark.
All we have to do is get the straight open and leave.
And if it comes to a time they build up their missiles again, we do the same thing.
Okay, so you said, Mark, that we have disarmed them.
And of course, there's been a lot of damage done to their Navy, their Air Force, but they're still producing drones, which do a lot of damage to the area, to our Gulf allies.
And they're very cheap and they're being able to be produced very quickly.
So what do you say to that?
Well, what I say to that, part of the agreement, we tell them they can't do any more drones.
And we'll leave.
Let them have the uranium and let the next president worry about it.
Too many people are worried about things that are not going to happen or going to happen.
We've disarmed them.
We took their ability to hurt us away.
And as far as the people, this is coming back to Israel again.
And what people are saying about Netanyahu and Israel and genocide, it's just not true.
Why We Are There00:12:04
And thanks for taking my question.
Wait, Mark, before you go, though.
Before you go, so I just want to ask you: do you think it would be best right now to just say, look, open the strait and we'll go home?
And you would call that a success?
Yes, as long as they don't start with drones.
Yeah, I would call that when you take a test and you shoot for an A and you get a B. I'll take that.
I'll take that.
We didn't lose many people.
And, you know, the 13 we lost was very bad.
But yeah, that's a success.
All right.
They can't hurt Israel and they can't hurt us.
Thank you.
Got it.
Chrissy, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Hi.
I am thinking that it's been successful with Iran because I really think that they had ill intentions toward Israel, toward Europe, and eventually toward America.
And we needed to take things out before they became increasingly worse.
Thank you.
And Tom in Rock Island, Illinois, Independent Line.
You're on the air, Tom.
Thank you.
I'd like to start off with a couple of perspectives.
First off, I was a member of the military during the time of Vietnam.
I went because I listened to the same kind of rhetoric that's going on right now, and I believed it all.
Now, second.
Where'd you go?
Looks like we lost him.
Can you call us back?
Looks like your connection dropped there.
Robert, Indiana, Republican, you're on the air.
Yes, ma'am.
I believe President Trump should go ahead and do what he's got in mind.
Which is what?
There's these people worrying about the prices of gas, these baseball stadiums, football stadiums, music, all that.
They don't mind paying for that, but yet $4.50 worth of gas, they pay $1,000 for these tickets, you know.
It's crazy.
Let Trump do his job.
He's doing his job.
The Democrats will not work with him at all.
Not at all.
So what do you think?
Yeah, so Robert, what do you think should be the next step?
You know, our previous caller said, look, we've done what we need to do.
Let's just get that straight open and then go home.
Well, that's what Trump's trying to do.
So you agree with that?
Man, look what Biden did for four years.
He's got us.
That's right.
We got what we got right now.
People better wake up.
All right, Robert.
And let's take a look at a couple more numbers from that poll.
This, again, is Washington Post ABC's Ipsos poll.
And it was asked about military action in Iran.
Do you think it was a mistake?
So that's the question.
Do you think military action was a mistake?
61% of U.S. adults overall think this military action was a mistake.
Among those, 91% of Democrats, 19% of Republicans, but independents is at 71% consider military action against Iran a mistake.
So we're asking you, what do you think of that?
Let's hear from an independent.
Here's Rock Island, Illinois.
Tom, you're on the air.
What do you think?
Hi, I'm back.
Oh, there you are.
Good.
So you were saying you signed up for Vietnam.
Because I believed in rhetoric.
They're not dig into it and look deeper.
Now, am I to okay?
Here's the second perspective.
The situation in Iran really is very akin to what's going on in the Vatican.
We have a Pope, and the Vatican has its small, small army, consider a much larger animal.
Now, if we bomb the Vatican, if somebody bombed the Vatican and killed the Pope and destroyed all their army, does that change the Catholics?
Or does that make them enemies of whoever bombed their leader?
We're creating our own enemies.
Now, I'm only, is this a success?
Is this what we want as a success?
Okay, I'll end it there.
Please, people, think.
Thank you.
Doug in Fairfax, South Dakota.
Democrat, you're on the air.
Yeah, good morning, Morning.
And I like to really know what we accomplished over there other than spending $50 billion and run our gas prices way up.
And I don't understand why we're there, other than Israel is the one that's kind of wanting to do this, I believe.
And by my understanding, Israel's going to come in and finish the job that we don't do anyway, because look at what they're doing in Lebanon.
They're wiping it out just like Gaza, Southern Lebanon, they turn into Gaza over there, and they're destroying it totally.
Yeah, Doug, do you think there's been any benefit to the military action that the United States has undertaken in Iran?
No, I really don't, because what have they accomplished?
You know, if Iran is so bad, they could have had a dirty bomb and sent a dirty bomb a long time ago, but they have haven't.
And actually, by my understanding, we went into Iraq because of the information from Israel that they had a bomb there, supposedly.
But I don't see what we're accomplishing.
They're running our gas prices way up.
And this is Benjamin's war.
You know it is, and we all know it is.
But the Israel lobby has got a lot of power in this country.
And you guys even bring that, what is it, FDDC or whatever they are?
They're on there all the time.
And that's by Wippopedia.
That's actually kind of an Israel lobby.
They're a nationality, so I don't know.
We never hear the other side.
The networks never say nothing.
But if you go like BBC, they show what's happening over there, but American networks don't.
So I don't know.
It's total waste of money, and we're doing it all for Israel.
All right, Doug.
And this is Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island.
He was on ABC over the weekend talking about the potential for more strikes.
Here he is.
Do you believe a new round of strikes is imminent?
Well, they're certainly positioned for strikes.
That's what a military force has to be.
Again, one of the things that's so confounding in this whole situation is I don't believe the president has a plan.
I think it's impulsive.
It's day-to-day.
It's how he feels.
And he's not being given, I think, the support and the planning that is necessary to make judicious judgments.
So this is like a minute-to-minute what's ever in the president's head at the time, and that's not a pathway to success.
Secretary Hegseth told your committee that the administration doesn't need congressional authorization to continue the war past 60 days because the clock pauses because of the ceasefire.
President Trump has essentially said the same.
Do you agree with that?
No, no.
The language of the statutes does not provide for timeouts like in a football game.
From the day you begin, 60 days, the president has to comply with the law.
There can be a 30-day extension to 90 days, but that has to be requested by the president.
We have to be notified.
No such notifications come through.
The president's ignoring the law.
He does that constantly.
This is not the first example where he just completely ignores the law.
And we have to keep the pressure on.
In contrast to President Trump, at least President Bush came before the United States Congress and asked for authority to conduct operations in Iraq.
Now, I disagree with that.
I thought it was going to be a disastrous situation.
But nevertheless, he provided Congress the opportunity to opine and decide and gave him legitimacy that this president lacks.
Back to the phones, John, in California, Independent Line.
What do you think?
Has U.S. military action against Iran been successful?
Good morning.
Yeah, tactically, perhaps.
Strategically, not at all, because the strategy seems to change.
And one of the, first off, Iran didn't have a nuclear weapon.
I mean, they're suspected of having getting close to a nuclear weapon weapon, but a number of callers has said we have to take the nuclear weapons away from them to destroy them.
The strategy has changed because there have been a few different operations.
First, we went off and bombed the sites where the nuclear operations were happening.
That didn't succeed fully.
It wasn't completely wiped out.
The strategy was that it would be over in a few weeks, and it's been over two months now.
The strategy seems to be aligned with the same way that this government has gone toward attacked our institutions, you know, just with, you know, Musk going up and just firing everybody.
And then if that didn't work, you go at him legally.
And as was just mentioned by the last speaker, that, you know, he hasn't gone legally at this thing as a strategic force.
Now, we have a Navy that's falling behind in quantity with China's Navy.
But the quality of our Navy is greater, but quality is catching up with the Chinese.
And they intend to take Taiwan.
They've said it so much.
I don't know when their timeline was, 27, 2027.
Yeah, that's what I heard as well.
We're stretched very thin in that regard.
And we've been exposing our neighbors to showing what we can do and what we can't do.
If the strategy is to open the Strait of Hormuz, I don't know how people and the market and everybody gets so excited.
Operation Freedom, the Strait of Hormuz is not open.
And we've heard this story before that there's talks and they're positive and they're going to happen.
You know, we're putting a lot of money out for and exhausting a lot of assets as far as our missiles, our munitions, the cost of the war, and some, you know, a lot of people have been killed in this thing.
But I'm paying $6 and change.
They keep saying $4.
It's $6 and change here, and that's a regular price here in California.
Now, for those people that say, well, California is a democratic state and they deserve it because they tax the gas and all that, but the United States military is they're trying to get another, I don't know, a trillion dollars, trillion and a half dollars for that.
And as was said by the Republic, the representative that this is we went to Iraq to replace Afghanistan to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
It just seems like there is no real strategy.
No Real Strategy Exists00:13:26
And how much longer can this go on until we've exhausted our ability to fight three wars?
That's what the military is supposed to be, fight three engagements around the world.
And we've got our hands full with one here.
All right, John.
And this is an exclusive from Axios from this morning.
U.S. and Iran closing in on one-page memo to end war.
According to officials, it says the White House believes it is getting close to an agreement with Iran on a one-page memorandum of understanding to end the war and set a framework for more detailed nuclear negotiations.
It says the U.S. expects Iranian responses on several key points in the next 48 hours.
Nothing has been agreed yet, but the sources said this was the closest the parties had been to an agreement since the war began.
Among other provisions, the deal would involve Iran committing to a moratorium on nuclear enrichment, the U.S. agreeing to lift its sanctions and release billions in frozen Iranian funds, and both sides lifting restrictions around transit through the Strait of Hormuz.
Many of the terms laid out in the memo would be contingent on a final agreement being reached, leaving the possibility for a renewed war or an extended limbo in which the hot war has stopped, but nothing is truly resolved.
It says, Reality check, the White House believes the Iranian leadership is divided, and it may be hard to forge consensus around the different factions.
Some U.S. officials remain skeptical that even an initial deal will be reached.
You can read the rest of that at Axios.
And this is Richard, Republican in South Carolina.
Hi, Richard.
Good morning.
Morning.
So the question is militarily, I do believe we've been successful militarily.
Correct.
We've destroyed their delivery capabilities as far as nuclear bomb.
Basically, they were close to getting one, I believe, with the enriched uranium.
I believe back in June or July of last year when Bomb made the run and bombed the facilities, and then they didn't negotiate.
He realized that there was no way they were ever going to negotiate and turn over what they had.
So, yes, I do believe we destroyed basically their military capacity.
We've got to remember they're a terrorist organization operating as a government.
If you'd taken a poll back in 1939 to 1940 with the American people, 99.9% would have said, do not get involved in World War II.
They would have been exactly wrong.
And that's why I think that when someone says they want to destroy your company, I mean your country, you got to believe them.
And if they have a nuclear bomb, they will.
But that's my feelings, Tony.
All right, Richard.
And this is Mohammed in Washington, D.C., independent.
Go ahead, Mohammed.
Good morning.
No, definitely it's not a success for many reasons.
And we keep saying here, Iran, they want to attack us.
Whenever they run, they want to attack us.
Why we don't go back to 1953?
We destroyed your democracy.
We bring Shah to them.
And then everything else they happened.
Why are we not talking about we killed 290 Iranians?
No.
Donald Trump did destroy United States reputation.
I'm as an American citizen today.
I still travel to the Middle East.
Why?
They disclaim reputation.
Even we're going to lose all our allies in the Middle East because nobody trusts us anymore.
No one trusts America anymore.
Donald Trump is his advocate.
So, Mohammed, you said that Iran's never attacked us, but they certainly have attacked us, sometimes directly or through their proxies.
To win.
Who started from the beginning?
We started the whole thing.
So if you start, you choose to attack me.
Of course, I'm not saying Iran is a terrorist organization, 100%.
But it is not my issue how they rule their country.
I don't like Donald Trump.
Doesn't mean I want somebody else here to come here to tell me who is going to be my president or who rules the United States.
Of course not.
I'm going to be the first one to stand in front of him and tell him no.
And, Mohammed, what do you think should happen now?
Should the U.S. just kind of declare victory and leave, just make sure that the strait gets opened, and then that's enough, and that that's what I think.
I don't really want to tell you because everything now is messed up.
Already we started.
Do we should finish it?
I don't know.
I really, it's very confusing.
It's very confusing.
I don't really know.
But if he say victory, no, we did it.
Actually, we lose everything.
Most important we lost is out of vocation.
We're not trying to give it a democracy.
What's the difference between Iranian government and Saudi Arabia government who killing the people in embassy?
What's the difference between Saudi Arabia government and Israel who occupy four different countries?
No, we don't care about democracy.
We just sit in here, lie to our citizen.
We're not watching the news.
We don't know what's going on outside.
Just Donald Trump is going to tell us everybody's a tourist.
He's the number one tourist guy.
All right.
Let's talk to Irene Des Moines, Iowa, Democrat.
You're on the air, Irene.
I think he ought to just get out.
