president george w. bush and more. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, on lectures of history, princeton university scholar alan on how puritanism and enlightenment shaped religion, politics, and more on colonial america. watch american history tv, saturday on c-span2 and find the full schedule in your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. announcer: c-span is run filtered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> homework can be harvest watching in a diner is even harder. that is why we are providing low income students with access to affordable internet so homework and just the homework.

cops cnects to compete. announcer: cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪

host: good morning. this saturday he will hear the charges against him. in this first hour we take your thoughts and reaction to the indictment. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. we can take your tax at 202-748-8003. twitter and instagram @cspanwj. welcome to "washington journal" where we take your calls i will show you a couple of articles and tweets. here's the associated press.

it says, according to sources trump facing at least one felony charge in new york. former president donald trump is facing multiple charges of falsifying business records including at least one felony offense in the indictment handed down by a manhattan grand jury. people familiar with the matter told the associated press to yesterday. he'll be rain tuesday setting the scene for historic shocking moment where former president is forced to stand before a judge to stand before judge dear the criminal charges against him. the indictment remain sealed and chargers were not immediately known but details were confirmed by people who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss information that is not yet public. the street outside of the courthouse where the arraignment will unfold recon friday

compared to earlier in the week. no large demonstrations for or against for trumps. police officers assembled. when trump turns himself in he will be booked mostly like anyone else facing charges. mug shot, fingerprinting and all but he is not. expected protection and be release the same day. -- he will have secret service protection be released the same day. trump is ready for arraignment, so does new york. it says, donald trump prepared friday to surrender their prosecutors in manhattan next week as new york police brace for protests and sharply partisan responses. the day after a grand jury indicted mr. trump i made him the first former president to

face criminal charges, mezzo barricades were up around the criminal court on center street in lower manhattan. mr. trump is expected to enter the ill lit building with his secret service protection to answer charges before a state judge on tuesday. dozens of reporters and camera crews camped out across the street on friday while 20 court officers stood at the courthouse entrances monitoring activity on the street. mr. trump intends to travel to new york on monday and stay the night at trump tower. people said he has no plans to hold a news conference or address the public while he is in new york. speaking of the deeply divided response, let's take a look at a couple of tweets. congressman democrat says this the indictment of donald trump serves as another reminder that

no one is above the law. here is representative don by your of virginia. maga republicans are trying to interfere to protect from before evidence is seen. here is senator ted cruz, trumps indictment is the culmination of six years of democrats weaponizing law enforcement to target and persecute their political enemies. dictatorships operate like this. the u.s. is supposed to be different. the indictment of trump is dangerous. roger marshall, a republican, america's art exhausted with the never ending obsession with trump. new york city is rated with valid crime -- violent crime, larceny yet they are -- the da

pursues a misdemeanor charge against authority and. -- a floridian. i want to show you the headline from the washington post about that, bragg office of unlawful political interference. i will show you a portion of a letter from bragg's general counsel in response to house republicans. this was a note sent to committee chairs. it says, as you are no doubt aware former president trump has di harsh against district attorney bnd threatened on social media ts arrest or indictment may unleate death and destruction. mittee chairman you could use the stature of your office to denounce theseks and urgent respect for the fairness

of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury instead you and your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with mr. tr's efforts to vilify and did the integrity of election of state pross and trial judges that the office investigation serving new york state is politically motivated. by your reaction to president trump -- we are getting your reaction to president trump indictment that became public thursday. we will start with andy in virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. it is always good to see you. i think this is a great day for america democracy. finally this corrupt traitorous ex-president is being held to account. i'm truly looking forward to

seeing him indicted in georgia. hopefully, he will get indicted. also, for the january 6 insurrection he helped provoke. going forward, i hope he and republicans pay a heavy price for the damage they have caused to this country. i am amazed that republicans still back and line up behind this guy when it is obvious he is nothing but a cancer on this great nation. the republicans will pay a heavy price for this because we cannot exist as a country if we continue support traitorous, undemocratic people like this who benefit only the wishes of people like president putin of russia who we know trump is friendly with.

host: richard in new york, independent. hi. caller: good morning. you are a great host. host: thank you. caller: i'm hoping my call will help. i'm calling from new york and people say donald trump is from new york. they knew him before he became president. trump was -- his taxes for example. previous district attorney chose not to pursue the charges that were so obvious there. as i understand it was cited for donald trump, jr. they did real

estate for him and he did not bring charges. trump cheated on his wife with stormy daniels. you can like him as a president or not but this is an important phone call is to understand that the charges were already there. host: why do you think that is? why were they charges not pursued? caller: because the previous da, he did not pursue high-profile people. he -- if you are famous or very rich and he got caught is because harvey weinstein. he did not pursue a charge for harvey weinstein and evidence was there so to expose all of this. host: what -- how did you

respond to the trump indictment? caller: the trump indictment if you follow the law, and if you follow the legal briefings, you knew this was coming. people who were surprise were donald trump followers because they get their information from him. if you follow the law, if you attack the da, that is going to screw you even tighter. you saw this coming. donald trump, somehow supporters -- his supporters are so deceived. on monday when it was announced that graduate would be not for the month of -- when it was announced that the grand jury would not be for the month in april they were celebrating online. host: cornelia in idaho.

caller: i could not help but notice that -- anyway, i am so frustrated but i do not blame people or the democrats even for leaving terrible things about our former president because he has had horrible past from 99% ever since he announced his running for president. remember he never, ever wanted to be -- wanted to run. host: why did you say he did not want to run? caller: because he had everything he needed fame, money

and power and he was popular. he had his own tv show. everything. but he was really concerned about the direction our country was going. he put himself in a race to help america. if we truly understood everything he has done to help america, we would know him. we do not know him. remember. host: go ahead. caller: jesus christ was arrested and persecuted by the powers that be. host: i have a question for you. you state we do not really know donald trump. he ran, he was president for four years. does you think american public knows him right now? caller: the lies have been told about him including january 6.

the press has been -- even fox does not support trump at all and yet fox is vilified on c-span all the time. claiming they are in donald trump's camp and that is not true. there are some on fox but the truth would not come out probably for years. it could be that he will be found guilty and he will be defeated in the national election because of all of this conspiracy that is against him. host: you mentioned fox news. let's take a look. former president donald trump attorney, joe, he has been on a number of networks in the hours following the news of the indictment. here is last night on fox news. he spoke out against the indictment. [video clip] >> this prosecution is right

into the core. it is politically motivated and weaponization of our system. from now on, the justice system eight use whether republican or democrat prosecutor to weaponized. we are going back to the days of communist china, so we billion, nazi -- soviet union, nazi germany. all the places america despise and our justice system never accumulated and well here we are. >> tuesday the president will be arraigned. we expect a mug shot and the president will have his fingerprints. we expect, is going to be perp walk come in handcuffs? are they going to say he cannot have bell? >> i do not think anything dramatically will happen. that will further solidify the notion that he is being so

targeted. you can go in times great right now, not a police officer out and you will be out on bail -- times square right now and knock out a police officer you'll be out on bail. >> they did not have the last name trump. >> we do not know what will happen tuesday state because this is not happened before. secret service involved in an agreement. -- involved in an agreement. >> you have not worked out yet? >> we have some ideas but no we have not worked out yet. host: i want to show you something real quick. here is the washington post and the headline is the steps of the trump indictment process explained and has a good flowchart here i want you to see. it starts here at the top with

the grand jury investigation. prosecutor requests grand jury made up of 23 residents. here's evidence. majority vote and at least 12 needed to indict. the indictment is where we are here. the person can volunteer -- voluntarily surrender and enable process -- then they will process. the arraignment is a public court appearance. charges are unsealed and the defendant enters a not guilty plea, judge determines defendant bell or restrictions. then there are pretrial hearing so defense motions to dismiss charges, exclude evidence, request judge on scheduling witnesses etc. there's a guilty plea -- if there is a guilty plea we go straight to sentencing are the going to trial.

that could take months before a trial will start and then there is guilty and not guilty. host: bonnie in alexandria, minnesota. democrat. good morning. caller: i think it is hilarious you have a poor star -- por nstar, a stripper. i think trump should have kept it in his pants and he would not have any of these problems. host: let's talk to mickey, rockaway park, new york. dependent. -- independent. caller: i will like to convey my experience to those who have not been indicted. i have been indicted on three separate occasions. i've been indicted by the grand

jury in new york city, a grand jury in florida. that was a state court. my most recent indictment came about in the eastern district of new york on january 10. host: why are you being indicted all over the place? caller: when i was young i had a drug problem. now i am 73 years old. on january 10, international news, i was arrested by the u.s. marshals on a complaint based on a secret service agent complaint. i was brought -- this is the procedure. if anybody cares to know. i was -- my door was beaten

down. i willingly came outside. they put me in handcuffs and transported me to the courthouse in the eastern district of new york where my judge was raymond dearie. host: you have a drug issue when you were younger? why are you being arrested now also for drugs? caller: no. because i was arrested as international news -- it is international news. host: what is your reaction to the indictment? caller: i was indicted. i would like to tell people what happens when you get indicted. host: let's go to earl in california. republican. good morning. caller: good morning.

i want to echo what another caller said. you are an excellent host and the reason i say that is i do not know if you are republican, conservative, democrat. you know what, that is the kind of post i like to call -- host alec to call. i'm a vietnam veteran. i have been profiled. we do that to our soldiers. we sent them into a situation that are unbelievable. they come back home, the lucky ones, the blessed ones and they are criminalize. host: tell me about what you thought about former president trp's iicent. caller: i was get into that. i call the das office.

i expect the fbi to come to my door soon because i called them ani said they have unleashed an s storm and i will stock up t popcorn to watch the going on's. cae of my age, i have a lot of time to what lots of differentedias and i know live toaye all watch fox news. i watch it very seldom. i raise $55,000 per obama the first time he ran -- four obama the first time he ran and he did not do anything he promised and i did not raise another dive the next term. we have president trump in office and he told us what he was going to do any wood point by point and did everything he promised. host: are you going to vote for

him for the next election if he is the nominee? caller: i was just getting to that. i have been a liberal donator to president trump the whole time he was in office. $100 a month. that is a lot of money for me. i'm on a fixed income and my income has been reduced by 30% since this train wreck administration got into the white house. i'm watching it because i have to. i feed the homeless. i feed feral cats. host: i appreciate you doing that and your service in vietnam. heidi in new york. democrat. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say a lot of politicians were talking about scandals. trump did not want to be in a

scandal so they hid the fact of paying off the stormy daniels. now trump was a business owner who got a fortune as a kid and he was very rich and did a lot of crazy things in his business and stuff in new york. i think that his whole mantra was to get sympathy for himself and that is how he got elected. i think it continues and i will ask the republicans why they are coming to the defense of this person? it is unbelievable to me. i believe the continued danger is that the rest of the republican candidates are

continuing this ridiculous mantra and a state there into law in order but they are not. these are true charges. i do not understand why the republicans keep on coming to this mass with such -- this man with such sympathy. it is not outrageous these business leaders in our country feel -- still, do not pay taxes, and break the law all of the time. host: people are saying it is politically elevated. democrats -- publicly motivated and democrats have always been out to get trump. caller: i think it is absurd. i think our system needs to be changed because it is waste too much money in -- it is way too much money in our political system. i believe the man is still guilty of so many different crimes that i cannot run and sympathize with a person like this.

