, by requiring lease cells once a year. c-span2, senate working on judicial nominations. c-span3, representatives from masterrd and visa meeting about competition. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 2:00 p.m., theou oversight and accountability mmittee examines fema's recent sponse to hurricanes hilton and helene. we hear from the agency's administrator. you can al watch live coverage on the free c-span now video app or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers, and we're

are just getting started. this is 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. coming up on "washington journal ," your calls and comments live. then we will talk about the future of u.s. foreign policy under president elect trump's administration with mara rudman and brad bowman. and eric katz, senior correspondent with government executive, discusses how the incoming administration could affect the size and scope of the federal workforce. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: good morning. it is tuesday, november 19.

yesterday, president elect donald trump said he would declare a national emergency and use the military to carry out mass deportation of migrants in the u.s. without permission. we want to get your thoughts on that. if you support the use of the military for mass deportations, call (202) 748-8000. . if you are opposed, the number is (202) 748-8001. we have a line r undocumented immigrants, (202) 748-8002. you can also text (202) 748-8003, include your name and your city/state. and you can post on social media, facebook.com/c-span or on x with handle @cspanwj. we will start with the usa today , headline, trump fails to

declare national emergency, use military for mass deportations. the article said, president elect trump said monday he would declare a national emergency and is the military to execute his mass deportation plan. an activist said earlier this month on social media that reports are in coming that trump is preparing to declare a national emergency and will use military assets to reverse the biden invasion through a mass deportation program. on monday, there was the comment, screwed, in all caps, with three exclamation points. the article says, multiple presidential administrations have used the u.s. military and border enforcement, but u.s. law strictly prevents the president from using the military as a

domestic police force, according to the brennan center for justice. president trump's border czar tom homan was on fox news last weekend talked about the mass deportation news. [video clip] >> president trump has made it clear we will prioritize public safety and national security threats first. there's over 1.5 convicted criminals in this country that we will be looking for, thousands of gang members that we will be looking for. if you are in the country legally, you should not feel -- illegally, you should not feel comfortable. when you enter this country illegally, you have committed a crime. you are a criminal, and you are not off the table. host: here is what josh kaczynski wrote yesterday, deploying the military along the

u.s.-mexico border would be extreme but would rema whin the bounds of a military mission. the pentagon already provides suorto the borderatl and other agencies that monitor the southern border. but using the military to conduct mass rotations, a law enforcement task that takes place in the interior, would involve u.s. soldiers deploying across the country. we are taking your calls this morning on that topic, and restrict with michael from huntington, west virginia come on the line for oppose. caller: hey, this is michael. i called on the oppose line, but it should be smithfield, north carolina. they may have misunderstood the zip code. but i do think it is impossible. i mean, we went through this,

seems like, eight years ago or six years ago with the same rhetoric that there was going to be millions of people deported back to -- where? where are they going to be deported to, and it is impossible to do this and have the manpower. we have discussed this before. and the house got involved, and we had a lot of house and senate numbers speak their minds about it. and i heard people in government , people that actually work in the u.s. government in washington, and they said it was impossible six years ago, so what has changed? i do not even think it is feasible. and what it would do to the families and to the economy, and here in north carolina, we rely on all kinds of help with farming and all the fast food restaurants. host: all right, michael.

here is some members of congress on x, first marjorie taylor greene, and she says, in 63 days, we will secure our borders and start the largest mass deportation in history. if you are in this country illegally, pack your bags, you're going back. representative pat fallon says, for four years, americans have been put at greater risk by foreign gang members on the flow of fentanyl across our border. the border crisis is a national security threat. president trump is right to declare a national emergency and start widespread deportatf illegals. another representative, the starting place of ations should be for any individual who came here illegalwere legitimately, they need to be

removed. they need toe deported. that is the right starting place. andy biggs says the country delivered a mandate, america wants mass deportations of the illegal aliens who have invaded our country. we must carry out the will of the american people. president trump and the border czar are meant for the job. on the democratic side, congresswoman jasmine crockett says, here is what it will look like, our military being turned on americans. citizens will be caught up in an operation this large. mass surveillance, families ripped apart, closed businesses, empty grocery shelves. this will hurt all of us. another representative says mass deportations are amnesia main and ll devastate america's agricultural industry -- mass deportations are inhumane.

farmers, workers, and consumers will all p the price. debbie powell from florida says, donald trump's ans to sign an executive order for mass deportations will hurt miami-dade businesses, nurseries, tourism, restaurants, health care rely on undocumented workers. will he do this in his own state or will he protect his friends? we will hear from rob in new york, good morning. caller: boy, i tell you, when you come up with jasmine crockett, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. that woman is just a hood rat. she is so disrespectful, and she is stupid, absolutely stupid. host: getting back to the topic, rob. caller: yes, joe biden invited these invaders to come here. he helped them come here with the phone apps.