He's just made a big mess.
He spent a lot of money.
He's got a Congress for a reason, but he doesn't use it.
I think he has ADHD.
My biggest thing is I think he ought to replace the East Wing, and he pays for and build his ballroom somewhere else.
I was just destroyed when I found out that he, that is our people.
That's our people.
That's our building, not his.
He's just awful.
That's all.
All right, Irene.
And I want to show you another portion of Secretary Rubio's press conference yesterday.
This is what he said about why the U.S. believes or the administration believes that the Iranians can never have a nuclear weapon.
Here he is.
Think about it this way.
Everybody needs to think about it this way.
If Iran had a nuclear weapon and they decided to close the straits and make our gas prices like $9 a gallon or $8 a gallon, we wouldn't be able to do anything about it because they have a nuclear weapon.
And a nuclear-armed Iran could do whatever the hell they want with the straits, and there's nothing anyone would be able to do about it.
And that's one of the many reasons, apart from like the massive loss of life in a nuclear strike, why Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.
That was Secretary Rubio.
I wonder what you think of that argument.
Here's Dawn in Eugene, Oregon, Republican.
Hi, Don.
Hey there.
That was fast.
And I'm trying to get the thing on mute.
There we go.
So U.S. military action against Iran successful is the prompt.
Absolutely not.
There should not have been any U.S. military action against Iran.
Two things I hope to remind people of, because I heard a couple people also say that Iran had nuclear weapons.
They need to give up their nuclear weapons.
That's just bullpucky.
They had a nuclear program.
They had every right to have a nuclear program as a member of the non-proliferation treaty since the 1970s.
They had no nuclear weapons.
I wish, Mimi, that you would be able to correct people.
But a nuclear, they had a nuclear weapons program.
Yeah, and not a nuclear energy program.
After we bombed Iraq on fake pretenses, the new president, Ahmadinejad, used to say nuclear program.
And CNN actually was banned from reporting there.
You might remember this because you were a teacher, correct?
No, I've never been a teacher.
Oh, I thought you were a professor.
No, sorry.
Prior to this job.
Anyway, this is the first time we've spoken, but I want to remind people, look it up.
I hope it's not gone down the memory hole.
But CNN was actually banned from reporting there because every time Ahmadinezad said nuclear program, their reporting would use the word weapons.
These neocons were drumming up war against Iran, obviously, back then also.
And then I also wanted, we've been vilifying them ever since, but especially the last dozen years, the last eight years, prior to Trump when he killed, murdered Soleimani, we started calling them the greatest state sponsor of terrorism, ad nauseum.
Well, they haven't really provided proof.
And back when the Beirut, the Marine Barracks happened that now we attribute solely to Iran, we're just propagandizing Americans again.
We're duping our public is so easy to pro so Don, as a Republican, were you in support of President Trump up until the attack on Iran?
I was I voted for Trump three times.
I immediately went on the first term when he pulled us out of the JCPOA, I was off the Trump train, I called it.
He still, in my opinion, was our best candidate back then, but I did not approve.
He promised me no neocons.
He immediately put Bolton and that pudgy guy, I forget who I can't think of who he is.
So I was off the Trump train.
You know, time goes on.
I saw how the neoliberals and the neocons were, and the media were constantly attacking Trump.
And I kept atop of that.
Anyway, so I was pro-Trump to as much as you can be.
I mean, you have to support your president.
And I never thought that he would actually attack Iran.
And Americans are truly the last people to see the U.S. and Israel as two separate countries.
We are not.
Here's Steve in Illinois, line for Democrats.
Hi, Steve.
Good morning, Mimi.
Your program is about educating the viewers.
And I was wondering if you might help me out here.
The reason I don't think it's been successful is because we've done nothing to reduce the amount of missiles that are underneath the mountains all over Iran.
They can come out and hit all their neighbors with ballistic missiles anytime they want.
So I don't see how you could call it a success when they can close the strait and use their ballistic missiles, thousands of ballistic missiles, and their drones.
If you could bring up missile cities and just show a picture to your viewers of what a missile city looks like, it's 1,500 feet below granite mountains with super strong concrete core.
They'll be in there for a thousand years and you won't get them out.
It's been a total failure.
Thank you, Mimi.
Yeah, Steve, I will try to find more information about their ballistic missile program.
And here is Tony in Texas Independent.
Good morning.
Yes, how are you doing?
I'm doing okay.
Remind people that Donald Trump tow up the nuclear deal with Iran that Obama had.
So he gave them seven to eight years, seven to eight years to do their program.
Everybody want to say they had the weapon.
They just, he gave it to them.
Do you think he did?
All right, Tony.
Hello?
Yep.
I said, yeah, he toe up the deal.
So if you give them seven to eight years, don't you think they have plenty of time to move and rebuild?
Okay.
Is that that's what you think?
No, that's cruel facts.
He tore up the deal in his first term, right?
But when he tore up the deal, so you count them years that they had no inspections, nobody looking, and now he bomb them the first time and tell them, oh, thank you for letting us know that you're sending missiles over here.
What commander in chief do that?
Thank the people for bombing us.
Come on, now tell the truth and shame the devil.
Thank you.
Alan in Brooklyn, New York.
Democrat, you're on the air.
Putin Gains From Chaos00:03:47
Good morning.
If there's any success here, the one it's successful for is Mr. Putin and Russia in so many ways.
First of all, their brutal war in Ukraine looks less brutal and less aggressive because he has gotten his friend Trump to make and threaten wars all over.
In addition to threatening wars against Canada and Greenland, he's made wars against Venezuela and Iran.
And it makes Putin's aggression look less awful.
In addition, Iran and Trump both have relationships with Putin.
They're both being induced to do things that are not good for either of them because neither the U.S. nor Iran is really gaining by having Hormuz traffic blocked.
But the only one who is gaining is a man who runs oil sources from Russia, which do not go through the Gulf of Hormuz.
So they're not only having more demand for the oil that is escaping the blockage in Hormuz, the price of oil that they're selling at is raised, and the sanctions that had blocked them from selling altogether have been lifted by Trump because people need the oil to replace what's being lost in Hormuz.
In addition, I think by making people believe that Israel is to blame for Trump starting the war, Mr. Putin has a greater chance of keeping his friends in power in the U.S. because every time there's more strife in Israel, the Democrats are very divided over that, and it makes them have a harder time maintaining power in Congress and the next presidential election.
So Putin is the winner here in so many ways.
So Alan, do you know how much Putin has made from increased oil sales and the price of oil?
Have you seen that?
I don't know exactly, but I think it's in the order of billions of additional because he was not able to sell anything while there were Ukraine sanctions in place.
And once those were lifted because people needed the oil, there is less supply coming out of Hormuz, so more people have to go to him.
So I think it's billions of dollars of additional income to Russia, which is helping him support the war effort and helping him buy more drones from Iran.
And again, the U.S. having its blockade on Iran and Iran having its blockade on the U.S. and Europe doesn't benefit either of them.
He's the only one winning from that whole maneuver.
All right.
All right, Alan.
And a former caller asked about missile cities.
So we found this on the Wall Street Journal.
Here it is.
Iran's underground, quote, missile cities have become one of its biggest vulnerabilities.
It says U.S. and Israeli aircraft are circling over the subterranean bases, destroying missile launchers as they emerge to fire.
This article from yesterday says Iran spent decades constructing underground bunkers to shield its vast missile arsenal from destruction.
Less than a week into the war with its two most powerful adversaries, the strategy is beginning to look like a blunder.
U.S. and Israeli warplanes and armed drones are circling over the dozens of cavernous bases, striking missile-carrying launchers when they emerge to fire.
Meanwhile, waves of heavy bombers have dropped munitions on the sites, apparently entombing the Iranian weapons below ground in some locations.
You can see that at the Wall Street Journal from March, actually.
Sorry, I told you it was from yesterday.
No, this was March 5th, not May 5th.
So that was from two months ago.
Bridging The Political Divide00:03:36
Well, a little later in the program, we will have for you the Daily Signal executive editor Robert Bluey.
He will weigh in on President Trump's relationship with the media.
But first, after the break, Concord Coalition Executive Director and former Democratic Representative Carolyn Bordeaux discusses the U.S. debt surpassing GDP for the first time since World War II.
Stay with us.
Best ideas and best practices can be found anywhere.
We have to listen so we can govern better.
Democracy depends on heavy doses of civility.
You can fight and still be friendly.
Bridging the divide in American politics.
You know, you may not agree with the Democrat on everything, but you can find areas where you do agree.
He's a pretty likable guy as well.
Chris Coons and I are actually friends.
He votes wrong all the time, but we're actually friends.
A horrible secret that Scott and I have is that we actually respect each other.
We all don't hate each other.
You two actually kind of like each other.
These are the kinds of secrets we'd like to expose.
It's nice to be with a member who knows what they're talking about.
You guys did agree to the civility, all right?
He owes my son $10 from a bad person.
He's never paid for it.
He'll fork it over.
That's fighting words right there.
I'm glad I'm not in charge.
I'm thrilled to be on the show with him.
There are not shows like this, right?
Incentivizing that relationship.
Ceasefire, Friday nights on C-SPAN.
Get C-SPAN wherever you are with C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy, live and on demand.
Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
Catch the latest episodes of Washington Journal.
Find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV and radio networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
The C-SPAN Now app is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
Download it for free today.
C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
Staying informed is essential.
The C-SPAN shop has the apparel to match your civic energy.
Premium t-shirts, hats, and drinkwear.
Everyday favorites for those passionate about politics through C-SPAN.
There's something for every C-SPAN fan.
And every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
Shop now or anytime online at C-SPANShop.org.
Gear up for engagement.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
Joining us to talk about the U.S. debt is Carolyn Bordeaux.
She is executive director of both the Concord Coalition and the Concord Coalition Action Fund.
Carolyn, welcome to the program.
Good to be here.
So remind us about what the Concord Coalition is and what the mission is.
So Concord Coalition has been around since 1992 and it has long been devoted to trying to bring about fiscal responsibility, get to a balanced budget, bring the federal debt kind of under control.
And so that is the project that we're working on.
Concorde was very successful back in the 1990s.
We did have a balanced budget in 1999 through 2001.
Fiscal Dominance Risks00:15:25
But then we lost focus, didn't we?
We lost focus as a nation and now people are really getting concerned about where we are.
And so we are back on the path of trying to raise the alarm about what's going on with the debt and deficit.
You do mention the debt and the deficit.
Sometimes people use those two interchangeably.
Explain the difference.
Okay, so the deficit is our annual shortfall.
We spend $7 trillion a year.
We bring in $5 trillion a year in revenues.
And that difference, that $2 trillion difference, is our deficit.
And every year, that then adds to our debt.
And our debt is approaching $39 trillion.
By the end of this year, it will be $40 trillion.
And one of the things you've noted is that the publicly held debt, so this is not the debt in the Social Security Trust Fund, but publicly held debt, is now the same as the U.S. economy.
And that's a real benchmark for people that it is getting out of control.
It is going to be a potentially serious economic problem going forward.
And that 100% number.
So the amount that the U.S. economy is producing is the same amount as we owe.
In essence, yes, right?
So if you were to liquidate our entire economy, right, that was what it would take to pay off our national debt.
And why is that a bad thing?
I know that sounds like a simple question.
Most people would understand that, that it's a challenge.
So I often try to put this in terms of like a family budget of some sort.
So, you know, it's roughly a family making $70,000 a year, but having a credit card balance of $500,000, right?
So in essence, it is an amount of debt.
If you were a family, you would probably be bankrupt, right?
But we're the U.S. economy.
We are very strong.
We're powerful.
So it doesn't bankrupt us in that kind of way.
But what it starts to do is really put pressure on interest rates.
It starts to put pressure on inflation.
And it creates a really serious long-term drag on our economic health and growth.
And who do we owe that money to?
That's a good question.
We owe a lot of it to ourselves.
About 20% is owed to other countries.
So Japan, Europe, China, countries like that do buy our debt.
It used to be a much larger percentage of our total debt, but that has gone down as a lot of them have kind of disinvested in that.
And so now it is held by large institutional investors.
Probably most Americans have it in their pension fund, you know, have some form of holding of U.S. treasuries and securities.
We've got a question about the U.S. national debt, about the budget deficit.
Now's your chance to call and ask that question to Carolyn Bordeaux, our guest.
She is going to be with us taking your calls.
Start calling now.
Democrats are on 202, 748, 8,000.
Republicans 202, 748, 8001.
And Independents 202, 748, 8,002.
Now, you know, in the case of a family, let's say if you owe money, eventually you're going to have to pay that back to the bank.
Is there going to be a time when we have to pay the money back?
So I tell folks, it's not like somebody's going to come and say, by the way, here is a receipt for $100,000, which is your share of the national debt.
The way that countries end up paying back a lot of this kind of debt is through inflation often.
It is through really high interest rates.
And that is the real concern about what is going to happen.
It's funny, I was just in spring break in Argentina.