people have to look at the real facts and stop listening to fox news. it is not news. host: anthony in california. independent. good morning. caller: hello. most of these people do not know what they are talking about. they either are not paying attention or blowing smoke up their rear end. trump is guilty. he is a traitor. the man is a traitor. in front of the world he picked russia instead of us. after that anything the man has done does not matter. he is a traitor. they should put him up against the wall and shoot him. why does everybody feel sorry for this man? what has he done? host: let's hear from a republican next.

pat in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to say the prosecutor is so corrupt. also he is funded by george soros another corrupt person. as far as this indictment, it is a complete joke. we are waiting for hillary clinton to be prosecuted for the dossier and also the biden crime family we are waiting for that to be prosecuted. as far as this indictment, i will be voting for trump again. he had great policies as a president. america has done better when he was in office there what we have now. we have a train wreck. to the last caller, thank you for your service. it took the government 50 years but thank you for your service

for all. host: i want to show you this from the fact -- politifact. you mentioned george soros. it says trump's attack on manhattan d.a. alvin bragg backing by george soros what to know. it says, george soros a liberal billionaire donated one million two color of change in may 2021. both george soros and the pack has back candidates to -- four criminal reform. the group said it would support a break -- support alvin bragg. it says that in march 2031 trump

described alvin bragg as george soros back. it says source did get a progressive racial justice group called color of change $1 million in may 2021 and in the same month caller of change endorse bragg. george soros one million dollars was not earmarked for bragg. color of change with supporting other progressive's district attorney candidates that year in different cities and had done so in previous election cycles as well. let's hear from john, virginia. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. these people do not accept the election results and they would not accept this indictment. it is ridiculous that people

need to understand you do not know what this prosecutor has until you see exactly what is out there. the reality is these people think they are above the law. donald trump supporters they are and i have been hearing a truck drivers want to block new york. i do not understand why are you doing this when you always have american all over your truck your destroying your own country. if you love this country, you need to follow the rule of law. i grew up in other decatur cash in a dictator. this is how they behave. then then the prosecutor. and let me say this. they mention george soros in november and they not only mentioned that, they mentioned [indiscernible] this is exactly how they tell their listeners or supporters.

remember, they attack you [indiscernible] i've been harassed by people. 9/11 they told us you are a sympathizer, we have been prosecuted and harassed every day. we have not done anything, we have been loyal to this country, my children were born in this country, but these people don't understand what we have here. this man has never been faced with reality. i don't want him to be [indiscernible] but when you keep breaking the law and you look at all of us like we don't have a country that has law and all over the world watching us and watching themselves and asking you tell us there's and a mop -- there's a democracy in america and you can't even handle donald trump? this is an -- is insane. host: our next caller, good

morning. caller: i just have a couple comments and i agree with the man that was on. one thing wrong with our country's we have one set of laws for one set of people and another law for another set. if we had same laws for the whole united states we would not be in this problem because the law is the law and i feel bad for him if he be convicted because he's of old age but you can keep doing wrong and expect to get away with it. another thing, we say we are christianity but we don't believe anything with the bible teaches us. it teaches us our sins will catch up with us and this is what's going on with donald trump. he didn't run to make america great again, he ran to do what he is doing now for so many people, to protect him when the law catches up with him. that's all i have to say. host: take a look at an article

from the lentic, from david from . he says where you stand? trump's indictment presents republicans and all-americans americans with a clear choice. here's a quote from the article, he says 's no denying he is now the overng favorite to be the next republican nominee, and therefore stands an excellent chance of winning the presidency in 2024. atop all the other questions in the a ballot on that election will be this, crime and violence and trump, or law and the constitution. wh you stand? goodod, where does this ican party and mine now stand? the wrong is overwhelming and the shame is crushing, but the only decent choice for the honest and patriotic american is now starker, fewer, and more certain than ever." that is a staff writer in the atlantic. we are taking your calls on your

reaction to president trump's indictment thursday. herbert is in michigan, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to say i don't understand the american people. this man has been a lifelong criminal. he destroyed our nation. host: you are a republican, so did you vote for him? caller: i am. i have been a lifelong republican but people that think he has done a good job in the country need to get their head out of their sand -- the sand. he gave us the highest inflation in the nation with tariffs. think about this, seven years ago this happened and they are just now charging him. it was as good to be, after the next election before goes to trial? he's just going to appeal. there will be no line. donald trump is the worst man

who has ever led this country. people need to wake up. host: there's an article, another article from politico fact and says can donald trump run for president if indicted or convicted of a crime? here is what they are saying, u.s. constitution says presidential candidates must be citizens and residents of the united states for at least 14 years and at least 35 years old. it does not state a criminal indictment or conviction prevents someone from running for president. a separate section of the constitution bands federal officeholders who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion." there was a condition added after the civil war but using it to keep today's candidates off of the ballot is a long shot. some state laws and constitutions bar felons from running for office, but that is for state or local offices only. nina is next in florida,

democrat. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i am calling because i am tired of all of the drama with trump, and i am also very disheartened with our current president. i think once trump gets indicted and charged we need to turn around and do the same thing for biden and get them both out of there. they don't even need to run again. we need to youngblood in there, smart people, not people being told what to do and how to run the country. we need someone who has a good vision for the country. host: who do you like, nina? caller: excuse me? host: who do you like -- who would you like to see run? caller: on the democrat side, nobody even said anything at, so i don't know. there is a field of republicans running but i have not listened to any of their speeches or

anything to even draw an intelligent conclusion with it. host: let's talk to jack in champaign, illinois, independent. caller: yes. host: go ahead, jack. caller: thank you very much. thanks for c-span also. i want to say i support the indictment. i believe the judicial system and process works. in 2016, i could not vote for trump or clinton. i felt oath of them were to corrupt -- too corrupt but i wrote my wife's name and for president because i did not like either one of them. that is all i wanted to say. i do support the indictment. host: let's talk to janice, plymouth, michigan, republican. caller: good morning. thank you. i just woke up and i caught you at the beginning. your first three colors, you

took a democrat, independent, and republican, and the democrat and independent spewed several lies and mistruths and then the republican was from idaho and you challenged her three times in the first minute and a half of what she was saying. and she was trying to stick up for trump. otherwise, you are doing a good job. the thing is a lot of people are misinformed. i was especially offended by the man who i would say -- i was a gentleman but he was not -- who said gd about trump. first of all i am maga. i have not been maga all my life. i voted democrat until 2008 and then i voted republican. but the lies and vitriol and hatred for this -- host: tell me more.

you said the callers are misinformed and were spewing lies, tell me -- give me some specifics. caller: first of all, i would suggest, and this is only a suggestion, but i would encourage people to go to these websites for information. another point of view. the american thinker, the gateway pungent, conservative treehouse. those three have information every single day. they are conservative, but that's ok because we live in america and we are allowed to be conservative. so i'm very distressed at the misinformation. they are talking about misinformation all of the time. what i've heard this morning is just -- it is not the same

country i'm living in. i am maga 100%. thank you. host: lauren in new jersey, line for democrats. caller: hello? host: i, lauren, you are on the air. caller: how are you? i have been a democrat, independent, and republican throughout my 50 years. i've never seen anything like this. everything they have done right now -- and i'm on the edge, i'm going back to independent. i feel like this is such a scary situation. how can this happen? why do they go after him so much? what is the threat to us that he gives us that every single effort a ergy is put into it? that all we care abouts what a bad person he is? it is starting to make me wonder. host: make you wonder about what? caller: about the news. why are they also against him? all presidents have been dirty

one way or another. it seems like what is so scary? it is making me really think that why are they so threatened by him? i've never seen this in all my years. all of a sudden, why are we destroying a presidential? it seems very un-american and the democrats, i feel like we have discredited the whole thing. this is a banana republic move. how do you do this? how do you accept this? we go to countries for years and try to help their elections. to me, it seems like we have just been practicing to destroy our country. there is some people coming and i do not know what it is but i do not trust either party right now. host: let's take a look at posts from facebook. alvin send us this, now this indictment will enthuse more

voters to go out and vote for trump and this is the worst political hack campaign since clinton was impeached for lying about monica lewinsky. truth sayer says this on twitter, i do not know what to think. how is this any different than clinton's attempt to hide affairs? this seems like since trump started his political career he's been investigated for any and everything. a tweet from -- text from jim in illinois says my reaction to trump's indictment is this, it is about time. trump has been abusing people and organizations and the public trust for decades. it is past time he faces a judge. thanks for your show. let's talk next to janet in dayton, ohio, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm amazed republicans act like this the day before yesterday. he has a long and rich history of criminal behavior. he's a lifelong democrat and

even stated publicly if he ever ran for president he would run as a republican because they are stupid. i do not know how they don't know who this guy is. it is absolutely boggles my mind. then to get mad at bragg, bragg did not go and indict this man. it was a jury of his peers that made that decision. granted the saying is the jury will indict a ham sandwich. let him prove his case and see with the charges are but to act like this man has been persecuted, it's like you don't even know his history. all they have to do is research, it is public record. host: so some callers are saying all politicians do it. caller: all politicians do not have to plead out for a charity that they defrauded. all politicians do not have to plead out and pay finances for a

university for students they defrauded. all politicians do not do that. if you run a history of indicted politicians, you will find republicans outnumber democrats i think it's like 50 to one. do basic research. sure all politicians are slightly shady, i don't see how you can get into a position of having to beg for money and not be a little shady. until you take the money out of it, they are all going to be a little shady. host: brady is a republican i -- in north carolina. hi, brady. caller: i think this might be the first but i think she won't be the last because the laptop, that's kaput biden closer to -- that's going to put biden closer to prison. barack obama, when he sold irani into russia, that might be treasonous.

can he be charged? the things i hear just destroys a -- destroys democracy. host: you're saying obama sold uranium to russia? caller: [indiscernible] host: our next colors in fort lauderdale. caller: it was real funny about the one lady fact checking and then she goes on to give you organizations that are conservative that don't fact-check. you can't fact-check anything to the people you are already leaning towards peer you are supposed to go to the independent sites. even that, it is hard for me to listen to these women try to defend trump. they are the least respected individuals that he knows. he talks about it all the time.