And this is a country that knows a few things about inflation.
And we are all concerned about 3% annual inflation.
I was talking to the Uber drivers there, the taxi drivers, and they were like, we are really grateful because our inflation is only 3% a month right now.
So we're worried about 3% a year.
They're at 3% a month.
They are at that because they have an enormous amount of debt, right?
And it's very, very, what starts to happen is it gets out of control.
It starts to push that inflation up.
But I mean, that's Argentina.
Could that happen to the United States?
We've already seen this inflation start to affect us, right?
So during the Biden administration, we were hitting around 8% inflation, and that really is starting to put pressure on prices of everyday goods, of all the things we care about.
The other thing is that interest rates, so if you want to buy a home, if you want to start a business, those interest rates are going up.
They are directly pegged to the interest that we pay on our national debt.
And those are the kind of things that make it hard for young people to get ahead, for them to have that kind of bright future that we have come to expect in this country.
I want to show a graph, to put this in historical perspective, from your organization, the headline of your graph from Concord Coalition, the U.S. has no plan to bring the debt under control.
And this shows from 1900 to projecting out to 2050 about the debt held by the public as a percent of GDP.
Again, we mentioned that it just reached last week at 100%.
Here it is at World War II, which probably none of us remember, that having reached there, it went down a little bit of ups.
We've got the Great Recession, and then we've got a peak here at COVID-19, but then it just keeps on going.
Right.
So that's really the challenge here, is that Congress has no plan to close that $2 trillion deficit.
In fact, every proposal they've been putting on the table is making that gap wider and wider and is adding more and more to our almost $40 trillion in debt.
And so step one, when you're in a hole, is to stop digging it deeper.
And right now, our national government, it is Democrats, it is Republicans, neither side is putting a plan on the table to start closing that gap.
And eventually, it does catch up with you.
Eventually, you do hit the wall.
When you hit that kind of wall, it creates a very, very serious fiscal and economic crisis.
And we don't want to have that experience.
It would be very devastating.
In Argentina, one of the reasons you look at them is they have experienced that kind of devastating crisis that we will eventually hit if we keep going down this path.
In addition to controlling spending, there's also the revenue side.
So I want to talk about that, but let's first hear from President Trump.
He talked about the tax refunds from the One Big Beautiful bill.
He was in the Oval Office on Thursday.
So the biggest tax cut in history is in the Great Big Beautiful bill.
And I think, you know, I see it.
I actually see it reported where people are shocked at how much money they're making.
They can't believe the refunds that they're making.
$5,000, $6,000, $7,800, $9,000.
I saw one last night on television, $11,000 more than she thought she was going to get.
And it's no tax on tips and no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security for our seniors, no tax on social, nobody can believe it even.
And the numbers are far greater than they thought.
People that thought they were going to make an extra $500, turns out they're making an extra $5,000.
So it's been really great.
And that's going to carry forward.
Look, the country's doing really well.
And that's despite a military operation.
I don't call it a war.
Would you rather have a military operation?
So lot there.
He called it the biggest tax cut in history.
And does that impact the debt negatively?
Because the argument on the other side of that is that it spurs growth.
So any tax cut will be offset by a bigger economy.
So the One Big Beautiful bill was an enormous hit to our debt.
It's going to add $4.7 trillion to our debt.
And recall, we're about to hit $40 trillion over the next 10 years.
We're going to add another $24 trillion to that.
And of that, around $4 trillion, more than $4 trillion of that, is from the One Big Beautiful bill.
So when people, we all love a tax cut.
I love a tax cut.
But what people need to realize is not so much a tax cut as a cash advance on the national credit card.
So really what they're doing is taking from the future and enjoying it today.
And we need to be aware of that, that that has very real implications.
So this debt, it competes with other investment priorities, right?
So you can choose whether to put your money into treasuries or into supporting mortgages or small business loans or other types of capital investment that make our economy grow.
When you put it into treasuries, it is not making our economy grow.
It is pulling it away from more productive uses of capital.
It's a sucking sound out of our economy going into just financing this enormous bloated debt that we have.
So, you know, public officials aren't going to be calling for higher taxes and cuts to programs that people rely on.
They get to lose their job if they do that.
So where does that leave us?
We just, we need to really open the national dialogue around getting the fiscal situation under control.
We are a wealthy country.
We can do this, but we are going to have to make some choices like you were describing.
We are going to have to take a sip from each cup.
We're going to have to cut some of our spending, certainly, and we are going to have to tackle revenues.
There are ways to do this in a reasonable way, but we are going to have to do that.
And we need people in the public to start pushing our elected officials to get there.
And that is one of the challenges we're trying to take on here at Concord Coalition.
Well, let's talk to some of the American public and start with Kevin in West Lafayette, Indiana, Republican.
Kevin, good morning.
Good morning.
Dr. Brudeau, you've been successful at the local, state, and federal level working on budget issues and solving them successfully.
And now at the Concord group, have you, what have you seen that you think is almost like low-hanging fruit, something that could work for both sides, for both parties, and would kickstart an effort towards the reduction in our national debt?
Have you seen anything that stands out?
Thank you for that question.
So first, I come from a state background, which is interesting.
So I was a budget director in Georgia during the Great Recession.
And so I have seen legislators on a bipartisan basis make really tough choices.
The tough choices we were just talking about to get the budget under control and balanced.
So I have a lot of confidence that it can be done.
Elected officials can make tough choices.
And they can do it in a way that the public understands because they have to address this kind of crisis.
There are several pieces of legislation out there that we are hopeful can get some traction.
One is a fiscal commission act.
And it's not just a commission, it is a group of bipartisan legislators getting together, putting some real proposals on the table, getting in front of the House and the Senate for an up or down vote.
So that, I think, is a very important piece of legislation out there and really encourage everyone listening to reach out to your members of Congress and ask them to sign on to that.
There's also legislation to establish a 3% benchmark.
And it's 3% of deficit, 3% of GDP, which would cut the deficit in half, so from $2 trillion down to $1 trillion.
We need to take on challenges like this in order to get to balance.
And so that is another piece of legislation that we're really encouraging all the members of Congress and senators to sign on to.
You mentioned that the last time we had a balanced budget was between 1999 and 2001.
Right.
What was happening during that time that allowed the budget to be balanced?
And obviously we know what happened in 2001 was the terror attacks and the launch of the so-called global war on terror.
Right.
So we did have a booming economy at the time.
It was the Clinton era.
We had the tech info technology booming.
But also that balance came from a series of very hard choices that legislators made, that the president made.
So starting with George Bush, number one, he made a series of really tough choices and cut some deals with Democrats.
And they passed from that.
And then Clinton came.
He made a series of very tough choices.
You had the Republican Congress made some tough choices.
And by doing that, plus getting lucky a bit with having a booming economy, they were able to bring the budget into balance.
And we need to start a similar process where we are trying to bring this under control.
Michael in Maryland, Democrat, you're on the air.
Hey, good morning.
My question was about like the politics of it all with the debt and the deficit.
And so when the Republicans are in power, or when they're not in power, like when Democrats are in control, it's very easy for Republicans to say, hey, look at the debt and deficit.
This is why we need to cut social programs, blah, blah, blah.
But when they're in control, the whole conversation goes away and military spending ramps up and tax cuts happen.
And that's consistently across multiple presidencies, the same kind of push and pull game.
And so my only concern is now that the debt is at its highest and the Republicans are really responsible for a good portion of it.
When the Democrats do take back power, they're not going to be able to do, they're going to be like handcuffed by the debt.
Like none of the initiatives that they want to do, especially on the social side, it'll be like, oh, they're spending all this money.
Look at the debt, look at the deficit.
This is why we can't do the health care and some of the things to take care of the American people.
And so any thoughts on that?
Yes.
So I hear your frustration.
And as a former Democratic member of Congress, when I would go to my own caucus and say we need to address these issues, they would turn to me and say, well, you know, the debt and deficit is only something that Republicans care about when they're not in power.
And it is extremely frustrating that they get in.
They're talking about debt and deficit, but then they added $4.7 trillion to the debt.
They're talking about adding another $500 billion to Department of Defense.
All I can say is that Concord is equal opportunity.
We want the budget to move to balance.
And when Republicans are in power, we ask for them to do it.
When Democrats are in power, we ask for them to do it.
One point I do want to make, which is that, you know, we are all in this boat together.
Balancing The National Budget00:15:07
And one of the real challenges is if we hit the wall, if we hit a point where all of a sudden the debt and deficits start to really dominate our economy, this is something called fiscal dominance.
And it's a point at which the Federal Reserve can really no longer intervene in ways to help balance out inflation and interest rates.
That point of fiscal dominance, you know, we're not exactly sure how that would play out in our economy, but most likely it will come with some form of significant inflation combined with high interest rates.
And the people who will be hurt the most are working families, people like you and me, working class.
It is a social justice issue to address the debt and deficit.
And I do want to convey that to Democrats, right?
It's not that your constituencies aren't going to lose if we hit this crisis.
So it really is a problem that all of us need to address.
And when it comes to funding cuts, isn't it working families that are going to end up paying for that with less services?
Because we've got discretionary spending and we've got non-discretionary.
And I just want to show another chart from your organization saying Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are expected to drive expenditure growth.
So that's really what we're spending the majority of the budget on is these expenditures.
Right.
So if you were to imagine our budget is a pie and cut it in half, half of that pie is Medicare, Social Security, and interest on the debt.
So just one point there.
You know, a lot of times Republicans say we have a spending problem.
Well, we do, but it's not what you think it is, right?
It is increasing health care costs.
It is an aging population.
And the fastest growing part of the debt is the interest payments that we're making on the debt.
Our interest payments now exceed our spending on national defense.
So that is a serious problem that's putting a lot of pressure on our domestic priorities.
That being said, there are three issues we have to tackle.
One is Social Security, which by 2032, the trust fund, the Social Security Trust Fund, will run out of money.
And that will precipitate, just under law, Congress would have to do something to change it, it would precipitate a 28% across-the-board cut.
The Medicare Trust Fund is going to run out of money.
In around 2033, that will precipitate a 11% across-the-board cut.
So those two programs, we need to do something in there.
There are alternatives to just cutting benefits for middle-class families.
The other thing we need to address is revenues, right?
And I think everybody will admit behind closed doors, you know, I know it's hard to come out in front, that revenues also need to be on the table.
So there is a menu of options out there, some of which, you know, may we have the tax the wealthy type options.
There are things like that that can be in the mix here.
But I do think in the end of the day, the scale of our problem is so large that it will come down to us middle-class families having to do some of the lifting here.
Mark in Tulsa, Oklahoma Independent, you're on with Carolyn Bordeaux.
Hey, Mimi, how's it going?
Hello, American people.
Hi, Carolyn.
It's interesting to hear you talk about the national debt.
You know, you said that 20% of people outside outside influence owns it, and 80% of U.S. citizens own it.
Well, this is what I say.
This is what I say.
Well, first of all, there's a lot of Americans that own interest in, I mean, every country on the planet's a national debt.
And who are they into?
Who are all these national governments into debt with?
They're in debt to the fat cats of the world.
That's who they're in debt to, ultimately.
And then they write these laws and trickle it down to our local governments.
I mean, if you look up the chart on the national debt, U.S. people, you'd understand that it's just a game.
It's a hypnosis.
Like I drove into Cleveland, Ohio a couple years ago, and they have a national debt checker as you drive into the metropolitan area of Cleveland.
And guess who was from Cleveland?
Rockefeller.
Rockefeller was from Cleveland.
You understand?
And then if you go all over the United States, you see J.P. Morgan buildings throughout the skylines of every big city in the United States.
Fat cats run this game, Caroline.
Let's tell the people, and I'll tell you how we feel.
So then, Mark, what would your question be then for our guest?
I don't have a question.
I have a comment because all she's doing is talking about, hey, let's influence our politicians.
Let's get them thinking about this.
Guys, keep believing in this horrible government.
We got it, Mark.
Let's get a response.
I'm happy to respond to that.
Yeah.
So I think there is a sense among people that there's a lot of unfairness in the system.
And what you're talking about is that sense that some people are not really paying their fair share.
And when we are here to try to tackle this problem, we're going to have to start out by kind of putting those issues on the table, right, and having a very robust national discussion about it.
You know, are people paying their fair share?
Before you come to middle-class families to ask them to chip in more, and we are going to have to do some of that.
But before you come to them and ask for that, I think one of the preconditions is establishing that we do have fairness in our tax code.
And there are a lot of folks out there on both sides of the aisle now who are saying, wait, this is not fair.
We have extremely wealthy people.
Are they really chipping in what they should be?
So that is something that needs to be out there.
I do think there's another thing that we need to be thinking about, which is efficiency.
If you're like me, before someone were to come to me and say, hey, I want to raise your taxes, I would say, gosh, where is that money going to go?
Is it just going to go into a bottomless pit of federal spending?
So I think establishing that the money is being spent as efficiently as possible.
Now, we'll never be perfectly efficient.
There are always going to be problems.
But thinking about, you know, ways to really be clear that we have no other place to go.
We are going to have to find ways to raise revenues.
Just to give you a sense of scale, though, I think this is important for people to understand because we do talk a lot about the wealth tax, a very, very robust wealth tax, kind of some of the best case scenarios, assuming that people don't try to flee the tax.
That might bring in, and again, this is very robust, $400 billion a year, unlikely to get to that level.
But we have a $2 trillion annual deficit.
So $400 billion would take a big chunk out of that.
That might be something we want to have on the table, but it will not get us all the way there.
And that's why we also have to circle back and say, okay, we all might have to chip in a little bit more to get this problem under control.
And regarding fraud, the president had said, this is from PolitiFact, on January 13th in a speech in Detroit, if we stop this fraud, this massive fraud, we're going to have a balanced budget.
And PolitiFact rated that as false, but I wanted you to weigh in on that.
Right, yes.
Unfortunately, yes, there's no easy way through here.
You look at what Doge was able to accomplish.
I think people estimate best case scenario, maybe $100 billion a year, but more likely maybe $40 billion, right?
And again, that's up against $2 trillion annual deficits, right?
So fraud is important, right?
It's important for reestablishing trust, that when you put your taxpayer dollars down, they are going for good purposes.
They are being spent efficiently.
But it's not going to balance the budget.
Let's talk to Bill in New Jersey Independent.
Go ahead, Bill.
You're on the air.
Hi, good to see you both today.
I guess I have a question for Carolyn.
You know, so many of the recent elections have been focused on all sorts of issues that are, I would say, wedge issues rather than issues like the national debt and Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security spending.
How do we get the public to engage on understanding that the national debt is a real problem?
I've been following the Concord Coalition for over 26 years now.
And that's when the deficit was at record lows.
But we still had problems.
The first thing that came up in the 2000s was the Medicare Part D, which is a great program, kind of, except that there was no pay for.
There was no funding for it.
And the United States government decided to enter into that without being the largest buyer of prescriptions having any kind of market power like a Walmart might have.
And we just did that.
And we do that again and again and again and just saddle our young people with the debt that old folks like myself, who is in my 60s, have run up.
So how do we get the conversation at a local and national level so we can actually be talking about this instead of ignoring it?
Thanks so much for being on the air.
Thanks for Concord Coalition and Sky Span.
All right.
Really appreciate it.
Well, good question.
If you are concerned about this issue, you can go to concordaction.org.
And we are out there trying to build the community, build the coalition that is trying to get this back on the radar and get it back front and center in the national conversation.
I talked about the Fiscal Commission Act.
I talked about the 3% resolution.
We also are supporting no budget, no pay.
We don't think members of Congress should be paid if they don't get a budget done on time.
And that's part of a restoration that needs to happen around a sane fiscal process.
Right now, we don't do budgets on time.
We don't do them in coordination.
We do them piecemeal.
We run over at the end of the fiscal year.
The entire process has just melted down and become a mess.
So we are working like crazy.
We've added 100,000 people to our network over the past year because I think people are starting to really become aware of this issue as we hit milestones like having debt being 100% of GDP.
And we're going to continue to hit those milestones.
And we need to have people out there meeting with their members of Congress and really elevating this issue so that they know that we are starting to vote on these issues.
We are starting to look for responsible governance.
People who will pay for the priorities that they put on the table.
The president's out there.
He's got a lot of big dreams and ambitions, but he's not paying for it.
He needs to pay for it.
And then we need to take the next step, and we need a plan to start to cut the debt.
I want to ask you about tariffs.
Before the court decision on IEPA tariffs, that was bringing in revenue into the Treasury.
What's your opinion on that as a solution?
So, you know, Concord is not, we're not really looking at their economists who will weigh in on the economic effects and whether that is an efficient tax or not.
From Concord's perspective, yes, it was bringing in revenues.
But it can help, much like, you know, we talk about a wealth tax.
That could help, but it's small relative to the overall share of the challenge that we face as a nation.
I think best case scenario, it was going to bring in between 200 and 300 billion a year.
And I always go back, you know, everybody needs to understand the scale of the problem we're facing.
We have 2 trillion annual deficits.
$300 billion is not jump change.
It's real.
But we have more that we need to do to get this done.
John in New York, New York, Republican.
Good morning.
Hi there, little John.
Hello.
Yes, go ahead, John.
Yeah, I was going to ask the lady: does she put things in separate, like how much the U.S. government holds of the debt, and how much, for example, you got the Federal Reserve holds $4 trillion, Social Security holds like another $4 trillion.
So most of the money is held by the federal government, and the interest rate is coming back to the federal government.
And then you have the pension funds hold about $2 trillion, and foreign governments and foreign people hold about, you know, all the interest that are paid to foreigners are like $200 billion.
So really, you know, most of the money is held by people from the U.S. and companies that hold all that money in Europe that don't want to pay taxes.
So like $3 trillion is hold by these companies that put their money into the Treasury.
So the whole thing is like the only out of time, so I'll just get any comment there.
So yes, right, there's a number of different organizations and individuals and countries that hold our debt.
I'll just tie it into one question I have gotten from folks, which is whether we can default selectively on that debt.
Default On Selective Debt00:03:19
And the answer is to do something like that would be catastrophic.
Bondholders hold U.S. securities as one of the safest investment investments that they can make.
If you're a retiree, you're putting money in U.S. Treasuries because you know you have almost 100% certainty that you are going to get your money back plus a bit of interest.
If the U.S. were to default on any portion of that, bondholders would then demand much higher interest rates.
The United States is very vulnerable to interest rate risk and those interest rates going up. are already spending more on interest payments on this massive 40 trillion in debt than we spend on national defense.
If our interest rates were to rise significantly, that would essentially crush other national priorities and we will be forced to make very hard, very tough choices to try to get ourselves out of a real fiscal mess.
So just one comment related to that.
One more call for you, Greg in Florida Independent.
Go ahead, Greg, you're on the air.
Hi, Mimi.
Hi, Carolyn.
I had called in in the past regarding this same issue and made a suggestion.
I think actually with Carolyn there, this would be an opportunity to maybe see if it could be done.
I had suggested once before to put the national debt figure that continues to roll at the bottom of the screen on Washington Journal to create top-of-mind awareness for people to start to realize that this has to be taken care of because obviously the people in the government, the Republicans and the Democrats, are not tackling this.
And it needs to be something that is brought to people's attention and put basically in their face.
And I think that if that was done and companies like CNN and Fox News and MSNBC, any news network, the broadcast news shows should all have to run the U.S. national debt figure that continues to roll at the bottom of their screen so that it's always there during their broadcast.
I love it.
I love it.
Before you go on a completely different subject, since you're a former Democratic congresswoman, you wrote an opinion piece on redistricting.
And I know that you're against that, but I wanted to ask you about the Democrats' strategy of fighting fire with fire.
Do you think that they should have responded to the initial salvo during this time of Texas redistricting?
I guess, you know, now that I'm not in the middle of the political fray, I really, you know, I don't know that tactically, right, or strategically, they had much choice in that.
You know, it's that or be crushed.
But I really think we are all impoverished by this race to the bottom on redistricting.
I am hoping that perhaps we'll reach a hurting stalemate of some sort, and that might put nonpartisan redistricting back on the table because we really lose a lot when we have these very, very heavily gerrymandered districts.
Campaign 2026 Stakes00:04:11
It creates incentives for people in those districts to really pander to the extremes in their parties and not be the people who come and are going to Congress to get things done.
And what you've seen is a depletion of the Problem Solvers Caucus, which is the bipartisan caucus that works together to try to get legislation done, and a real depletion of the both Democratic and Republican caucuses that really represent the center in this country.
And that's Carolyn Bordeaux, Executive Director of the Concord Coalition and the Concord Coalition Action Fund.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Good to be here.
And coming up later, Cook Political Report senior editor David Wasserman joins us.
But coming up next, it's Executive Editor of the Daily Signal, Robert Bluey.
He'll discuss President Trump's relationship with the media.
We'll be right back.
You're watching C-SPAN.
Democracy Unfiltered.
C-SPAN brings you democracy unfiltered in real time.
Democracy doesn't take sides, neither does C-SPAN.
In a world full of opinions, C-SPAN gives you direct access to the people and institutions that shape our nation.
Unfiltered coverage of Congress as laws are debated and decided.
Live proceedings from the United States Supreme Court.
Presidential speeches, briefings, and historic moments as they happen.
No commentary, no spin, no agenda.
Just the democratic process presented in full without interruption.
So you can watch the debates, hear every word, and make up your own mind.
C-SPAN's respected nonprofit service has offered Americans unfiltered gavel-to-gavel coverage of their government in action.
C-SPAN, bringing your democracy unfiltered.
C-SPAN is brought to you by the cable, satellite, and streaming companies that provide C-SPAN as a public service.
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.
In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
According to a new MAGIT research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced.
28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
No commentary, no agenda, just democracy unfiltered every day on the C-SPAN networks.
Sunday, on C-SPAN's QA, Supreme Court of the United States Justice Neil Gorsuch will discuss his children's book, Heroes of 1776, which highlights the signers of the Declaration of Independence and other lesser-known revolutionaries who risked their lives, liberty, and property in the fight for independence from the British.
The Brits were coming in on Philadelphia, and so Congress retreated to Baltimore.
And it needed to get out word desperately that the Declaration had been made.
It was a rallying cry for independence.
And you have to remember, things were dicey then.
Only about 40% would identify themselves as patriots.
There were loyalists.
There were people who wanted to stay out of it.
They needed to get the news out, and so they went to the local printer who would always publish printed by M.K. Goddard at the bottom of the newspaper.
Pentagon Access Issues00:15:04
Why MK, for probably pretty obvious reasons, didn't want to disclose that it was a woman.
But when it came to the Declaration, she printed her whole name.
Printed by Mary K. Goddard in Baltimore, Maryland.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Sunday night at 8 Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to Q ⁇ A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
We are joined now by Robert Bluey.
He is president and executive editor of the Daily Signal.
Rob, welcome to the program.
Thanks.
It's great to be here today.
So tell us about the Daily Signal and what you focus on and how it came about.
Absolutely.
Well, the Daily Signal focuses on not only covering the institutions here in Washington, D.C., but increasingly state capitals where we've expanded with a state news network.
We aim to focus on the policy debates, primarily those issues that are animating public conversations, much like you do here at C-SPAN.
The Daily Signal was founded in 2014 by the Heritage Foundation, a think tank, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
And there was a frustration at the time, not only I think with conservatives broadly, but specifically at Heritage, that too much of the media coverage ignored some of those big issues like the national debt you were just talking about, right?
There are so many other topics that tend to dominate the news cycle that those issues and debates that happen in places like Congress and the White House don't necessarily get all the attention they deserve.
So, Heritage created a news organization to focus on those policy issues.
We built a team of reporters and commentators to do exactly that.
And so, we're available at dailysignal.com or across any social media platform or YouTube to get our videos.
And now, are you still associated with the Heritage Foundation or are you separate?
We are not.
And it's interesting pertinent to the topic that we're discussing today.
In 2023, President Joe Biden and his White House changed some of the rules for the requirements to have a press credential at the White House.
And Fred Lucas, who was our White House correspondent at the time, had served in that position under President Obama and President Trump's first term, found himself being kicked out of the White House.
And so we began the process shortly thereafter about spinning off and becoming our own independent entity separate from Heritage because what we heard consistently, not only from the congressional press galleries, but also the White House, is that they were just not going to deem Heritage a news gathering organization.
And so, for the Daily Signal to get the access that we felt we needed to cover the institutions in Washington, and I should add the Supreme Court in there as well, this was the step that we took.
And so, I'm pleased to report today that we do have reporters who are credentialed in Congress.
We have a reporter who's at the White House, was there yesterday with the president in the Oval Office.
We have reporters who attend Supreme Court oral arguments, and we have reporters occasionally at the Pentagon today.
Yeah, I wanted to ask you about the Pentagon specifically because there's been that issue of trying to get them out of their office there at the Pentagon and putting more restrictions on what they're allowed to report and what kind of access they have.
What kind of access do you guys have?
Well, sure.
Well, everything, I feel like everything's a little bit in flux today because of the court decisions and appeals and things that are going through the judicial process.
What happened was last year, Secretary Hagseth put together a memo that he asked all of the correspondents in the Pentagon to sign, agreeing to certain rules for them to be in receipt of a press credential.
Now, the Pentagon, as you indicated, does have a correspondence corridor.
So, they have office space.
Media organizations have office space.
They even have studio space as well as a briefing room similar to the White House where they would have those types of engagements with the secretary and other military officials.
Many of those news organizations, in fact, most of those news organizations said, no, we're not going to sign this document.
It put restrictions on their ability to share classified information.
It put restrictions on their movement within the Pentagon building itself.
The Pentagon put an offer out there to other news organizations to see if they would be open to filling some of those spots that were left vacant by other news organizations.