i had to be between eight and 10. now a daniel's horse face. and you grab women and take a handful. they have no self-respect. they will set up and defend this man and he talked about how he abused women, how he had 15 to 16 different complaint against him, and we are not even talking about the lady that pointed out the other situations where he was defrauding people in his own university. host: when it comes to women, a lot of people bring up phil clinton. -- bill clinton. caller: they can bring a bill clinton but he did not get out and talk about them in public. you never heard bill clinton talk about something negative about somebody's looks or they would have to be between eight and tend to mess with them. he never said anything like that. all these women calling in are no between -- nowhere between

eight and 10 in trump spoke. host: charles is in texas, independent line. caller:? how are you today? thank you for my call. i'm a former gonzalez democrat. you have no idea who that is i'm sure you are too young to remember him but he was the one that took over the last banking fiasco under ronald reagan, a republican, he was a democrat. he's the only one who did not come out of washington a rich man. to make a long story short, the reason i ask everybody to please not judge a book by its cover, i know the man is obnoxious, i know he is arrogant, and he has probably done so money things in his personal life but look at it this way, before he ran for president or announced he ran for president, you never heard anything about the man other than a cameo here and there on tv. but once he started to run, i'll point this out to everybody, he is an outsider, he is not a career politician. but let me tell you something i

know, i backed bill clinton, i don't care what he did under the desk with monica lewinsky. i could care less. as long as it did not affect my budget or pocketbook and everything was fine. under bill clinton, the government work. under donald trump, the government was working. i don't know your situation in washington but here in texas gas was $1.26. host: the charges against him are not about his affair, it is about business fraud and campaign-finance. caller: i understand that. what i'm trying to tell you is they are trying to throw everything and a kitchen sink. i could care less what the man did as far as paying some prostitute off and that is basically all that woman is. host: why -- what do you think about the other investigators -- investigations ongoing as far as

the documents at mar-a-lago, the election interference in georgia, the january 6 activities? caller: mar-a-lago, i have no idea but other people were found with documents. did he take a couple? he probably did. did he do it on purpose? who knows. let me say this, other people have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar also but for whatever reason this gentleman is being crucified. i'm just going to tell everybody this, look at the four years he was in office and tell me you were better or not -- better off or not. i'm an independent, not a republican. so i just ask everybody to look at what was going on when he was in office and look what was going on now. it is chaotic. i do not know what it is but all i'm seeing is both sides of the spectrum. if we were better off. also i want to let you know this gentleman who called in earlier

and i caught the tail end of him, i don't know if it was anthony or what, you can't make a direct threat toward a president. word to the wise, everybody that wants to call in, the secret service monitors your calls so thank you very much. host: joann is a republican, bridgeport, connecticut. go ahead. caller: everyone is attacking donald trump. you have people funded by george soros who are going after a former president. these campaigns, the fcc in charge of the federal prosecutors, taking charge of -- bragg said he was going after them. this is persecution. and you know what? this whole country was better off in all races under donald trump. look what we have now, no one talks about how the [indiscernible] republicans can go after the biden family, we already have documents that shows money went

to rob walker, $3 million from beijing, and days later it was transferred, $1 million, in biden families names. one is a prosecutor, a d.a., and another out to the biden family. host: let's take a look at this nbc news, it says this, trump campaign says it raised more than $4 million in the 24 hours after his indictment. trump's campaign sent out multiple fundraising apps following the news of an indictment and former president donald trump raised $4 million in 24 hours after his indictment in manhattan became public. the trump campaign said that more than 25% of the donations came from first-time donors and the -- to the former president former solidifying his status as the clear front runner in the republican party." trump's campaign sent out more than half a dozen fundraising

solicitations over email in less than 24 hours after his indictment and called for donations on his truth social platform as well. a campaign official also old nbc news it received 16,000 volunteers sign up over the past day as well. let's talk next to tim in rochester, new york, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i keep your republicans talk about trump did that and he did this. he only did one thing, cut taxes for the rich. he did not do anything else for the pandemic, he believed the chinese leader, dictator, he told him about covid you have nothing to worry about and it is not serious. host: what was your reaction to the indictment? caller: [indiscernible] what are they up in arms for? they got georgia, they got the

documents, and they got january 6. he's about to get indicted on two of them, i think january 6 and georgia. like come on, this dude is a fraud. come on. host: and marilyn is on the dependent -- the independent line. caller: this thing about anyway six is a laugh because he called nancy pelosi before the fighting started and he said i will send the national guard in there and she said no. so she is the one that lets it go on. he tried to stop it and then they lied at the hearing and said he did not do anything to stop it but that is absolutely a lie. he tried and tried, he tried in portland, oregon when they were burning down everything, antifa. host: about the indictment, what do you think? caller: i think it is an outrage

because other presidents, look at clinton, he was doing it on company time. we were paying him his wage while he was having sex in the white house and this gaia never did anything like that. host: it's not about the sexual relationship, it is about business fraud. caller: january 6 is one of those things. he tried to stop it. even though he said support me but when it started getting rough he wanted to stop it and told people to go home. it's a lie about them saying he did not try to stop it and they want to cover that up because that is true then they do not like truth. they are allergic to truth, people that hate trump. the three best presidents we had in the world with roosevelt and kennedy and now trump. the rest of them could do a thing for any of us. host: it's interesting the first two you mentioned are democrats. caller: i know.

i was a democrat until when they started legalizing killing babies, abortions. i will not stand for that. killing the innocent like that, that is horrible. making that legal. they think that is good because they say it is legal and it is right, so a slavery legal but it was not right. murdering of all of these babies, the blood of the babies are all these peoples -- on all these people tans i vote democrat because they support -- host: mo is in -- is on the republican line. caller: thank you. you just refer to the article about first-time donors to donald trump on one of them. -- donald trump, i am one of them. and i am broke. from this administration, i'm completely broke. host: tell me about why you decided to donate to the former president's campaign. caller: first six years, seven

years all the injustices that have been committed against trump, and democrats have control of everything, all the departments, even your channel. i can tell you get upset when republicans call in, and every time i turn the channel on you have some program against donald trump. you had one of the prosecutors that quit in that new york office, you had him on there pushing for trump to be indicted. injustices always get corrected. the bidens, they are the dirtiest family you can see. have you seen the laptop pictures of biden's son?

host: i actually have not seen them because i do not want to see them but it is not illegal. caller: why don't you want to see them? host: what i'm saying is it is not illegal and hunter biden is a private citizen. i think that is what most people would tell you, that is the difference here. caller: they have been going after donald trump's kids. what are you talking about? host: ok, let's go to robert next in missouri. democrat. caller: then people saying trump is ok, there's something wrong with them. he has tour this country up and done more killing that we have had in history. we are better off now than we ever was with trump when he shut the country down and everybody had to sell stuff, pond stuff, and -- pawn stuff, and i hope

they indict him some more. host: here's a text we got from mike in florida. in this country we follow the constitution. yes trump has been indicted but charges have been sealed so the general public does not know exactly what he is charged with. all the right-wing media propaganda is totally un-american. let's follow our laws and let the justice system play out. if trump is not guilty, he will be acquitted. the text from joan in minnesota, this is a political farce that shows hate and many laws broken by bragg. no one is above the law including bragg and the democrats. another act destroying our country and justice system. stephen in michigan, there is more indictments on the coming in the near future. he is a crook and conman. the republican party really needs to come back to reality or we are doomed as a country. finally steve on facebook

says if you think nobody is above the law, you are naive and delusional. if you do not think this is nothing more than a political show, you are willfully ignorant. joe is next in maine, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. let me just take a second and just say oh my god, this president, the first time i called this show was when donald trump was lying about his products made in china. so the man is a liar and he is raising money off of just like was said earlier, he ran as a republican because he said they are easily lied to because they are stupid. that is what was said. you had a lady call earlier and she said she'd come on the line democrats. then you asked her what lie?

she goes oh my god the bidens, january 6, but what lie? there is no lie. it is just ridiculous and what is going to happen is the next indictment in georgia. what are they going to do, jump up and pull their hair out again? sean hannity will come in on a friday night and actually be in the studio to defend donald trump? they are making complete idiots of themselves. and like i just said, it happens all the time. republicans come in, lying about donald trump, and the host asked them what specific lie have the democrats spread? host: got it. let's take a look at -- this is a poll from the morning consult, and it says a slim majority of voters approve of trump's indictment, so few gop voters

do. 70% of potential gop primary voters disapprove of it. shirley is a republican in south carolina. good morning. go right ahead. caller: i just want to say i do not know what is wrong with all these people. donald trump was the best president we ever had. he was for the american people. and look what's happened to america now since biden's in there. he tore up everything trump did. i think it is awful, but -- that people talk about donald trump like they do. host: and that will be our last call for this segment. we'll be taking more of your calls throughout the rest of the show, and we will have an open forum later. up next is new york university

professor noa krawczyk. she discusses the fentanyl epidemic and how an additive is worsening the crisis. and this year is 75 years since the marshall plan started the flow of billions of dollars after world war ii. economist and author benn steil joins us to talk about its significance. ♪ >> american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. on the 20th anniversary of the iraq war, a story and talks about the war, president george w. bush, an american policy on lectures in history. princeton university scholar allen guelzo on how puritanism

and enlightenment shaped colonial america. find a full schedule on your program night or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. booktv every sunday on c-span 2 features the latest authors featuring their books. live on "in depth," stacy schiff takes her calls about megan history in the lives of cleopatra and benjamin franklin. and dashers is views on how americans can spread their wealth so that everyone is prosperous in his book "poverty by america." watch booktv every sunday on

c-span 2, and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch anytime on tv -- on booktv.org. >> order your copy of the 11 8th congressional directory on c-spanshop.org. it has bio and contact information for every member and important information on meetings, the president's cabinet, and state avenues. scan the code on the right to order your copy today or go to c-spanshop.org. it's $29.95, plus shipping and handling. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's store. browse through the latest collection of products, payroll, books, home decor. there is something for every

c-span fan. every purchase help support our nonprofit operations. shop now, or anytime, at c-span shop.org. "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. i am joined now by new york university professor noa krawczyk. she is also at the new york university center for opioid and epidemiology. welcome to the program. guest: thank you so much. thanks for having me. host: if you would like to call in, we will be talking about the fentanyl epidemic and this drug called tranq. we have our lines split up by region this time, so if you are in the eastern or central time zone, it is (202) 748-8000. if you are in pacific or mountain, it is (202) 748-8001. we also have a line if you are

impacted by the fentanyl crisis. and that is (202) 748-8002. i want to start by showing people some charts from the nih to start putting things in perspective. here is a chart, and it goes up to 2021, and it is national drug involved deaths. here is the total going up. then it is split up here the line is male at the top and then female. you can see a sharp increase in males. this shows national drug overdose deaths among all ages, but it is split up by what caused it. you can see here this gray line is fentanyl deaths, followed a distant second by methamphetamine. can you put things in perspective? what is going on with the

fentanyl crisis and what i was showing was up to 2021, what is happening 2022 and so far this year? guest: sure. we've seen that, unfortunately, across the u.s., overdoses have really been going up for a long time, really for the past 20 years. and really in the last few years since we started seeing fentanyl in the illicit drug supply coming in around 2014, we started seeing a much graver uptick in overdose deaths, mostly driven by fentanyl. this is what we are seeing is the primary driver of overdoses in recent years as well. unfortunately, during the covid pandemic, the situation got worse in that fentanyl really became more available in the drug supply and is continuing to really be the leading cause of deaths among people who are using drugs and people affected

by this crisis. host: and why did it become more available during the pandemic? guest: so there are a few different reasons. the way that the illicit drug market works is that, when there is disruption to a drug supply but there still demand, so there's still a lot of people who have opioid addiction or use disorder, the medical term we call it, people will continue to seek out opioid spirit what happened during the pandemic was there was a lot of disruption in drug supply networks and routes, just like there was disruption of the supply of anything during the covid pandemic. so fentanyl became an alternative that is cheaper and, because it is more potent, it is easier to mix in and you need lower doses of it. that is why we are actually seeing increases in the fentanyl availability. and, importantly, when we try

and crackdown on certain types of drugs in our drug supply, that often leads to new emergence of new drugs. that is what we saw in terms of the emergence of fentanyl as an alternative to heroin in our supply. host: and currently, how is the overdose crisis going? are the numbers starting to come down a little bit, or is it still going up? guest: so we only really have provisional data for 2022. the numbers have not officially come out. there is still work being done. unfortunately, we are not in a reduction in overdose. we see that there is a continued trend where fentanyl is causing very high rates of overdose deaths. we cannot say for sure how much it has gone up, but it is not looking great. host: i want to ask you about this, tranq. here's an article from the wall street journal. it says congress moves to add tranq to controlled drugs list,

and the dea has warned of zaila zine -- first, tell us -- guest: xylazine, the straight name is tranq. it is really a tranquilizer that does not have approved human use. we have seen a become, more common adulterate in the illicit drug supply. most of the time we see xylazine mixed in with fentanyl or heroin. 99% of cases where people have an overdose that involve xylazine also involve another opioid, usually fentanyl. unfortunately, because it is a sedative, so not an opioid, a different type of drug, which also leads to a sedative effect

-- because of that, it is actually quite dangerous when it is mixed in with other opioids, like fentanyl or heroin. one thing that has been really concerning about it and has gotten a lot of media attention is that it has been shown to cause really severe and painful wounds, especially among people who inject drugs, and this is a really big medical concern, to ensure that people who are using drugs mixed with xylazine are getting medical care in a timely fashion for these wounds. host: and why is it being mixed in? what does it do? guest: it is a sedative, so essentially it leads to a relaxation, sedation effect. there are different theories about why drugs get mixed in. part of it may be to increase the impact of fentanyl. fentanyl is a pretty short acting opioid, so something like xylazine, which is a strong sedative, might, to some extent,

lengthen the time or the effect of the fentanyl, so that is what we are hearing. but a lot of it is also what i mentioned in terms of, again, efforts to try and crackdown on other drugs. it is hard to know where they are coming from or why incident times are certain places, but there have been many efforts to increase penalties on fentanyl and crackdown on fentanyl, and unfortunately we are seeing xylazine emerge as a potential alternative or combination drug as fentanyl becomes harder to get or more penalized. host: what does it mean to be added to the controlled substance list? what benefit does that give to law enforcement? guest: so having something on the controlled substances list essentially gives an agency, like the drug enforcement administration, the dea, more

power to essentially penalize both distribution and use of these type of drugs. so it essentially increases penalties among -- really what it ends up doing is increase tennessee's four people arrested with this type of drug. unfortunately, even though the controlled substances list is supposed to help us kind of understand where drugs are coming from or -- and that is what they are written to do, unfortunately we see the opposite effect. we see that, instead of actually preventing these drugs from being distributed at a high level, we see that most people who suffer the consequences of these penalties are people, really individual users, who may be arrested for xylazine mixed in with fentanyl. it is important to see we are not seeing people use xylazine

by itself. xylazine is essentially almost always used with heroin or fentanyl. so those drugs are already on the controlled substance list. they are already criminalized. so adding an additional drug to that list will not necessarily allow us to do much that we are not able to do already in terms of trying to control the supply of these illicit drugs. host: i will put on the screen some of the points of the combating illicazine act. the act would classify it of the controlled substances act, allowing the dea to track its manufacturing to it is not diverted to the illicit market, requiring a report and recommendations on best uses of xylazine, ensuring -- and declaring xyzine an emerging drug threat.

noa, you said it was not really going to do much. do any of these other provisions, do you think, would be helpful in combating this problem? guest: i think, unfortunately, i do not think so. and that is because we have a lot of experience of trying to add substances the controlled substance list. a great example is fentanyl and fentanyl analogues that have been the cause of overdose deaths in recent years. we have seen dea increase, whether it means adding substances to that list or adding different ways that give them kind of more power to try and address the supply of drugs, it unfortunately does not work. we have over 50 years of experience to see that, when we try and crackdown and have more law enforcement approaches to try and reduce the supply, it actually does not work. we have been trying to address the fentanyl for many years

--fentanyl crisis for many years now paid we have tried to stop the flow of drugs, reduce the supply by criminalizing, increasing penalties, giving dea more power to try to control the supply, but unfortunately, it does not work. when there is a market, there will continue to be people who want to use these drugs. we need to think about the demand-side intervention, so reduce demand for the drugs that would reduce harm associated with these drugs, to increase reality-based education about what these drugs do and don't do. those are the types of interventions that really have legs and will make a difference in terms of saving lives and really protecting people, rather than going after supply that we just know we cannot control. host: tell me more about that, about actual policy changes. what do you want to see congress do? you talk about education. give me an idea of some policies you would like.

guest: sure. i think one thing that is really important, and how this comes into policy in many ways -- we have to be stigmatized how we approach -- we have to de-stigma tize how we approach and talk about these drugs. i have seen congressman talk about xylazine as a zombie drug, a flesh eating drug. all that does is increase fear and reduce access to what are needed resources. it marginalizes the people who need help most. that is the first thing we have to do, change the way we talk about these crisis. these are people being affected, people's children and parents and families and loved ones affected by these substances. we need to start talking about it in a health- and person-centered approach. that is the first thing.

the second thing is we have so many evidence-based interventions that are effective for preventing overdose and the harms associated with it. one, of course, is naloxone. we cannot emphasize how much making naloxone available and accessible is important, especially because xylazine is, as i said, mostly mixed in. so anything the federal government can do to increase access to naloxone is important. there are many harm reduction -- so places where people can test their drugs, can use drugs safely, where they can have safe serials, so they do not lead to infectious disease, those have been proven to reduce overdose significantly in many other countries. we actually have two functioning in new york city, and they have been amazing in terms of how many lives they have saved, how much they have already improved

so many people's lives. the federal government can do a lot to stop sanctions against many of these overdose prevention centers that are trying to be set up across the country and currently cannot do that because of federal law and federal approaches to substance use. and finally, my area of research is really focused on treatment for opioid use disorder. we actually have very effective treatments. two medications are extremely effective but most people are not -- you have access to them -- a lot of that has to do with how we wrigley these treatments. methadone is very default access. there is a bill being proposed that would allow us to expand methadone to more care settings. that is where we need to focus our efforts. buprenorphine, the dea expanded

access to it during the pandemic , by making it available through telehealth prp april -- line through telehealth -- through telehealth. unfortunately, the dea has proposed a rule to roll back those allowances and put limits on it. these are the types of regulations and policies we want to focus on, rather than trying to focus on law enforcement approaches and the supply end of this crisis. host: let's go to the phones. andy is our first caller in kentucky. caller: good morning. i would like to challenge everything jet is a biden have time for it. when you have so much money through the pandemic and everybody wants to grab money,

the drug dealers, everybody wants all the money they can get. there is a great campaign going on, especially the drug dealers, to get young people and your children involved in this, so they can sell more of this. this has happened all my life, to where this seems very purposeful. we have opened up the border, where it comes in here so easily. and then they want us to pay for all the drug overdoses and for all the hospitalizations, for taking care of the drug addict'' children, hospitalization, housing, food. why don't we consolidate all this we give to these people and something similar to what you were saying, but go a lot further with it, is to make all these hotel jails. if the addicts can say they come

-- go in, get all the drugs they want for free, and then because it is already going on out here -- it is not going to cost us anymore. so once these people are off drugs, then -- or they're dead and gone, problem over with. host: all right, let's get a reaction. guest: thanks for calling. i think we have to remember that this crisis -- sometimes we talk about people who use drugs or addicts, which can be a stigmatizing term, to talk about people who have a substance use disorder, just like many other mental health and physical health conditions. we want to humanize people and understand what is causing their substance use, what is causing their harm related to substance use, and think about what is most pragmatic in terms of helping people and be healthy in

whatever way people see best for them. these are family members, friends, community members. unfortunately, we know that forcing people into treatment, mandating treatment is not effective. we have many cases of trying to do that. it just is not work. what we do know works are these harm reduction, health based approaches and evidence-based approaches to treatment in order to reduce harm. host: joe is next in new orleans, louisiana. caller: good morning. my question is is fentanyl as addictive as crack was, or still is? because, seemingly, the approach to treatement -- treatment and finding health resources for individuals who overdose or are

using fentanyl is very different from the approach that was used with crack addicts. crack addicts were sent to jail for many, many years. you never heard of the government developing resources for individuals who had overdoses. if you had an overdose, you either died or went to jail. so my question is why the difference in the approach of handling fentanyl users? because, i nmy opinion, it is because white individuals are now the primary users of fentanyl, where blacks were the ones using crack, and it was a criminal offense, rather than a health issue, which seems to be

the emphasis now -- host: ok, let's get a response. guest: thank you for bringing that up. it is a really important point. i will make the point that fentanyl is a different type of drug. fentanyl is an opioid while crack cocaine is a stimulant. we have seen that in the past, especially when substance use is really affecting racially marginalized communities. it was created as -- it was treated as a criminal problem, unfortunately, as a war on drugs, which is mostly a war on people, mostly people of color, over many decades. it is true that once the opioid endemic started affecting whiter, more wealthy communities, it did make a shift in terms of our response to it. it is important to note that unfortunately this is not just a white epidemic. the fentanyl epidemic, over the last few years, rates of deaths

in black, hispanic, and american people have been going up even faster than rates among whites. this is a crisis affecting everyone. we do not want to redo harms from the past of criminalizing these problems and focus more on these public health based solutions. host: we have a question here from a text from scott in houston, texas. he asks what percentage of fentanyl overdose deaths are, quote, recreational users? guest: so what i understand is the question is what percentage is those who have a use disorder and those user recreationally. it is difficult enough from the data. although there is some effort to get history when people overdose, sometimes it is

difficult to know how often that person was using drugs. it is not the type of data recorded anywhere because of the criminal stigma around substance use. it is a little bit difficult to know, and there is definitely a mix in terms of recreational use in terms of people who are using it regularly and are at risk of overdose, especially in recent years when fentanyl is not only in the opioid drug supply, it has also been impacting the methamphetamine supply. so it's really an important point. host: max in walcott, connecticut, your next. max, are you there? max is not there. lisa in minnesota, you are there, aren't you?