The Daily Signal did sign the document, but that document today is we did.
And I was there on December 1st when they opened it up, and the Secretary and other Pentagon officials did a media row.
And so we were there in the briefing room for that opportunity.
Now, I should note, though, that a judge has ruled against the Secretary of War in this particular case.
And so, what you've seen now, just this week, for instance, Secretary Hagseth had a press briefing, and you saw many of those same news organizations that had been in the Pentagon for years back in the briefing room asking him questions because that policy is not.
What's the situation, Rob, with who gets to ask a question at those Pentagon briefings?
Because I think that there's certain, like, everybody's got a seat, and then only certain organizations can ask a question.
Everybody else is going to have to like yell it later once he's done.
Well, that was my experience too back in December.
I mean, and I think it's probably the experience of anybody who's been in the White House press briefing room.
It's ultimately the prerogative of the president or the press secretary, or in this case, the secretary, to call on the individuals.
I mean, remember, Joe Biden famously had the list of reporters that was pre-screened for who he was going to call on.
So I don't think it's a Republican or Democrat thing.
I think it's more of a control thing that if you're a politician or a political leader, you have a certain type of reporter that you're looking to call on.
Now, sometimes I will say they like the adversarial nature of those conversations.
He will specifically call on somebody from NBC News, for instance, whom he might think asks a provocative question where he can be a little bit more combative.
And we've seen that in the past.
All right, so here's something I want to show you, and I want your reaction to it, because this is from the Pentagon briefing yesterday.
It's a Newsmax reporter who is typically very friendly to the Trump administration.
And here's the exchange, and then we'll talk about it.
I want to first express my gratitude and admiration for the work you do and for everyone involved in our armed forces and also for the accomplishments of Operation Epic Fury, which I think are too often dismissed too lightly.
But those accomplishments don't obscure, I think, a central default that has occurred here, and I would like you both to address it.
On the first day of this conflict, President Trump addressed the Iranian people directly and said, When we're finished, take over your government.
It'll be yours to take.
And then on the seventh day of the conflict, in a Truth Social post, the president said, There will be no deal with Iran except all CAPS exclamation mark: unconditional surrender.
What happens to that pledge to the Iranians?
And when did the president decide to capitulate on his demand for unconditional surrender?
James, I wouldn't.
I wouldn't.
You started out nicely, but you ended exactly where we knew you would end.
The president hasn't capitulated on anything.
He holds the cards.
We maintain the upper hand, and Project Freedom only strengthens that hand.
And so he will ensure that whatever deal is made or whatever end state is reached creates ensuring that Iran never has a nuclear weapon, which is A number one, and he's been focused on that, and the deal and discussions are centered on that.
And what the Iranian people take advantage of after the fact is up to them.
And he's been very clear about that.
And maybe you do it now, maybe it happens later, but ultimately he's also been clear: we're not going to entangle this into some nation-building project.
Our objectives are clear.
They've been pursued from day one.
Hopefully, the Iranian people take advantage of that because they're being taken advantage of by this regime.
As you know, 45,000 Iranians, innocent Iranians, killed before the outset of this.
That's what this government does: kills their own innocent civilians.
Getting out from underneath that is going to be a challenge of the Iranian people, and we certainly hope they take advantage of that.
Thank you.
Robert Bluey, were you surprised when you heard a Newsmax reporter say, ask the question, when did the president decide to capitulate?
Not necessarily.
I know the reporter in question, James.
I mean, he asked tough questions.
He asked them of Republicans and Democrats, and I'm not surprised that he would in this particular case.
Newsmax, I should note, also was one of the news organizations that refused to sign the memo that the secretary had put out last year because they felt that it had gone too far.
And so I can't say that this particular instance surprised me.
I think it may surprise viewers more broadly, though, because you typically would find, you would typically expect, I think, a conservative-leaning news organization to be perhaps a little bit more friendly to the Trump administration.
But I think it's the same reason why when we go into these conversations, whether it be a press conference on Capitol Hill with Speaker Johnson or Leader Thun or a press briefing with the White House, that sometimes there is going to be conflict.
Conservative media does not necessarily subscribe to all of the Republican policies.
Remember, conservatives oftentimes say they are the ones who are holding a certain line of principles.
And when they believe that the either Trump administration or a Republican politician is in violation of those, it's their responsibility to ask those tough questions.
If you'd like to join the conversation with Robert Bluey, he is executive editor and president of the Daily Signal.
You can start calling in now.
Democrats are on 2028-8000.
Republicans 202-748-8001.
And Independents 202748-8002.
President Trump has filed several lawsuits against news organizations.
Some of them have been dismissed.
Some of them have been settled.
What do you make of that?
And do you think that that in the end helps the American people or harms the American people?
It's a good question.
And it's one of the things that sets this president apart from his predecessors, who in many cases didn't take that step.
There was frustration, obviously.
You can go back to the founding of this country between a president and the press and their concerns about bias or unfair coverage.
I think this president probably has endured his share of attacks from the press that have pushed him to this point where he does feel he needs to take up these cases in a court of law.
As you indicated, it's ultimately going to be decided by a judge.
And in some cases, the president has successfully been able to get some of these companies to settle out of court.
They'd rather not go through the discovery process and have a lawsuit drag out.
And so CBS or ABC will decide that they'll do a multi-million dollar settlement with the president, make a donation to one of his causes.
In other cases, you're correct.
He's lost on these grounds.
We were just talking about the Pentagon case where news organizations sued the Pentagon.
And so ultimately, I don't think it poses the threat to the First Amendment or freedom of speech because I look at this administration, and I just gave you the example of what we endured during the Biden years, which I didn't feel received nearly the kind of coverage that it should have from the press when here was a presidential administration revoking the credentials of 442 White House correspondents, and it was a story that really flew under the radar.
Here you have a president who's a corporate.
And that was revoked.
Why was that?
Because you were part of the Heritage Foundation and not considered a news organization.
They revoke the credentials of White House correspondents who did not have as a prerequisite a congressional press credential.
So anybody who was not previously credentialed by Congress, and Congress has a number of press galleries controlled by journalists who determine who gets access to the U.S. Capitol, if you did not have that as a prerequisite, the White House said you were going to get the boot out of their briefing room.
And so that's one of the things that we did to rectify our situation.
We said, okay, we're going to first get the congressional credential.
It worked out in our case, but in other cases, there were people.
There was a reporter, Simon Atiba from Today News Africa, for instance, who often clashed with Karine John Pierre, who ended up suing the Biden administration in court over the loss of his credential.
And so I think that there are always going to be those tensions.
I agree with you that President Trump has taken it to a new level, but I also think, and it's evident even just this week in the case of the Pulitzer Prize Awards, they tend to highlight and amplify an anti-Trump agenda at every opportunity.
Are you salty about not getting a Pulitzer nomination?
Conservatives created their own awards, by the way, to counter the Pulitzer.
So it's quite interesting.
So the FCC has threatened, though, to revoke licenses of Broadcast networks that the president has complained about being critical of the Iran war.
What do you think of that?
And should broadcasters be limited in their coverage?
Well, the FCC chairman Brendan Carr has said that part of the responsibility, particularly of an ABC, NBC, or CBS, who do have these broadcast licenses, that's different from cable news, just to distinguish, obviously.
They have a certain responsibility in the public interest to tell the truth and be held to a higher standard.
And so ultimately, I don't know if those are going to be successful.
I would imagine those networks would challenge them in court, right?
But I think that what you've seen, the two big disputes that have come up were the one last year in the case of ABC and Jimmy Kimmel, and then more recently, just days before the White House correspondence dinner.
And so I think that Brendan Carr is trying to, on the one hand, send a signal that you need to take your responsibility more seriously.
And joking about harming an individual like the president can lead to ramifications.
In fact, there was a poll out just in the last few days that the American people do believe that the media has an influence in terms of how people think about violence in our society and whether or not they do take it to that next extreme.
So I do think all of us who work in media need to keep that in mind: that the actions that we take and the coverage that we provide do have consequences for our audience.
And just to clarify, Jimmy Kimmel says that he was not joking about someone harming the president, but the age difference between the president and the president.
So let's talk to viewers now.
Let's start with Thomas, Daytona Beach, Florida, Independent.
Good morning, Thomas.
You're on with Robert Blewy.
Yeah, good morning.
My question to him is: he sets the prayer right now, smiling all the time and talking about open, free press.
We don't have an open, free press, and our president is acting more like a dictator than a president.
Are you going to be happy when you get to have to salute him?
Is that your goal?
Conservative Media Strides00:08:12
I mean, why do you think that he's becoming a dictator?
Spell that out for us.
Well, I mean, you start a war and you don't even ask.
You tear half of the White House down and you don't ask a damn soul.
And now you don't even want to go in front of Congress to ask him for money so you can carry the war that you started by yourself on.
Things he is doing is things that dictators have done in the past.
Want to be fascists or an authoritarian leader?
I hate to tell you, pal, but you know, you're in the United States of America.
We elect presidents, not dictators.
All right, let's get a response.
And there will be obviously an election coming up in November where there will be members of Congress from the House and the Senate up for election.
And in each of those cases, I think this issue could be a referendum in which voters decide to send a clear message to the president.
So we do in this country, President Trump, a lot of people said, would not leave the White House after in 2020.
Obviously, he did.
There was a peaceful transition of power between Joe Biden and President Trump, just as there has been going all the way back to the founding of our country.
So I do think some of the concerns are a bit overblown.
I will say that conservatives have been some of the most critical of President Trump.
I mean, there's been a real divide among the Make America Great again movement when it comes to his decisions on Iran.
In fact, Daily Signal reporter Elizabeth Mitchell, who was at the White House yesterday, asked the president about that clip, comment related to the clip you played about Secretary Hegseth.
What are you going to, you've talked about the importance of giving the Iranian people an opportunity to have this uprising.
And she asked him if he was going to provide arms and give them maybe the means to do so.
And so I think that conservatives do ask critical questions of the president.
And in fact, it was, I think, just last week that the White House rapid response account criticized Elizabeth and the Daily Signal, along with a whole bunch of other reporters.
And so there's going to be tension even with conservative media and this administration.
And just as there was when I was a reporter covering the Bush administration in the 2000s.
And so that's just the nature of how the news media and political leaders operate.
Rob, are you comfortable sharing your opinions on the Iran war with us?
Sure.
I mean, we cover the story.
So, I mean, I personally think that the president does have some political risk here.
I think as successful militarily as the war has been in terms of taking out Iran's capabilities, there are political consequences here in the United States that could have a dramatic impact on the electoral prospects of Republicans this November, namely because for some of the same reasons that we saw President Biden and Vice President Harris suffer during their four years, the American people are very much concerned about the cost of living.
And when they are telling you with bright red warning lights that their personal finances are getting worse, not better, I think that those are signals that not only the president, but his party in Congress needs to pay attention to.
And so you have to strike that balance.
Obviously, he's doing a great thing in terms of eliminating a nuclear threat on the global stage, which is going to keep our allies in Europe and others safer.
But at the same time, he's not necessarily getting the responsibility.
We asked that question this morning, and somebody, a caller, said that it was a tactical success, but a strategic failure.
Interesting way of putting it, yes.
Steve in Tampa, Florida, Republican, you're on the air.
Yes, I have a question for Robert.
I believe in a proverb, although I'm not Amish, it's an Amish proverb that says when you're looking for something, you find what you want to see.
I think that's what's going on in the media these days because the media appeals to their voters.
They show them what they think their voters want to hear.
For example, recently, many things have been issued in the White House where Trump will have a session there and he'll talk about the reduction of the most favored nation prices.
He talked about the $1,000 for the children.
I'm a Republican.
My family are all Democrats.
My friends, many of my friends are Democrats.
They don't know about it because those things are never shown on CNN or MSNBC.
And I think that has become a problem, is that the people are only looking for what they want, and the media is only giving them what they think they want.
All right.
What do you think, Rob?
Thank you for that question.
I think it's a great observation, and I think it's one of the reasons why organizations like the Daily Signal have been able to find success, because there are so many stories, as you indicated, that deserve our time and attention that just don't get the coverage on some of the legacy news organizations for a variety of reasons.
I also think it's worth pointing out that you're correct about their appeal to the audience.
In particular, we've seen the success and the growth of subscriptions at places like the New York Times and the Atlantic, the increase in ratings at MS Now.
And so they, I think, see the audience responding favorably to the type of coverage they're providing, and that gives them more of an incentive to double down on that because they want to obviously continue to be successful.
At the Daily Signal, we decided to, when we created the organization, to incorporate as a 501c3 nonprofit, so we wouldn't necessarily be driven by so many of those advertising and audience demands.
Obviously, audience is still very important to us.
We want to make sure that we're reaching a growing and larger number of people each and every day.
But yes, that is a primary concern, and it's a challenge in particularly today's media environment where the whole advertising model and subscription model of years past has been turned upside down.