caller: yes, i am. host: go ahead. caller: yes, my question is related -- the fentanyl problem has come to the forefront lately, but one of the problems i see is kind of after the cdc revised guidelines -- all of the comments, almost all of the comments, were for people who needed the medication but couldn't get it because they overreacted. so my concern is what about the chronic pain patients, when the supply from doctors has gotten reduced about 50%, and now they cannot get their medication through the doctor? what can we do to help them? that is my question. host: what do you think? guest: that is a great question. it is a really big issue,

especially because people who often use opioids, have an overview of use disorder, many people also have chronic pain that occurs simultaneously to that. many people who have been on opioid therapy for pain for any years or months become dependent on these medications or need them to address pain. it is very complicated to really balance the risks of overprescribing opioids with they need to treat pain, especially among people who have really grown to depend on these medications. there is still new research being done in terms of what is the best way to approach prescriptions among people with chronic pain. what we really need is to have more access to alternative treatments, like buprenorphine, for people who can benefit from those, who also have pain and co-occurring pain and substance use needs. and that is still an area

evolving in terms of what the best treatment approach is, but we still need to learn more about how to best manage chronic pain patients with opioid use. host: i want to go back to what you are saying about naloxone, which is called narcan -- that's the counter for the overdose for fentanyl. here is the new york times. it says the fda approves narcan for over-the-counter sale. the nasal spray reduces overdoses, and public health officials hope that, by making it more widely available, can save lives and reduce drug fatalities. we are exiting that in the summer, that it would hit the over the shelf, and people would be able to walk into a pharmacy and buy it. what impact do you think that would have, and how would that work? would everyone carry one like an epipen?

guest: this is what it looks like. it is a little spray can that you can carry with you. it is a nasal spray so it gets sprayed into someone's nose. it is an overdose reversal drug like you said and narcan is specifically the spray brand name for the specific type of formulation. we are really excited about narcan being available over-the-counter. it is one less barrier to being able to access this treatment. in terms of knowing what public health impact it will actually have, we have to know how costly it will be. currently narcan is really cost-prohibitive, upwards of $75 to $90.

most people will not purchase that on their own. we need to find out what the company is planning to charge and what the retail price for the -- will be. we also have many other interventions. for example, making spaces where people don't have to use alone. narcan only really works if someone overdoses and there is someone there to administer. we can do more cold pains -- more campaigns. that is really what is going to make narcan go out to the people who are actually experiencing an overdose. in terms of the question if everyone should carry it, i would recommend if you are around people who you think might be at risk of overdose or you live in an area where there are higher rates of overdose and you think you might encounter

someone who might experience an overdose. you live with someone who uses. i take mine around with me in new york city. it never hurts to have it and it does not have any harmful effects when someone is unresponsive and you have symptoms of an overdose, it can be lifesaving. host: how long does it last? how long is the shelf life? guest: this narcan kit expires in 2025. it is usually two to three years. with expiration dates, we are not always sure exactly what that date is. if you have naloxone on hand and it is expired, you should still use it and call for help as soon as possible.

we should make sure we have non-expired naloxone available especially for those who are highest risk. host: let's talk to chris in california. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to know if she is aware of the study of university of california irvine that came out two years ago. when taken along with morphine, it not only enhances the effect of morphine but it prevents the need to increase dosage. guest: i have not heard about this. thank you for sharing that. i will look to see if i can find more information about it. host: glenn is next in connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question about the

silencing part of this. if someone is addicted to heroin, is anything being done as far as treating these people? is it a more dangerous withdrawal and do the professionals know how to treat that at this point? guest: that is a great question. the first thing is that even though it is not an opioid, it is often mixed with an opioid. we want to have things like naloxone available. if the opioid is what is causing the overdose, it will work to revive that person. if someone is still not responsive or is having symptoms related to the sedative that are different from the opioid that are not expected, it is important to get emergency medical care. emergency care in hospitals can

treat person and make sure they are safe from any possible effect from the very strong sedation of the drug but also to be able to treat any other symptoms that a person might have from the xylazine use. for that use it is really important to be educating our medical professionals about this emerging drug so they know how to respond to it and we want to encourage people to seek care. that is another reason why we don't want to increase criminal penalties. we don't want to continue to stigmatize this drug because if someone does have an overdose or they have xylazine in their drug supply, we want them to get help as soon as possible and not via repercussion. host: let's talk to allen in south carolina. you have been impacted by the crisis. caller: i live in rural south carolina and i keep hearing comments about urban and city usage.

overdoses are in rural areas as well. i want to see if you can comment on that, not just the urban areas. guest: absolutely. thank you for bringing that up. we are seeing that the fentanyl crisis and overdose crisis is impacting all over the country. it is not an issue unique to urban settings. in terms of the xylazine, we have seen that really emerge in some urban centers more than others. a good example is we saw xylazine really emerge mostly in philadelphia but since then it has expanded to many other places in pennsylvania including rural areas. it is really important to acknowledge that and know that especially for rural areas, they often lack resources and access to treatment like methandone. that is why things like telehealth is so important. expanding access to a medication like methandone to other healthcare settings where

currently it is not able to be prescribed is really important. it is such a big issue and making more harm reduction programs in rural settings is really key and i hope that policymakers can focus on expanding these programs and services to these rural areas that are in high need for them. host: we have a tweet from lisa that says, "people are not going to parties or their dealer and asking for fentanyl. it is laced in street drugs, painkillers and and high anxiety medicine. in many cases people are buying street drugs because they cannot get them through their doctor or pharmacy." your final comment? guest: it is an important comment. we are seeing fentanyl being laced into other types of drugs including pain pills, anxiety pills. it is a really dangerous market and that is why we want to be focusing on harm reduction

efforts and educating people about this, having people know where they can get their drugs. we have good testing for fentanyl and new testing for xylazine is emerging. before someone uses something that they bought either online or from another illicit source, it is really important to get a place where you can test those drugs or learn more about them or have safety in place and knowing who to call in case of an emergency. host: noa krawczyk, thank you so much for joining us today. coming up, as russia's attacks on ukraine raise questions about what the future of the country may look like, we are marking 75 years since the marshall plan to restore postwar europe that was signed into law 75 years ago this week.

we will talk about the significance with economist and author benn steil. but first, open forum. you can start calling in now. ♪

the country and meeting people along the way and trying to understand where were we as a country. >> neil king and his book, sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. listen to our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> c-span now app is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of washington live and on-demand. keep up with events with live streams and floor proceedings and hearings from congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your

fingertips. stay current with "washington journal" and find scheduling information and c-span radio plus a variety of podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it today. c-span now, your front-row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> since january six, 2021 more than 1000 defendants have been arrested in nearly all 50 states and the district of columbia. they have been charged with a list of felonies and misdemeanors including assaulting, resisting or impeding officers of the u.s.. over 518 individuals have pled guilty to a number of charges. over 60 people have been found guilty at contested trials. a trial found defendant of

felonies and misdemeanors. try to understand more about the judicial process. we asked a juror to tell us her observations. >> hear from a juror in the oath keeper trial on thispide of c-span now app or wherever youhe get your podcasts. >> there are a lot of places to get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to

"washington journal,." it is open forum. i will be taking your calls until 9:00 eastern time. i want to show you a couple of things before we get started. the first is about the storms and the washington post headlines president biden visits mississippi towns devastated by storms. the president offers consolation and federal help in the aftermath. there is an article from the wall street journal about the reporter that was taken. it says that president biden on russia to release report . any release is difficult to secure. it says that president biden urged russia to release the wall street journal reporter saying, "let him go," as he boarded a helicopter on friday amid

relations that are already complicated. the president did not confirm any expulsion of russian diplomat. these organizations from around the world joined on friday in condemning the reporters arrest in russia. in a letter to the russian ambassador to the u.s., editors called for his immediate release. he has urged that the reporter be given access to an attorney and allowed communication with his family. he is 31 years old and the russians are accusing him of espionage. let's go to the phones now. gerland, ohio, republican. caller: yes. none other. i am so disgusted that we don't

have our country anymore. the white house stole our country ever since joe biden became president. my son and i sat here and watched when we had the last counting for the president. we literally saw with our own eyes what has happened and 30,000 came from president trump and they moved it over to the biden family. isn't that wonderful? joe biden could not do anything when he was in congress. he never passed one bill. he has been sleeping at the switch. when is the u.s. going to get rid of the white house people that are dumber than dirt? president trump did a great job. then they want to get rid of him. i have news, they want to get rid of the wrong person. people ought to live the way they should live, by whatever they have learned in school or their mom and dad, whatever.

we have crazy people in the white house and they should be gone. president trump better be helped by the republicans because this is a nightmare. this guy does not know whether to walk up the airline thing or down. host: mary is in pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: good morning, c-span. i just want to let the public know that based on our financial system that basically was created by president reagan, our income employment verification system. i am a retired government worker from pennsylvania. on that system, we notify the public. we integrated all of our financial institutions with our investigative institutions.

any income that you receive goes to treasury, irs, the security exchange commission if you have a business. if you write a check over $10,000, and i imagine this is what was going on with former president trump. we capture all of that information and you cannot erase it. not only did bragg receive the information, but 17 other government agencies received the same information. we have to track and verify when you are getting -- where you are getting your income from, what you are doing with it, especially if you wrote more than one check and i imagine that is what happened with stormy daniels. you are leaving a paper trail. people, keep in mind, you have

to follow the law on all counts even if you have a business. even if you receive an income from another source. that is tracked through our system. thank you and have a good day. host: jorge is next, new mexico, independent. caller: good morning. i was trying to create a new business entity. i wanted it to be socially equitable between the sexes. i called eeoc up and i asked them. you are not allowed to alternate sexes amongst the board. hooters has the exception. they are able to have their business model on young women.

anyway, i say that to say this because what i see happening is that a lot of corporations have liabilities. they have humans they are using as labor and ai as assets. once ai is communicating with humans, the ai is going to be -- the company will be liable for the ai and what it does just like it does with humans. financials, there are three liabilities. human, financial, and machines. they audit financial. they should start auditing hr and i needs to be audited too. host: eric is next in northern virginia on the republican line. caller: good morning, c-span.

i am just commenting about the drug issue going on. what is wrong with just say no? host: you are talking about the drugs? caller: yes. host: i agree, we should say no to drugs. rick in florida, democrat. caller: when i listen to the callers on your republican line, it reminds me of the germans in 1932 who supported hitler. even when berlin was littered with corpses lying under the rubble of allied bombs, he still had fanatical supporters who were ready to follow him into hell. even though hitler's was not an overprivileged draft-dodger with

a silver spoon in his mouth like trump, you can observe the same italia in trump supporter's. one of them just got through spewing the same lies about votes being stolen. even though over 60 federal judges throughout trump's case, laughed him out of the court. apparently they know more than all the judges and all of the investigators and all of the federal election officials just like they know more than the climate scientists, more than the virologists and more than the university professors even though they were obviously looking to get -- lucky to get through high school judging by their grammar and sentence syntax. there was a woman earlier who is a prime example, so convinced of the lies she is wallowing in it that even though you asked her for one specific example of her claims, she could do nothing more than in her mouth over and over about some of the delusions that she is being deceived into

believing by another one of these right wing crazy hate sites. winston churchill said it best. he said, the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. thanks. host: scott, los angeles, independent line. caller: good morning. i want to talk about the last episode about the fentanyl. i have numerous friends in los angeles that have switched from heroin to strictly taking fentanyl and it has resulted in a lot of overdoses. you talked about this narcan stuff. if you can get it, please get more than one dose because what happens is when you administer narcan when someone is overdosing, the narcan can wear off in 30 to 60 minutes and they will overdose again. so you need to be prepared to

administer more if you cannot get medical help from a paramedic or something. there is another thing that is going on is people that are trying to get off the drugs, they take a drug called suboxone. suboxone has naloxone which is the same drug as in narcan. if somebody wants to get high while on suboxone while they are trying to withdraw from their heroin or opioid problem and they take suboxone and they get high, they will not get high so they have to take more and more of the opiate or fentanyl until they are so saturated and the suboxone wears off. now they overdose. at that point they have to administer more narcan or naloxone. i just want to stress that you mentioned what is the shelf life.

the shelf life is probably longer than the expiration time but the most important thing is that you need to be able to administer multiple times if you cannot get medical help. host: and definitely call 911 in that situation. scott, will you be carrying narcan with you when it becomes available? caller: it is already available in my area. but i am still trying to self isolate. i am a caregiver for my mother who is really old. i am not out on the streets anymore talking to my friends. host: good information. romney in orange county, california on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. longtime listener. first time caller. i believe the topic will be

about the marshall plan and i believe the united states of america needs the marshall plan to take the marshall plan. i am an united states air force sergeant and i saw the shantytowns in england. i visited cape town and johannesburg in south africa and i saw the same. i come home and i see the homeless problem has exacerbated. it will take a marshall plan. and a short note, if you don't mind. host: go ahead. caller: i am currently staying in a homeless military base in long beach. i am in orange county near disneyland. the bottom line, i have seen at

least 21 overdoses since november of 2022 to this date and five deaths. no one that i think is trying to get fentanyl from mixing with the fentanyl and heroin. i have talked to two veterans. a marine and one navy. they are taking maintenance for the heroin and now they cannot find a good heroin source. with homeless vets going to different locations, they've got me in long beach. host: todd is in michigan, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning.

i have been calling c-span for over 30 years and i hope you don't cut me off because i want to say something that is very important and i think people need to hear. you have all these people that call with all of these great ideas and opinions. where do they get their news from? they get their news from the same six people that own all of the media in the united states. you don't even know what you are talking about because you only know what they are telling you. i get my news from rt. from sky news and bbc. i go outside and i have to form my own opinions on what is really going on and what is really going on with the economy. the mainstream media does not even talk this week about gdp and putin and all of these other leaders from turkey and the middle east and saudi arabia who

are lining against the united states and the currency of the u.s. dollar. the u.s. dollar does not mean anything. they are doing away with it. you know what? the media does not even mention these things. we have all of these diversions. who cares about trump? i don't give a damn about trump. it is all about the money. everybody wants to have a good life. they want to have a family. they want to be able to pay their bills. that is what it's all about. host: let's try to get jess in north carolina on the republican line. caller: i would like to thank bragg for guaranteeing donald trump would be the next president of the united states of america. thank you, mr. bragg.

if anyone has a functioning brain, you know the election was stolen. he saw obama and joe biden for what they did. joe biden murdered my daughter. host: all right. that is all the time we have for open forum. a quick programming note, ron desantis is speaking today at the pennsylvania leadership conference at 12:00 noon. we will have that on c-span.org and the >> as world leaders discuss plans to rebuild ukraine, much ofhe dialogue refers to a u.s. effort to rebuild parts of europe after world war ii called the marshall plan. president harry truman signed it

into law 75 years ago this week. next on washington journal, we will talk with ben steil, economist and author of the legacy of the marshall plan. here is a portion on the 1950 state department video on the marshall plan and how it helped greece. [video clip] >> the marshall plan is not just to restore greece to its prewar level on the brink of famine, it aims to help restore mounting prosperity. to get ships into the ports was one of the first jobs to be done. greece lost 75 percent of its ships in the war. these ships stolen at lowest prices -- new things were brought in to replace the installation destroyed by war. in may, 1948, they began sending

marshall supplies, older raw materials and machines. by the end of 1950, a total of 240 million marshall $80 have been spent on greece -- marshall aid dollars had been spent on greece. one of the greatest blows the nazis cut to transport was the wrecking of a canal which messed with the deal through the ionian sea. now, with the help of american engineers, the canal has been reopened. over one million things have been re-shifted and the walls of stone repaired. rose, rails, and footbridges have been restored. ships can now go through, avoiding the long haul.

announcer: there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happened here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. announcer: c-span now is a pre-mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the apps with live streams flood proceedings -- four proceedings from congress, white house events, campaigns and more for the world of politics all at your fingertips. stay current with episodes of washington journal. plus a variety of compelling podcasts.

c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. announcer: washington journal continues. host: welcome back. it has been 75 years since the marshall plan started. the flow of billions of dollars in u.s. aid to parts of europe after world war ii. our guest is benn steil, the author of the book "the marshall plan". he joins us from new york city. welcome to the program. >> thank you for having me. host: describe the economic conditions of europe at the end of world war ii and what was at stake for europe and united states? guest: conditions were very dire quite obviously. there was massive destruction,

factories, roads, bridges, canals all destroyed around the continent. most importantly, the intricate division of labor that we count on in developed countries in order to move food from rural areas to urban areas, to move manufactured products from urban areas to row areas had all broken down. a lot of that ot massive lawlessness throughout the continent. tens of thousands of people were murdered in just the immediate aftermath of the war and extra deep judicial -- extrajudicial killings. people were accused of being collaborators. the u.s. was extremely concerned about this. not just from a humanitarian perspective but from an economic and security perspective.

if the european continent cannot be stabilized, the u.s. was very concerned that the people of europe would turn to extreme ideologies. in other words, maybe another form of fascism like nazi germany where they would turn to soviet style communism. in particular, the u.s. was very concerned about signs that the soviet union had expansionist aims in europe, asia, and elsewhere. host: before we talk about the marshall plan, tell us about marshall himself. he was a military man before becoming secretary of state. guest: he was an army chief of staff under fdr during the war. he played a critical role in the war planning and strategy,

implementation. after the war, president truman asked him in the beginning of 1940 seven to take over as secretary of state. so, very quickly after that, in 1947, general marshall went off for his most important diplomatic mission that was six weeks of intense negotiations with his soviet counterpart in moscow, to soviet foreign minister, and stalin himself. the purpose of those meetings was to finalize a peace treaty for germany which would allow an end to the occupation of the country, and facilitate complete american withdrawal of all its troops from europe.

but general barr -- but general marshall left moscow in april 1947 extremely concerned that the soviets were not going to be a cooperative partner and they in fact wanted to see germany and western europe sink into chaos, which would better help them facilitate their expansionist aims on the continent. marshall immediately, when he came home, put in motion the plans to rescue western europe economically to try to integrate it, revive its production as quickly as possible, so it would be able to provide for its own security and protect political integrity of its institutions. host: give us a little bit of

specifics as to what the marshall plan proposed and which countries specifically to help. guest: general marshall introduced the ideas that became the marshall plan. in various general form in a speech at harvard university in june 1947. the speech was, i should emphasize, very general and did not lay out specifics at the time. that was for a very important reason. two important reasons. first, he wanted the york -- the europeans toooperate on a unified plan to revise their economy. he did not want there to b 16 separateational shopping lists that would be presented to the u.s. for example, that each country should have their own self-sufficient steel industry. he wanted them to cooperate, to use their resources efficiently,

to integrate their economies, to revive trade. it was important to him that these ideas come from europe so this was not anything the u.s. was imposing on europe. second, he was very concerned about the soviet union. he knew that the soviets were not going to be a cooperative partner. they might want to get to usa but they were not going to participate in an -- u.s. aid but they were not going to participate with them. he wanted the world to understand that this was an open invitation to europe. no country would be excluded, including the soviet union. but he wanted the soviet union to exclude itself. that is precisely what happened. host: i will remind our viewers that you can get a call if you

would like to ask a question of our guests. the numbers are by region. eastern or central time zones, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. you can send a text on our line, (202) 748-8002. --(202) 748-8003. you mentioned a speech in 1947 at harvard. i wanted to show a portion of that where he lays out his argument for the plan. [video clip] >> the u.s. should do whatever it is able to do to assist in economic return. without this, there could be no political stability and to know and short speech. our policy is not directed against any country or anything except hunger, desperation, and chaos. it is to permit the emergence of political and social traditions in which institutions can exist.