Rob, I want to show you what Guy in Oklahoma sent us on text.
He says, Hi, Robert.
How do you explain the explosive growth of Fox News?
Now it has a larger viewership than all the legacy news channels combined.
Yeah, no, it's a story that I've followed closely.
I'm fascinated by it because Fox News on a month-to-month basis will sometimes be beating in the ratings some of those broadcast networks, which have a much greater reach because of just the nature of how many people subscribe to a cable package versus just get broadcast television.
And so, yes, the traditional ABC, NBC, CBS.
So, wouldn't this go contrary to the idea that the conservative media is the underdog and they're underrepresented and conservatives don't have a voice?
Doesn't this show that that's not the case?
Well, certainly, particularly in cable news, absolutely, that is true.
I mean, Fox has been able to establish this huge audience, and they've attempted to grow that in other places like podcasts and obviously online with FoxNews.com and its app.
And so, yeah, no, they've definitely been successful.
And I think that they saw an opportunity in the market where people weren't necessarily being served, as our last caller talked about.
They were frustrated maybe with the type of news that they were being presented and felt that they weren't being told the whole story.
And Fox was able to come in.
But I also think that, let's face it, so many of the existing legacy organizations that exist do still have a pretty powerful impact.
And also, this White House doesn't ignore them.
I mean, the president, his first interview after the White House correspondence dinner that Sunday morning was with CBS.
So, I mean, he went to a traditional news legacy organization to tell his story and get his message out.
And so that demonstrates, I think, that there is a still, at least maybe we're not quite at balance, but the conservative media is definitely making some strides, as you indicated.
On the independent line in Rocky Mountain, North Carolina, Jason, good morning.
Peaceful Transfer Questions00:08:55
Good morning.
I first want to ask your guest a question.
Who does he believe won the 2020 presidential election?
And then I'll get to my other question from there.
I just want to ask his opinion on that.
Yeah, sure, sure, absolutely.
I'm glad you raised that question.
As somebody who closely covered the 2020 election and everything that was going on during that period of COVID, I do believe that Joe Biden won that election.
I also think that we need to acknowledge that there were a lot of changes taking place in election law.
And I think that left not only some state officials and voters perhaps confused.
Some of the processes that were followed have since been revised and changed by state election officials.
And so you've heard people use the term, you know, rigged or stolen.
I think that it's worth examining some of those changes that were made to make sure that we don't make some of those same mistakes in the future.
But you didn't use the words rigged and stolen.
No, but I'm acknowledging that there are legitimate concerns that I think many voters have based on mail-in voting, Dropbox.
Understood.
Jason had another, brought over hundreds of lawsuits and all of them were thrown out, even by Republican judges.
But to get to my main point is, you're not telling truths up here this morning when you say that.
When you say that they the 20 that Trump handed over the peaceful transfer to the election, that's untrue.
You're you're leaving out January 6th.
Trump didn't even attend Biden's inauguration.
I mean that was.
I don't even know if there's any president in history that was alive that ever hadn't done that before.
Trump did that.
And the other thing is, you know, these other things that you're saying, you know, it's just half truths or it's not true.
So like what, Jason?
Well, just like that, the peaceful transfer.
Okay, let's get it.
Let's get a response on January 6th.
I mean, obviously Joe Biden took office.
I mean, he was sworn into office in January of 2021 and governed for four years.
So I were you covering January 6th, the attack on the Capitol?
I was not personally at the Capitol on that day, no.
But we did cover it for sure.
And we've covered the subsequent investigations and the video evidence that's come out and everything, the pardons that the president made when he took office last year.
And so, yeah, no, we've closely followed him.
On the Republican line, Rhode Island, Julie, you're on the air.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Hello.
I just wanted to point out, Mr. Blue, you had mentioned that President Trump was successful with going after some of these news outlets, which is true, as he should have.
I mean, they have treated him horribly, horribly.
And the things that the conservative media, which there are not enough of them in my opinion, cover are things that CNN, MSNOW, ABC, CBS, they will not cover.
There are so many things that illegal immigrations have killed, murdered, raped these people in this country living here, legally Americans.
And the CNNs and the MSNOs, they will not cover these stories.
And I wanted to know if you have any idea why they don't do that.
And the other thing I wanted to mention, too, the previous callers said January 6th, January 6th was a big hoax.
There's no way that that was anything that President Trump did.
All right.
And I've seen you before, Mr. Glouie, on Newsmax, and I think you're a fantastic person.
So thank you for taking my call.
All right, Julie.
Thanks, Julie.
Going back to your question, which is why some news organizations choose not to cover certain stories, it's frustrating, I think, for conservatives.
It always has been.
I mean, going back many, many decades, it's why you've had organizations like the Media Research Center track these types of things and then demonstrate how much time was spent during a nightly news broadcast, for instance, on particular topics.
And oftentimes that number is zero.
I give you a case in point, which we've had a lot of coverage on recently, and that's the indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Tyler O'Neill, who's a senior investigative reporter with the Daily Signal, literally wrote a book about the Southern Poverty Law Center, testified before Congress on that issue, has written numerous articles.
And you saw that story.
It was kind of like a quick blip on the radar for most news organizations, if they provided any coverage of it.
And you can find obviously a lot more coverage if you go to conservative news outlets on that particular issue.
I'd make one last point, though.
I think it's so important for conservatives to make sure that they have a voice on places like CNN and MS Now, and it's why I always Make it a priority when I'm invited to those networks to show up on those panel discussions and make sure that I'm, to the extent I can, raising issues that might otherwise be underreported or ignored by those shows.
And I think that, for the most part, those networks recognize that there's an audience of conservatives out there that they would benefit from covering those stories because they might actually increase their own audience and ratings as a result.
All right, that's Robert Blewy.
He is the president and executive editor of the Daily Signal.
You can find them at daily signal.com.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you.
Great to be here.
Coming up next, after a break, it's Open Forum.
You can start calling in now with anything that might be on your mind.
The numbers are on your screen.
We will also hear from Cook Political Report senior editor David Wasserman.
We'll be right back.
C-SPAN is as unbiased as you can get.
You are so fair.
I don't know how anybody can say otherwise.
You guys do the most important work for everyone in this country.
I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices.
You bring these divergent viewpoints and you present both sides of an issue and you allow people to make up their own minds.
I absolutely love C-SPAN.
I love to hear both sides.
I've watched C-SPAN every morning and it is unbiased.
And you bring in factual information for the callers to understand where they are in their comments.
This is probably the only place that we can hear honest opinion of Americans across the country.
You guys at C-SPAN are doing such a wonderful job of allowing free exchange of ideas without a lot of interruptions.
Thank you, C-SPAN, for being a light in the dark.
In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
According to a new MAGIT research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced.
28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
Unfiltered.
Every day on the C-SPAN networks.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We're an open forum, and we want to hear what's on your mind.
What have you been thinking about?
What are the public policy and politics issues that you've been thinking about and wanting to discuss with us?
Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
Republicans 202-748-8001.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
We'll go to Ed in Silver Spring, Maryland, Independent Line.
You're on Open Forum.
Yeah, hi.
Thanks for taking the call.
I'd just like to ask something briefly about what the previous guest from the Signal just said about 10 minutes ago.
He stated that the transfer of power in 2020 was peaceful.
And I would just like to rhetorically ask everyone out there: do you think that January 6, 2020 was a peaceful transfer of power?
As far as I could tell, over 140 Capitol police officers were seriously injured.
Several people committed suicide.
And it was an attack and an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States.
So I think when that guest says that it was a peaceful transfer of power, he might want to go back and review what happened on January 6th.
January Sixth Reality00:03:13
And that president is still denying that he lost that election after over 60 lawsuits were filed around the country.
And all of them were thrown out by Democrat and Republican judges as being as having no merit.
So I really appreciate you taking my call.
Thank you.
All right, Ed.
Let's talk to Salim, Republican in Evans, Georgia.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Yes, you know, speaking with, you know, you about the communication from under the network.
Back in the when Biden was the president, nobody said about the five dozen of eggs here in Georgia was $20, but they didn't say anything when Trump under Trump is $8 for the $5,000 of eggs.
Oh, you're talking about the price of eggs?
Yes, yes, the price of eggs.
Yeah, it's $8 now, the $5,000.
And the Biden was $19.
And part of that, Salim, was the bird flu.
That spiked one of the things, you know, but the most important things, I'm an immigrant.
I came in the United States in 1998.
I had a green card.
You know, to apply for a green card, you had to, you know, to bring some, they had some question.
You know, if you were a party of, you know, affiliate to a Communist Party, if you were in a gang, if you were, you know, being jail, and if you had a job, and if you had a job, you had to bring a letter from, you know, whatever company you worked for that you're coming back.
And, you know, I had to bring all that.
And plus, my parents in the United States had to show $50,000, you know, that if anything happened to me, that they can't pay, you know, all these things.
And you want to see what, isn't that still the case for applying for a green card?
I don't know, but you know, you're doing a green case, you know, the green card, and I got denied, you know, for my green card for the first time because I got pulled over in Columbia, South Carolina.
You know, they dropped the charges because, you know, they thought I was, you know, in their influence, but I wasn't.
I couldn't speak English.
You know, I had to tell them, you know, the alphabet in English, but I couldn't.
I told him I could tell him French.
But they jumped.
So, Salim, you applied for your green card here in the United States or you applied overseas?
Overseas, overseas.
I had to go through.
And then you got it, and then you traveled to the United States.
Yes, but I got denied because of a ticket.
And I had to wait six months because they had to figure out why it was denied.
What was the trouble?
You know, the ticket I had for.
They didn't know what it was.
I had to wait six months that they had, you know, to show that it wasn't a crime.
All right.
And let's go to Los Angeles, California, Democrat.
Friendzel, you're on the air.
Thank you so much, Meanie, for having me on.
It's a pleasure.
And I just love C-SPAN for everything you guys do.
Redistricting Map Battles00:08:19
I just wanted to come on real quick and say that at this time, I just pray that all of us as Americans really sit back and really take account on what's really going on.
And what I believe what's really going on is that our government and our system of checks and balances is under attack.
And we really need to, as American people, hold our officials accountable.
This is on both sides.
I'm really tired of the tribalism that's going on.
And people are quick to get defensive of their side, even though they are wrong.
My thing is, if they are wrong, then we need to hold them accountable completely.
And so that is what I'm calling to say.
And I appreciate you guys again.
God bless America.
And we're just going to pause the calls for open forum.
We'll come back shortly, but we're going to speak first to David Wasserman, Cook Political Report Senior Editor and Elections Analyst.
David, welcome to the program.
Thanks for having me.
Before we talk about redistricting, which is our main topic, I want to ask you about last night's elections, the primaries that were held.
What were the takeaways?
What happened?
Yes.
Well, the president campaigned against seven Republican incumbent state senators who voted against a plan to basically eradicate Democrats from the federal delegation in Indiana via a new congressional map.
This was one of the places where state Republicans had rebuffed the White House's strategy of pursuing these mid-decade gerrymanders.
And in fact, the president was able to convince voters in at least five of these seven districts to defeat the Republican incumbents.
This could pave the way for a more robust effort in Indiana or other states to pursue new maps in advance of 2028 that make it easier for Republicans to retake the House majority if they lose it in 2026.
Well, so talking about redistricting, give us an update on where that stands now and kind of where the scoreboard is, if you will.
Well, a couple weeks ago, Democrats were crowing that the White House's strategy had backfired and that Virginia and California, which had seen voters pass constitutional amendments to permit the Democratic legislatures to counteract what Republicans had passed in Texas and what we've just seen them pass in Florida,
that it would basically lead to Democrats having maybe an even slightly better opportunity to win the House.
Instead, we've seen the Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act compel several states, including Louisiana, which the Supreme Court threw out the congressional map, as well as Alabama and Tennessee, pushed to redraw their lines in advance of this November via special legislative sessions.
And so when you factor in all of the states that have changed their maps, the biggest being Texas and California, as well as Florida, Virginia, and then minor changes that benefited Republicans in Ohio, North Carolina, likely Missouri, although that's still pending court challenge, and then Utah, where a state court mandated a new district that is likely to elect a Democrat,
Republicans should come out ahead of this mid-decade fight, this arms race, by perhaps three or four seats.
But that's not enough to safeguard their majority, considering that the president's approval rating is around 40%.
And Democrats are looking at pickups, perhaps in the 10 to 20 seat range, when you factor in how vulnerable many of these Republican seats in other states are.
And what's happening on the Senate side?
Did we get any more clarity on that?
What did you see in yesterday's primaries?
Well, we didn't have competitive primaries for Senate in Ohio, really.
Democrat Sherrod Brown overwhelmingly won the nomination to take on appointed Senator John Houstead.
And Democrats' path to the Senate majority is still much more difficult than it is in the House.
There are four truly purple states up for election in the Senate, and those are Georgia and Michigan, which Democrats are defending, as well as Maine and North Carolina.
And Democrats are optimistic about their chances in all four of those races, but that would only get them to 49 seats.
And so they would need to pick up two more seats.
And they're making strong plays in Ohio, Iowa, Alaska, and Texas.
Now, Democrats still have to sort out who their nominee is going to be in Iowa come June.
And that's a very competitive primary between a more progressive candidate, Zach Walls, and a more moderate candidate, Josh Turek.
And so we'll see which direction Democrats decide to take.
The Republican there is Congresswoman Ashley Henson, who's running for that open Senate seat.
Democrats are going to need to break into these double-digit Trump states to have any chance of winning the majority there.
And going back to redistricting, you mentioned 2028.
So what is it looking like as far as more states redistricting ahead of 2028 and what impact that could have on the House for that race, for that year?
Well, the guardrails have come off with this ruling from the Supreme Court on the Voting Rights Act.
And although the Supreme Court did not strike down the VRA or Section 2 of it, which is really at stake here, they did raise the bar for plaintiffs to make the case to throw out maps that they suspect to be racially discriminatory.
Now, plaintiffs have to prove racially discriminatory intent in drawing a map.
And the easy way for legislatures, particularly Republican-dominated legislatures in the deep South, to get around that is to make clear that their intent in eliminating minority-majority seats is partisan rather than racial.
It's impossible to disentangle partisanship from race in the South when they're so highly correlated.
And so in addition to what we're likely to see from Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee this cycle, we are probably going to see other states push further to eliminate black majority seats.
Missouri, or sorry, Mississippi.
Georgia depends on the outcome of the governor's race there this fall.
But if Republicans continue to hold control of state government there, they could eliminate a seat in South Georgia.
And then South Carolina as well.
It's not impossible that Louisiana and Alabama could target both black majority districts that are currently in those states.
So we're talking about a total of eight seats on the line, perhaps three this cycle, four or five in the 2028 cycle.
Now, Democrats could retaliate as well.
California, Illinois, New York, Maryland, they could all push to eliminate the remaining Republican seats in those states by drawing string-like districts that, for example, could go from the Chicago loop all the way to the Kentucky border if Democrats in Illinois wanted.
And that would enter us into a new era of gerrymandering where there really are no limits.
Honest Assessment Needed00:13:27
All right, that's David Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for Cook Political Report.
Thanks so much for the update, David.
Thank you.
And we're in open forum.
Thanks, everybody, for waiting.
We will get right back to the calls to Lance Sterling, Colorado, Republican.
Good morning.
Hello, Mimi.
You do a fine job of trying to decipher what the callers, how they talk, and everything.
Sometimes I can't even understand what some of them say.
You do a fine job.
And I appreciate you not saying the Democratic line like Taylor and Greta do.
And I saw you at the correspondent dinner on my TV, and you had that blue dress on.
You looked ravishing.
But the thing is.
I didn't actually have a blue dress on, but thanks anyway.
Well, you did look okay.
Yeah, I saw you.
Anyway, the thing is, what I'm mainly calling in is to say, what color was it?
It was gold.
I had a gold dress on.
But go ahead.
Let's get back to politics.
Dictator, people calling in, uneducated hillbillies calling in and calling Trump a dictator.
If he was a dictator, he would not have let the government shut down for 43 days.
He would not let the government shut down for 76 days like they just did.
The Democrats did.
So I'm getting tired of hearing people call him a dictator because he's not a dictator.
He would not let a lot of things happen.
He did go to the Congress, the gang of eight, and he informed them.
And he's done what he's doing.
And the War Powers Act is, just like Rubio, Marco Rubio said, it's unconstitutional.
And I really appreciate it.
All right, Lansing.
You do a fine job.
Thank you.
Jeff in Kansas City, Missouri, Democrat, you're on the air.
Yeah, just like your last caller didn't know what dress she was wearing.
He doesn't know what a dictator is either.
But basically, the caller you were, the guy you're having on about if, you know, if I came in on the middle of that conversation, I would not know who he was talking about as far as not reporting things on their air.
I would think he was talking about Fox News or a lot of these right-wing organizations because clearly they will stop mid-sentence with some of their guests just to prevent them from saying stuff.
That's true.
So I don't know who he was talking about.
And as far as a law firm, that's an example.
They don't tell you that that law firm fights against racism and white-wing fascism and all this type of stuff.
You don't hear that on those stations.
And one last thing.
This read gerrymandering all this rap, that's just straight up Republican, Republican voter fraud.
Bottom line.
They've been doing it forever, and now they're doing it on stair wars.
Now the Supreme Court allows them to do that.
And it's wrong.
So do you think it was wrong for Democrats to respond in kind?
You have to fight fire with fire.
Otherwise, that's how we got here.
It's because the Democrats have not been fighting against that for years, like they should have been.
That's how we got here.
Let's talk to Wayne, Pennsylvania, Independent Line.
Go ahead, Wayne.
All right.
I want to ask you a question, right?
Not to guess that was just the one, but the one after that, right?
You had asked him, did he feel like answering the question?
And why would you answer that?
They so scared of Donald Trump.
And another thing, right?
Wait, sorry, I didn't catch that, Wayne.
I asked him what?
You asked him, did he feel like answering a question?
Oh, no, I said, do you want to share your opinion about the Iran war?
Yeah.
Oh, okay, then.
Yeah.
All right, man.
Or is like gerrymandering, right?
In the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, right, In most of the areas, white people were the majority in the area.
Now, since the white people moved out and a minority is in charge, I think it should stay just like it is.
Who fault is it that they vacated where they lived at?
And another thing about Donald Trump, I like what he's doing about the terrorists, but the only thing I don't like, why would he lay off all the people, scientists, state workers, judges, lawyers?
Why would he do that?
And that's all I have to say.
Also, in Pennsylvania is Dawn Democrat.
Good morning, Don.
Good morning, Mimi.
I'm calling about the lady that was on before about the debt.
Yep, that's it.
Yeah, the debt.
So she brought up the three main things that were taught, like Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt.
Yes.
Well, like Social Security, if they took the cap off of it, so people making, I'm not sure what the cap is, 400 and some thousand.
So if they took that cap off and just had everybody pay no matter what you made, then I think that would take care of Social Security, no problem.
So that's all.
All right.
Let's hear from Debbie, North Augusta, South Carolina, Independent.
Good morning.
Hi, good morning, Mimi.
I'm calling regarding the gubernatorial debate that they had for California last night.
It was very biased.
It was hosted by CNN, and Caitlin Collins was on the show.
She was the host.
And there were five Democrats, two Republicans.
They did not get equal airtime.
The leading Republican, Steve Hilton, was cut off.
He was never allowed to finish his answer.
Caitlin Collins would always move on.
Becker, the Democratic candidate, he was mentioned so many times that every time his name was mentioned, they allowed him to respond to what was being said.
You know, it's very unfair.
The American people need to hear both sides equal time.
And unfortunately, the news networks, CNN, MSNOW, and also Fox, they promote their particular agenda.
And that's not what the American people need.
The American people need to hear an honest assessment.
And unfortunately, this is not the way journalism is today.
And that's pretty much all I have to say.
All right, Debbie.
Wesley's next, a Republican in Port Tobacco, Maryland.
Hello.
Hi, how are you doing?
So this message is for our president.
I think he's doing a wonderful job.
I do, however, think that he needs to really work on the diesel prices are going to inflate our economy.
One of the things that I think Joe Biden was doing was adding too much fuel and adding too much tax with the ethanol mix.
And our fuel went down quite a bit, and I was in the landscaping business, still am.
So I can feel my machinery not working that well.
But however, he gets it together.
That's got to be something he works on, obviously.
But I wanted to mention also that I think you should Make a bill that handles call centers.
Because why are we talking to people in the Philippines?
Why are we talking to people in India about our customer service lines?
That could create a whole lot of jobs for the United States in all kinds of states where they're really suffering.
Well, Wesley, the reason that companies do that is because labor prices are a lot cheaper in those countries.
So would you force those companies to pay more and hire?
I would force American companies, I would force American companies to create those jobs here to not frustrate their customers and also create jobs in the United States.
And I would create a tax incentive to do so.
If they go out with other people's jobs, I mean, it also protects our language.
So I would not offer Spanish, although I love Spanish people and my mother's Mexican, I would not offer Spanish as a secondary language on the customer lines.
I would give those jobs to Americans and support our language.
All right.
Here's Sharon, Democrat Florida.
Hello, Sharon.
Hi.
I wish you would do a program on Citizens United.
Yes.
Why is that?
Well, because of the amount of money that is coming into the elections now is unbelievable.
And it just, you know, it's just not right.
So, I mean, you know, because what happens is that ordinary people don't have millions of dollars to run for an office.
So you cut out a lot of good people that would work for our country instead of the millionaires.
And they're becoming millionaires in office.
So that's all I have to say.
All right, Sharon.
Let's talk to Diane, Arkansas, Independent Line.
Good morning, Diane.
Good morning.
I just wanted to touch base on a couple of topics.
Number one is the Iranian war.
Now, I'm a senior citizen, and I was alive in 1979, and we've been messing around with Iran for a long time.
Now, the lady that was on was talking about the deficit.
We are close to $30 billion for the Iranian war.
But I want the American people to think about something.
Okay?
Barack Obama gave $150 billion to Iran.
And they didn't do nothing but fuel terrorism across the world.
We had Hillary Clinton give uranium to Iran.
We gave $65 billion to the Ukrainian war.
And those people have been terrorizing the world for a long time.
And Trump did the best thing he could in going in when he did, in my opinion, because Israel had Hamas weakened.
They had Hezbollah weakened.
It was the best time to go in.
And he hit them hard with air power instead of putting boots on the ground.
Now, I don't want any innocent people killed, but it happens.
And we've got air power in America to go in like that and keep the boots off the ground.
So Diana, I want to ask you, because you mentioned the Iran nuclear deal under President Obama unfreezing Iranian assets and giving them billions of dollars.
So it's being reported by Axios that this initial agreement would involve the U.S. agreeing to lift sanctions and release billions in frozen Iranian funds.
So would you tell the administration not to take that deal, that absolutely no money should be released and available to Iran?
I would think not.
I would think not.
You know, we had Biden had sanctions on them, but they didn't sanction their oil.
And they can sell their oil all over the world.
And I don't know why our fuel prices are so high because we get very little oil from them.
So the government needs to step in and keep inflation from doing the trickle down because we don't get very much oil from them.
Gun Violence Segment00:11:48
All right.
And this is Volcker in Minnesota Independent.
You're on the air.
Hey, morning.
Morning.
Hey, try to be constructive today.
You had a program with those two professors asking the students, that was Saturday or Sunday, asking the students question about the Constitution.
Yes, yes.
That was crammed for the exam, for the AP government exam on Saturday.
Yeah.
Correct.
Enjoy it.
That was fun.
Yep, yep.
Anyway, I thought maybe, just maybe, end of mid-end of October, I have something for us here outside with a question that gets asked when you do the citizen test.
You know, when it's on the internet, you can look citizen tests and you can do the questions and ask one or two or three or whatever you have to see how good that fits in the frame.
Plus people here out, ask those questions and yeah, handle it like you did on Saturday or Sunday or whenever it was.
And we can give out C-SPAN merchandise, if you get it right?
Something like that, sure.
All right.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Lou, Portland, Oregon, Democrat, you're on Open Forum.
Good morning.
How are you?
Good.
So I had a couple things.
It looks like there's maybe a gun violence segment in a while on your program, so I might ask a question on that.
But in terms of primary elections, Maine with the Senate race and in Oregon, which is my state opposite coast, our nonprofit is called Portland Gray Panthers, with contacts and organizers in three states in Washington, D.C., Gray Panthers Global Union.
We do, and we just, we're doing one tonight, community forums on voter education and civic engagement.
And in Maine, we're following, it looks like the progressive Democratic candidate ousted in the primary the I guess Governor Janet Mills.
Yeah, she dropped out actually.
Yeah.
Okay, sorry.
And in Oregon, Tina Kotex, the incumbent Democratic governor, she doesn't have any challengers, but there's questions about how she's doing both from progressives and, of course, the Republican Party.
But in terms of like local races and in primary elections, we're finding it interesting.
We're going to have, we've had her before, and she's going to talk again.
Her name's Judge Adrienne Brown.
She's running for re-election as a judge, but in Portland, Oregon, the district attorney, Nathan Vasquez, is fairly conservative, and he's launched a campaign to oust this particular judge.
So we'll be really interested to see what Adrienne says about that.
Is she allegedly softened on crime, or what's the issue?
It seems a little unusual, although it looks legal, for a DA to try to oust a particular judge they disagree with.
I also had a question about: is Amy Walter still with the Cook Political Report?
You may or may not know that.
It's good that you had someone from the Cook Political Report on.
We follow them a lot.
And then my question about gun violence is: this seems to be an issue that's hard, maybe like Roe v. Wade or abolishing the death penalty to change back specifically for Congress to abolish mass to end the sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
There was a measure in Oregon that passed to do those things, but is stuck in the courts.