it must not be on a -- basis as various crises develop. any assistance in the future should provide a cure. any government that is linked to assistance in the task of recovery will find full cooperation, i am sure, on the part of the united states government. any government which when we were to block the recovery of other countries cannot expect help from us. [applause] furthermore, governments, political parties, or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit critically or otherwise will encounter the opposition. host: going back to the specifics of the plan, how was

the money used? did the u.s. send cash over? were there specific guidelines as to how the money could be used and in what ways? guest: i just wanted to point out with regards to marshall's speech, did you notice the applause in the middle? the only applause during marshall's speech came where he without naming the country, once the soviet union not to interfere. -- warned the soviet union not to interfere. the subtitle of my book is "the dawn of the cold war". this is the beginning of the cold war conflict between the u.s. and the soviet union. over the course of time between june 1947, marshall's speech, april 1948, when the marshall legislation is passed, the outlines of the program are put

together. the basics were that there was $13.2 billion dedicated to aiding the participant countries. these were ultimately 16 countries that participated. in current dollars, we are talking about $165 billion. as a percentage of u.s. gdp, that is the percentage of u.s. output. if we were to launch the equivalent of a marshall plan today, we would be talking about something approaching $1 trillion. almost all of this money was in grants. it was not loans. the u.s. was determined not to dump further debt on nations that were already indebted. but the scheme was very clever in that it did not simply write

checks. it had complicated mechanisms called counterpart funds in order to ensure that the money was well used and that the u.s., where as it did not dictate the programs, but have some say in how the money was used. host: what about fraud and abuse? was there oversight of the aid money that went over there? guest: there was indeed. but the basic mechanism was such that the incentives were really right on the part of the recipient countries. this is just a brief example of how counterpart funds work. say a french farmer needed a tractor and he wanted to buy that from the u.s. and it was not available locally. he could buy the tractor with

his own money and he could buy it in french francs. the french francs were held by the french central bank. the u.s. would provide that tractor. there would be no trans growth friends -- funds from france to the u.s. so the former would get the tractor he indeed wanted, needed, and paid for in order to rebuild his farm. the french central bank would then put in matching money. money that matched that money that the farmer had put in. then the french government could use that money for a national development program. the united states, in theory, had veto power over how that money was used but ultimately,

95% of the decisions were left to the national governments. indeed, the various participant governments chose to use the money in very different ways. host: we are taking your calls for our guests on our lines by regions. eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000. pacific or mountain time zones, (202) 748-8001. you can also text us and reaches us on social media. how successful was the marshall plan and in what ways? guest: quite successful. if we just look at the basic statistics from 1948 to 1942, output in this of recipient countries expanded by a massive 50% -- 60%. if you read the early accounts by the marshall plan, you get the impression that all this

growth is just massive quick revival of economic activity on the european continent, owed to the dollars that the u.s. was sending over. but that was not really the case. it was not for some decades until you economists darted putting the mechanisms behind the marshall plan, trying to understand how it actually worked. the basic findings where it was not the money per se that was an important primer to get reconstruction going again. there was a massive revival of private investment on the continent and there were two reasons behind that that people often overlook. one was the complete reversal of the u.s. occupation policy in germany in 1944. occupation policy was set

according to a morgenthaler plan named after henry morgan that. the idea was to turn it into an agricultural country so it would not be able to threaten its neighbors again. that was a disastrous policy in that it was fueling starvation in germany and was returning the revival of its own neighbors' economy -- neighbors' economies. france, britain, etc. were dependent on germany. so there was a complete reversal of that policy, turning germany once again into an industrial engine. integrated western europe became a critical component of the marshall plan.

the second is the provision of u.s. security to participating countries. france and britain in particular said it was dangerous for them to go forward with the u.s. economic integration policy without guarantees from the u.s. for their security. if they integrated, they would no longer be economically self-sufficient and could not protect themselves on their own. a year and a day after the marshall aid the deflation was passed, in april 1989 -- 1949, the nato legislation was passed. this commitment of the u.s. providing security to the participating countries was absolutely critical to their rapid revival. it convince investors that americans were not going home as they had after world war i but were committed to the ongoing security of western europe.

host: you see the creation of nato as a direct result of the marshall plan? guest: it was not an intended result. after world war ii, the u.s. had over 3 million troops in europe and p bed -- president truman began withdrawing them very quickly. the literary spending collapsed from $963 billion to $95 billion in 1948. the u.s. was trying to disengage from europe militarily but our new european allies made clear to us that security commitments from the u.s. were going to be absolutely critical to first their economic revival and second, their ability to protect the integrity of their own political institutions against potential threats from either a

revived germany that may go down a hostile path again or more importantly, the soviet union. host: let's talk to callers. george in new york. caller: good morning. you were talking earlier about the tractor and france. are you aware that the john deere company manufacturer -- today star at that time? guest: i do not know who were the major tractor any fractures in the u.s. at that time. it was obvious, given the destruction in europe, that's a of the manufacturers have to be provided directly from the u.s. because the capacity was not there in europe. i should emphasize the marshall plan was a long-term vision. whereas in the short term, the

u.s. was providing industrial goods machinery like tractors to western europe, the aim was to overtime integrated western europe economically so that the economy would be a balanced and germany would once again be put in its place as a dominant provider of industrial goods to europe. agriculture would flourish again in the regions where it was most beneficial. and the economies of western europe would no longer be dependent on the united states. the u.s. in fact used some very clever means to revive trade in western europe from 1950 to 1958, well beyond the tenure of the marshall plan.

the european payments union was put into place under which the united states guaranteed payments among the various participating nations in order to get them to trade again. for example, countries did not want to trade with germany because if you sold something to germany, you were afraid he would never get paid because so many countries had claims on germany. by the united states standing behind those contracts, the united states was able to revive inter-european trade in western europe. host: devon in ohio. good morning. caller: for morning. i was just curious how much you believe the u.s. investing in postwar europe helped lay a foundation for a very positive american western european relation during the cold war and helped with the foundation of

nato? guest: absolutely critical. as i emphasize, the two things went together. the economic aid and the military guarantees. that was not the original intention of the marshall plan. the original intention was to allow the u.s. to disengage militarily from europe. the lesson we learned very quickly was that the two things had to go together. i could just give you a quick example of why those two things go together. consider iraq and afghanistan. since those wars, we have spent $250 billion on reconstruction aid alone. that is around $50 billion more than the totality of marshall aid in current dollars. yet we have almost nothing to show for it politically.

the reason is we were unable to provide the necessary external and internal security to those countries that would have allowed their colonies -- economies to develop along the lines we saw in western europe after world war ii. the security element is absolutely imperative. host: i wanted to ask you about a reaction within the u.s. to the marshall plan. was congress fully on board? or was the american public on board? guest: initially congress was not on board. we had divided government at the time. a democratic president, harry truman. a republican house and senate. the public and congressmen in particular were quite skeptical about the idea of using massive foreign aid as a tool to

reinforce u.s. economic and security interests. the administration launched a massive public relations and education campaign, beginning in the fall of 1947. many congressmen, including republican congressman, visited europe to see conditions on the ground. many of them, like young congressman richard nixon from california, came home convince the u.s. really did have to do something radical, something new, in order to protect its interests in europe without having to depend on the military . general marshall himself traveled around the u.s., speaking to farms, women's

groups, labor groups, emphasizing the importance of this aid. then, there was also a galvanizing factor in the international sphere. in february 1948, the soviets instigated a communist coup in czechoslovakia. there had been a coalition government in czechoslovakia at the time. the democrats were pushed out and the communists took over. that's really convinced a lot of wavering republican congressman that they needed to support the marshall aid legislation because if they did not, stalin would use these same tactics further and further west, more and more threatening u.s. security and economic interests. host: before we go to the phones, i wanted to show our viewers a portion of secretary of state george marshall

testified before congress about the marshall plan in early 1948. [video clip] >> within its own resources, your cannot achieve within a reasonable time economic stability. the solution would be much easier if all nations of europe were cooperating but they are not. the soviet union and the communist parties have proclaimed their opposition to a plan where european -- a plan for european economic recovery. it is a difficult program and you know better than i do the political difficulties involved in this program. there is no doubt in my mind that if we decide to do this thing, we can do this successfully. there is also no doubt in my mind that the whole world hangs in the balance. host: he said the whole world hangs in the balance. guest: yes.

he very much meant it because this was not just the future of western europe. that was in doubt. it was the future of asia, where we also had deep security concerns. china was in the midst of a civil war. the soviet union was supporting mao and the communists. of course, we had the korean war break out in 1950. there was a big debate in the u.s. about whether we should pursue a mutual japan or whether we should -- a neutral japan or whether we should try to turn japan into a u.s. military ally, as we wound up doing with germany and europe. this sort of idea that we

applied in the marshall plan in western europe were ultimately applied in asia as well. host: brian in fulsome, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. you sound very knowledgeable about what you are talking about and i do want to go get this book. when i have seen pictures of europe, the devastation that world war ii created. the amount of machinery and the productivity of the u.s. at that time was incredible. i think the war helped because we were so mobilizing for the war that it allowed us to provide provisions that france, england, germany or what ever countries needed. when i see some pictures of

devastation, i have to say it is not unlike some devastation imc in our inner city today. old factories just shuddered -- shuttered and demolished. how are we going to turn the marshall plan for our nation? do we have the ability or will we need foreign help? that is my question. guest: you make an excellent point. in order to kickstart the reconstruction of europe. and remember, this was just kickstarting. we cannot do this civilly with government money. we had to mobilize private investment. the private investment came into western europe and eventually swamped the marshall aid from the u.s.. what was absolutely critical is in the u.s., it was standing

behind this reconstruction. the western europeans understood that this was a strategic imperative. when we look at problems that we have at home, and he talked about the economic devastation of certain inner cities in the u.s., it is very important that we have a plan, not just to put public money in but to give maximum incentives to the private sector to invest in these communities, to make it clear the government is absolutely determined to make life better for the citizens of those communities. host: lee in bronx, new york. caller: you speak of the marshall plan and i have to play devils advocate and say there are two sides to the story.

security was imperative to russia as well because germany had invaded them twice. i know that malnutrition disappear and it helped form nato and all of that but what are your thoughts on the berlin blockade? and that they were not for the --. we have to understand that the whole world is not going to be a democracy. what do you think of the berlin blockade? guest: i think you asked an absolutely excellent question. i point out the subtitle of my book is "don of the cold war". after marshall's speech in june of 1947, you really do get the beginnings of serious cold war conflict between the u.s. and the soviet union.

prior to marshall's speech, you did have coalition governments of sport in the central and eastern europe and poland and romania and hungary and bulgaria. the most legitimate of those was czechoslovakia as i mentioned. but stolen, after marshall's speech became very concerned with two things. one is that the u.s. with spread marshall aid to what he called satellite nations in eastern and central europe. he was determined this would not happen so he cracked down on all the coalition governments in central and eastern europe and entrenched communist control with regard to germany, stalin's spies in washington and london made it clear to him the u.s.