I'm aware that there's a boycott against Walmart to help end gun violence with the proviso that Walmart use its corporate power to push Congress as an important corporation to ban those two things, again, which used to be the law, just like Roe v. Wade used to be law.
Sorry if that was too much information, but if you could comment on that question.
And Amy Walter is still with Cook Political Report.
She's on their website as the publisher and editor-in-chief.
This is Julie Scranton, Pennsylvania, Independent.
Good morning, Julie.
Good morning, Mimi.
How are you?
Good.
What's on your mind, Julie?
Well, you're the best Washington journalist that I've watched.
You know what?
This nonsense of Democrat or Republicans got to stop.
You know, years ago, years and years ago, you didn't need all this money.
Julie, you still there?
Yeah, I'm here.
But good morning.
But I'm going to tell you something.
You don't need all this money, Democrat-Republican, guns, this, that, whatever.
The guns should go out of this country.
The guns should go out of this country.
It's disgusting.
It's disgusting.
People are getting gunned down.
People are getting hurt.
People are getting ravaged.
We got all these immigrants in our country because they're savages now, our young women.
Okay, Julie.
And just a reminder, callers, when you're on the phone, you talk just into your phone.
Make sure you mute your TV because there's a delay and you'll get confused between the audio from your phone and from the TV.
So do not listen to your TV when you're on the phone.
Charles Kellyton, Alabama, Democrat, you're on the air, Charles.
Good morning, Mamie.
Morning.
How's it going?
Yeah, okay, thank you.
All right.
I call you about 30 days ago.
Go.
I'm the guy that mentioned Roland Morning by trying to have him on your show.
I think it would be very important to have him on your show to discuss what's going on with the black colleges and defunding other colleges because you got some of your callers saying that Trump is gay more to black colleges than any president it is.
And I know that's not true.
And you know, he just only rat down the street.
And he's not hard to get hold of.
Will y'all please try to get him on your show?
Okay.
And are you in touch with him, Charles?
No, I kind of just keep up with him on social media.
That's about it.
Okay.
I was going to tell you, if you did, then you could talk to him.
But okay.
Al, Pennsylvania, Independent Line.
Go ahead, Al, you're on Open Forum.
Just like to say, you find Mimi a very striking commentator, but also that I don't understand that a president's not supposed to enrich themselves.
And it seems like his family, like Jared Kushner, when he was in Saudi Arabia, rumor has it that he got $2 billion.
I don't understand how that would be legal.
When they come back, how do they list that money?
All right, Al.
And let's talk to Robin in Tennessee, a Democrat.
Good morning, Robin.
I really appreciate what you're doing.
And I'm a little offended for you when these men call in and comment on your looks.
You are a striking woman, but that's not what you do for a living.
And I want to stand up for you for that.
And they should just stop doing this.
Number two, the war in Iran was absolutely started because President Trump wanted it.
And he's the one that said no foreign war.
So that's a lie.
He also said that the economy was going to get better.
That was a lie.
And January 6th did actually happen.
I watched it live that day.
And I think that we need to keep telling the truth until the people who don't get it get it.
And if we have a billion dollars a day to spend on a war that's actually costing us more money in every other way, why can't we have health care, free health care?
Surely to goodness, a billion dollars a day could take care of the health care of 350 million plus chill people.
So I'm just saying, truth will set us all free.
And that is not what we're getting from the administration.
I'm so sorry.
That's it.
I'll stop there.
All right, Robin.
And a couple of things for your schedule later today.
Coming up at 10:15 Eastern Time, this is over on C-SPAN 2.
We're going to have journalist Walter Isaacson and others convene at the Sir Harry Evans Investigative Journalism Summit to discuss politics, history, and current news.
That's going to be from London, and we'll have live coverage of that starting at 10:15 Eastern C-SPAN 2.
Then at noon, the Cato Institute hosts a forum on social security for experts to discuss reform strategies, address the program's structural flaws, and prevent it from worsening the debt crisis.
That's on C-SPAN 3 at noon Eastern.
And then this evening, 7 p.m., election reporters and advocates discuss steps to limit potential interference in the 2026 midterms, focusing on legal challenges, state-level protective legislation, and contingency planning by local election officials.
And that is hosted by the Hill Center in DC.
Again, live coverage at 7 p.m. Eastern.
That's going to be here on C-SPAN.
Those you can always watch on our app, C-SPANNOW and online c-span.org.
Back to open forum until the end of the program.
Dave, Independent, Pauling New York.
Good morning.
Hey, good morning.
I don't have a real comment.
I just have sort of a suggestion that I think would be kind of fun for C-SPAN.
There's a young fella on the internet.
He's on Facebook, TikTok, all the things, you know.
His name is Dean Withers.
He's a liberal, but he's very smart.
And I was just wondering if you'd ever consider having him on your show.
Okay.
We take that recommendation and talk to James in New Jersey, Line for Democrats.
Yes, hi, Adrian.
Good.
I was in the Jewish mafia, before Apex was being formed, needed to go to Tennessee Park, Panchao, the panhandle for money.
Since then, the Jewish mafia has been harassing us for money, for weapons, weapons, for one purpose, to keep to have white.
Jewish people thought it Moses had a wife, Ethiopian.
Don't talk about her.
Don't talk about Moses' wife being Ethiopian.
Like, the whole thing is kicking butt to Jewish mafia.
Okay.
Ryan in Orange, Massachusetts, Independent, you're on Open Forum.
Hi, I was watching your speaker earlier, and I was amazed at how they want to deny the facts of the 2020 election.
Cohns Manipulation Lessons00:03:06
Part of the reason Donald Trump didn't receive the presidency is because the Democrats don't want to admit that COVID was fake, and they use the excuse of putting diapers on people's faces to inherently block their rights.
And they also force people into jab and COVID shots and try to make people dependent on socialism.
Those are the factors that contributed to it.
As for the lawsuits that didn't go forward, the fact of the matter is, is judges are human beings, and they can be bought off.
And they were, in my opinion, they were also bought off because they didn't want to talk about how the media and the lawmakers had a bias against Trump from the beginning.
Norman in Pennsylvania, Line for Democrats.
You're on the air.
Thank you very much for taking my call.
I want everyone to search on the six dark lessons of the 1950s lawyer Roy Kong to understand the actions of his greatest disciple, Donald Trump, which I will summarize.
But I want people to look up these six lessons that Cohn taught Trump to live by every day.
The first one is never apologize or admit wrongdoing ever.
Cohn viewed contrition as weakness and would rather die than acknowledge fault or error.
Number two, always counterattack and with greater force than you received.
When criticized or accused, Cohn's response was to hit back harder, make the accuser regret even mentioning his name.
Number three was use the legal system as a weapon, not a recourse for justice.
Cohn taught Trump that lawsuits were instruments of intimidation, not vehicles for dispute resolution.
Number four, manipulate the media ruthlessly.
Cohen was a master at planning stories, cultivating journalists, and creating controversy to serve his ends.
He understood that perception trumped reality.
Number five, use fear as both shield and sword.
Cohen understood that people who are afraid of communists, of crime, of social change, afraid of the other, unquote, were easier to manipulate and were more willing to accept authoritarian solutions.
And sixth and last, build a fortress of loyalty around yourself.
Cohen demanded absolute loyalty from his clients and associates, and he repaid it in kind, at least until they were no longer useful.
And Norman, where did you get these six points?
Is this your own analysis?
No, I did a search online for the six dark lessons.
And I think everybody, if they looked at the details at each of these six points, they would have a new understanding of Donald Trump.
Fortress Of Loyalty Built00:06:08
Here's Mary Lou in Mapleshade, New Jersey, Independent.
Hi, Mary Lou.
Hi, Mimi.
Thank you for C-SPAN.
Mimi, last week you had a woman on your program.
I think her last name was Hudson.
And she had written a book basically about civility.
Yes, Alexandra Hudson.
Yes, yes.
She was very, very good.
And I was listening to what she was saying, and I was thinking, while what she was saying was both noble and admirable, in my mind, it was very unrealistic, I'm sorry to say.
We live in a country and even in some parts of the world now where we have a major disease called TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And so far, there hasn't appeared to be any cure or treatment.
There's no vaccine.
There's no booster to make this go away.
I hear the rhetoric on television with the mainstream media.
Our own Congress spews it out.
And it's really very disheartening.
And I'm wondering if it's not time that we redefined the First Amendment freedom of speech.
Because when what you are saying has dangerous consequences like murders, attempted assassinations, those people need to be held accountable, Mimi.
And this is not happening.
And what do I mean by hold them accountable?
I mean arrest them and imprison them.
They should not be saying these things, especially when they spew horrible lies about Donald Trump.
And don't misunderstand me.
I don't always agree with what President Trump says, but I believe in my heart that he wants what's best for this country.
So I think it's time we took a look at what freedom of speech really means.
I think if someone shouts fire in a crowded theater, I think that's against the law.
And why?
Because it's endangering people's lives.
We've already lost Charlie Kirk, and President Trump has had three assassination attempts.
When is it going to stop?
Thank you.
All right, Mary Lou.
And speaking of what the President says, this has just been posted on True Social.
It was posted this morning.
Assuming Iran agrees to give what has been agreed to, which is perhaps a big assumption, the already legendary Epic Fury will be at an end, and the highly effective blockade will allow the Hormuz Strait to be open to all, including Iran.
If they don't agree, the bombing starts.
And it will be, sadly, at a much higher level and intensity than it was before.
Marilyn in Kentucky, a Republican, you're on the air.
Yes, ma'am.
I just need to ask one question.
Where's the Congress and the Senate this week?
I mean, for every day that they're gone, we should deduct off of their pay.
Well, I mean, if you miss work, get paid for it.
Yes, so Marilyn, they're back in their districts, and their argument is they're meeting with their constituents.
That's why they're not in Washington.
Yeah.
Okay, they're on vacation again.
All right.
Thank you.
Let's talk to Stephen in Florida.
Democrat.
Hello, Stephen.
Yes.
Hey, Maybe.
I'm sorry.
I'm a decorated combat veteran, and I had some stuff I wanted to say.
But after listening to that idiot from New Jersey, I'm done.
You have a nice day.
Sam is in Baltimore, Maryland, Democrat.
Hi, Sam.
Yes, yes, thank you very much.
I have an idea for contributions to C-SPAN.
It's called the Contribute to C-SPAN and Buy a Drink Fund.
And here's how it works.
If I was to give you $30, $5 would go towards a voucher, and I'd like to buy my first drink for the man who gave the whole synopsis about Roy Cohen's evil towards Trump.
There's a great documentary called Where's My Roy Cohen?
And you can see how he used to, how he influenced Trump.
Thank you very much.
Let's talk to Sergio on the Independent Line in Los Angeles.
Hello, Sergio.
Yes.
Hi.
Hello.
Go right ahead.
You're on the air.
Yes, you are.
Sergio.
Okay, I'm on the air with Minnie.
Okay.
Yeah, I just want to say Minnie's, she's amazing.
I mean, it's amazing.
So did you want to say something in open forum, Sergio?
Yes, I would like that.
Yes, yes, I would like that.
Yes, because I'm in L.A. and the governorship here is the state is in the saray.
It's insanity in Los Angeles.
That's what I say.
Yes.
Thank you.
Okay.
And Moses in Maryland, Democrat, you're on the air, Moses.
Yes, thank you for having me on.
I want to say, first thing is, you know, the president's job description is that no matter, you know, what he do, you know, or say in office, you know, while he's president, he can't be charged for it anyway, especially when you got six millionaires or whatever backing you up.
You know, you can do what you want to do anyway.
But also, these jobs and stuff is setting down out here, and the young folks is, they ain't got nowhere to, I mean, they can, they got to work so much on the job to keep their bills up that they ain't even got time to praise the Lord or read the Bible or nothing else.
And that is keeping their mind in that, you know, among other things.
And halfway scared now to say anything you want to say on the radio.
And that's the only way you can get any communication with anything.
And people listening to what each other is saying on the radio.
Young Folks Struggle00:01:12
And it's just, it's just bad.
And this thing in the run, with the time we get out of that, we're going to be broke anyway.
We're going to be broke.
The economy is going to be in a world of trouble with the young folks and everything else.
And one more call, Dwayne, Michigan.
Democrat, you're on.
Last call.
Yes, as usual, every time I call, I have to start by saying that Republicans are liars and fearmongers.
And then, well, first of all, Donald Trump told 30,000 lies.
I just heard this one.
A lady said the Democrats made the man said Democrats created COVID so fat Donnie wouldn't win.
Really?
Okay, 30,000 lies.
If you want to see what Trump is, look at his signature.
It's a readout of a polygraph.
That'll tell you that he's nothing but a liar.
And also, hey, fat boy, thanks for $5 gas.
All right, Dwayne.
And that does it for today's Washington Journal.
We will be back again tomorrow morning, 7 a.m. Eastern.
Thanks to everybody who called in and participated.