was reversing occupation policy in germany and it would no longer be the morgenthau plan. the u.s. was going to re-industrialize germany and may even create a democratic west derman state which the u.s. did in 1949. as he pointed out, the soviets were very concerned about an industrially revived germany which they believed would once again reemerge as a military threat to the soviet union. i do argue in the book that given the enormous teaching differences between the u.s. and the soviet union, the cold war was probably inevitable but there is absolutely no doubt that the marshall fan

accelerated the path to cold war and accelerated the division of europe. host: james from green bay, wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: good. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am going to touch basis. i served in europe in the 1960's. please do not pass my name on. i want to know, what the status of the russian agreements with europe contributed to the marshall plan? guest: i am not clear what you are referring to in terms of the statuses of forces agreement. there is no doubt, as i emphasized, the creation of nato.

the combining of national military forces in western europe was critical to the marshall plan. but i am not quite sure what it is you are trying to for size. caller: the forces agreement allowed civilian governments to take over any military person that they thought committed a crime. they were instantly accused and convicted then from the local government. the marshall plan never involved that because it was u.s. or nato running the whole works. the status of forces agreement was to get people protection to the german government of people of america. it is an interesting question because i left there and i never went back. guest: there is no doubt that

after the creation of the marshall plan and tomato, there were various issues of conflict. sometimes deep conflict among allies, particularly in the military sphere but also in the trade sphere. that was anticipated by the marshall planners. people on both sides of this divide. i cannot emphasize enough how much this was intended to be a long-term plan where the u.s. recognized there were going to be difficulties that we were trying to create allies, not colonies of brine, not just transactional -- colonies abroad , not just transactional

counterparts, allies who would be with us for generations. you had congressman ultimately talking about this being a fifty-year plan. not a fifty-year plan of economic aid from the u.s. but a fifty-year plan in the sense that we were going to produce alliances in europe and asia that would endure with us through the generations. i think when the berlin wall fell in 1989, we saw just how powerful that vision was. because the alliances that have been created by the soviet union after world war ii, in particular the warsaw pact, crumbled immediately. whereas the alliances that spring out of the marshall plan, in particular nato but also the european union, because european clinical integration was also a

game of the marshall plan. they became as popular as ever. newly liberated countries in eastern europe were clamoring to get into the institutions. that is a great legacy of the marshall plan. host: we covered your remarks about this on book tv in an event in 2019. you call the marshall plan " visionary but hardheaded". explain that? guest: the reason we are talking about the marshall plan today is because we see it as a success. it was a success partly because of the way we had to find the boundaries of the plan. if we had, at the time, to find success in terms of being able to bring poland and czechoslovakia into the marshall

plan, two countries that very much wanted to participate, but which stalin would not allowed to participate. if we had made that fundamental to the marshall plan, we would not have succeeded and we would not be talking about the marshall plan today. the reason is we would ultimately have had to go to war with the soviet union in order to even try to achieve the same. it was a fundamental objective of the marshall plan to secure vital american interest in europe without having to go toward. we made some very hardheaded decisions with regard to czechoslovakia. for example, george kennan in the state department projected the desk predicted -- the state

department predicted the failure and jerome marshall made the decision not to interfere because he felt we did not have to conventional force levels necessary, more would we ever have the conventional forces necessary in order to defend czechoslovakia. it was sensible to keep out and understand that geography cannot be changed. the u.s. was not of intent. today, in europe, we are dealing with the same questions with guard to ukraine. to what degree can we ultimately integrate ukraine into western economic political and military structures given that it has a long unprotected order with a hostile russia? these are very difficult questions with the same sort of questions that we had to deal with in formulating and implementing the marshall plan. host: i want to talk about what

is going on today. you mentioned reconstruction in iraq and afghanistan. spent a lot of money and did not get a whole lot for it because of the security situation. what happens when ukraine gets to the point of needing to be rebuilt? what lessons do you think we can take from the marshall plan? guest: that is a great question. most likely -- unfortunately, a war in ukraine will not end immediately with a peace treaty. it is more likely to be something in the form of an armistice like we have in korea between north and south. unfortunately, it will probably involve russia still occupying parts of ukraine. it is very difficult to imagine, for example, russia and abandoning crimea -- russia

abandoning crimea. under those circumstances, it would be very difficult to use massive reconstruction in ukraine as a means of stimulating massive, foreign, private investment in the country because that would involve integrating it into western political economic and military structures that russia is, right now at least, determined to oppose. i am not, by any means, calling for appeasing russia. but we have to understand that there are limits to what we can achieve without some degree of cooperation from russia. i believe we have to take a long-term vision with regard to reconstruction thing -- to

reconstructing ukraine. vladimir putin is 70 years old. he is not going to be in power forever. we should in the short term continue to use economic and diplomatic pressure to try to compel russia to withdraw its forces, to end its aggression against ukraine. ultimately, a productive settlement of the conflict will almost certainly require a new administration in russia. host: sherry in margaret bill, new york. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was not aware of your book so i just ordered it this morning. i am just calling -- i think you probably answered a couple of my questions i had most recently about ukraine and the type of cooperation that we could get

now to help rebuild it after the conflict is over with. initially, i wanted to stay -- say that my father was stationed in germany right after world war ii. he did not speak a lot about germany at this time. only that it was a complete mess , just destruction. dirty seven years later, i was stationed at -- 37 years later, i was stationed in the army as an mp and it was amazing how you would never know there was a war there. the highway system was brought over to the u.s., everything was so beautiful. originally, what my question was is, going back to ukraine, what

kind of cooperation do you think we in the u.s. or nato would get to help rebuild ukraine? i do not think it would be very much in today's political climate -- the right-wing politicians and their supporters are against sending supplies into money to ukraine right now to help fight russia. i was just wondering if you had anything more on that. also, sorry i am flip-flopping back and forth. but going back, what kind of cooperation was the local populace like in germany after world war ii in helping to rebuild their country? were there limitations? i know that when i was there, there was a percentage of nationals that we had to hire to work on the posts. guest: one of the many heroes of

mine -- my narrative is u.s. general lucius clay, who was the military governor in germany after the war. he deserves enormous credit for reversing u.s. occupation policy in the country and getting the u.s. to understand that yes, indeed, we could with a positive vision and economics support make west germany into a democratic, peaceloving, prosperous ally. indeed, that is exactly what we did. it was only western germany. we were not able to do it throughout the entire country. we tried. general marshall spent six weeks

in moscow trying to bring about unification of germany in march and april of 1947. but we were unable to do it so we had to limit the scope of our objectives. in ukraine, likewise, we are going to have to limit the scope of our objectives at least in the first phase of reconstruction. almost certainly, crimea will remain in russian hands. unfortunately, it is likely that the eastern part of ukraine will still remain under russian occupation. there are creative means that we can use to leverage financial -- western financial aid to ukraine. one of the topics that is being discussed, very controversial, is the possibility of using

russian central-bank assets that have been frozen abroad. our talking about roughly $300 billion -- we are talking about roughly $300 billion to reconstruct ukraine. but there is very difficult, strategic questions involved. obviously, russia will not cooperate. we are also sending the message around the world that if your country holds u.s. dollar assets, and you get involved in geopolitical conflict with the u.s., there is the possibility were central-bank assets could be seized -- your central-bank assets could be seized. it is important that if we do something like this, do it strictly according to legal mechanisms and do it in conjunction with our allies. it should not be the u.s. operating alone.

but we should be operating in concert with our western european allies so the world understands that this is not the u.s. dictating terms. host: louisville, kentucky. hello. caller: good morning. the u.s. is putting too much control financially in the hands of the military. it still is today. you talk about us sending money to france and france distributing it out. ok, we set a goal. the french franc currency. the goal says i am getting all this money from the u.s. and i am selling it out and using

french francs? you kept to the gold and -- to france with the gold. they ended up sending it to stalin. stalin is supposed to be making a plan with czechoslovakia, poland, and all this. you solve a happened there. they invaded those people. guest: i am not clear what you were referring to with regard to the goal and gold. i should emphasize that the goal was not a supporter of the marshall plan and that the u.s. was almost as concerned in 1947 about the goal coming back into power as they were about the communist in france --

communists in france coming back into the coalition government. it was central to u.s. strategy in the time that the marshall plan was launched to support centerleft and center-right governments throughout europe. we were trying to avoid the emergence of extremes on either side, on the right or the left. at times, this involved very difficult calculations for the u.s.. in britain, the truman administration was very much against the british labor governments policy of nationalizing certain industries . ultimately, the state department felt it was very important in the u.s.'s strategic interest to make clear to the europeans that

the u.s. respected their sovereignty. even if we found it distasteful or did not think it was sensible, we needed to support, at times, what the state department called the non-communist left. we were going to support any parties in europe that were ultimately dedicated to maintaining democracy. as long as they were dedicated to democracy, we were going to support them irrespective of our opinions about whether their policies could be improved. as i emphasize, france, italy, britain did very different things with their economic aid. we had long, quiet, behind-the-scenes disputes with all those governments about how they use to their aid. ultimately, 95% of the decisions were made at the local level area -- local level.

host: john in pennsylvania. caller: you hear a lot of people in this country badmouth socialism versus communism and compare the two. but the marshall plan was the greatest example of socialism as far as i'm concerned. people helping people. that is what socialism is. have a life socialism in our country. fema, the post office, the military or whatever. there is a list of about 30 or 40 things are socialistic in this country. people who badmouth socialism should buy your book and read about the marshall plan because that was probably the greatest example of socialism ever . guest: the republicans in particular were very concerned that the marshall aid would wind up supporting socialism.

it is an ill-defined term today and was an oath find term back then. but i should emphasize that the truman administration put in very clever, and i think effective, mechanisms to ensure that we were not helping to promote state run economies in western europe. that is why i gave the example of how aid was used in france. ultimately, aid to france was triggered by a private decision in france. say a farmer who needed a tractor who paid with his own money. this was not a gift. ultimately, the funds that were deposited with the french central bank as a result of this tractor order were leveraged

into economic development projects within france but again, most of this had to go towards stimulating private economic activity. this was really a public-private partnership. host: that is all the calls we have. benn steil is the author of the book "the marshall plan", donovan the cold war. thank you for joining us. you can learn more about the life and career of george marshall later today over on c's and two. -- c-span 2. will take a tour of lexington, virginia later on c-span 2. that is today's washington journal. thank you to everyone who called in or joined on social media. we are going to be back tomorrow evening at 7:00 a.m. -- tomorrow

morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. ♪