this is horrible, and there's 20 million illegals running around here raping and killing women and kids. does anyone care about that on the democratic side? i don't get it. i really don't. i see what is happening here in upstate new york. we had a guy from peru that murdered 23 people. he was up there running around in new york. how many more are here? in new york city, we hear about all these gang members every single day. everyone picked up with an ar-15. host: the question being, do you support the military being involved in mass deportations? would you be ok with the military being deployed to new york where you are? caller: absolutely, yeah, why not? somebody has to do something about this. if any of trump's staffers are listening, i have a proposal, how about people turn in their neighbors if you think they are illegal.

if they are, you get $10,000. if they are on a terrorist list, you get $50,000. host: and if you turn in your neighbors and they are not illegal? caller: so? you did what you could. host: could you be prosecuted for that? caller: no, you shouldn't be prosecuted. host: got it. steven in lexington, kentucky, good morning. caller: that last caller, crazy. yeah, that guy is extreme, maybe even fascist. that i will say that i do not support this. this is very detrimental. we are taking the military of the united states, rounding up people -- do you not remember the japanese-americans rounded up during the world work? it is crazy. it is fascist, dictatorship. ok, what he needs to do, they

need to start with the problem, which is people that have been here a long time, think of miami, texas, the daca people -- like, what? you're just going to go straight to deporting people who have been here for decades sometimes and have not had a clear path of citizenship because the u.s. makes it so difficult. host: if the ones convicted of crimes with be in focus, would be in favor and that? caller: i would not what about the citizens of the united states that commit crimes every day? there are more of those people than emigrants more american citizens creating crimes and not doing stuff illegally, what about those people, why not deport them? i do not understand. if they are american citizens and do something illegal, let's just incarcerate them for

everything. they are just going to the extreme. it is nuts. ok, the economy is just going to fall. every job that americans do not want to do is done by an illegal immigrant usually, and they are doing it for pennies to make their lives better. what are you guys doing? you are going to ruin the economy and ruin the american dream. rounding up people, grandma's that have been here for years -- i have a personal friend that is a daca kid, and he could be affected by this. this is asinine. so what they need to do is find amnesty for some of these individuals. host: all right. alex in delaware, good morning. caller: hi, how you doing? host: doing ok. go ahead. caller: yeah, some of these people saying what does it cost

to deport these people, i want to tell them, what is wrong with you? it costs us way more money to keep these people than to deport them. and another thing, obama deported 3 million people, and none of these democrats saying a word about that. what is going on here? i do not know what is going on about this. host: what about using the military, what do you think of that? caller: yeah, use anything you can use. get them out of here as quick as you can. what is wrong with that? i don't understand. everyone in this country, and everybody knows it, that is why you have him in office mainly because of these illegal immigrants. biden said when he was running for office, search the border. what is wrong with these people?

they are hypocrites. obama deported 3 million people out of this country, and they ain't saying a word about that. host: alex brought up the cost, and this is a cbs news article that says trump plans to deport aliens of immigrants, would cost hundreds of billions -- trump plans to deport millions of immigrants, would cost hundreds of billions. at a rally during the campaign, he said he would "get these people out and deport them so rapidly." is as immigration researchers, lawyers, and economists have pointed to constitutional, humanitarian, and economic problems posed by trump's often repeated pledge. also damage to immigrant families, communities, and local economies, rounding up the deportation of some 11 million people is near impossible to pay for, according to an analysis and court data. that is by cbs news.

even if congress approves hundreds of billions of dollars in spending, deporting every undocumented immigrant living in the u.s., it would take far longer than four years. it says apprehending and deporting just one million people could cost taxpayers about $20 million -- $20 billion. deporting $11 million in four years would cost 20 times then what the nation has spent over the last five years deporting people. most of that would be new funding that would have to be approved by congress. that is on cbs news. to louisville, kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a different bend on this. first of all, the military is 49% like brown. i do not think they want to go out and start arresting people. it is just a ruse.

they are not going to deport them. they are going to put them in pens and are going to kill them and then cremate them because it is cheaper. there is a math problem, and the nazis used it. that is what they did. people need to really think. they are not going to deport them. it will be based on skin color, not if you are here illegally. can you prove who you are? do you have your birth certificate with you? do you have your cards with you? no, you shall get rounded up. and that includes black people, too. host: ok, jenny. matthew in frederick, maryland. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. are we teaching history in high schools and middle schools? did this not happen not very long ago, rounding up people

from their homes? or coming for the illegals. illegal criminals, not me. then it will turn into illegals. coming for illegals, not me. eventually, american civilians. where have we heard these kind of tactics before in world history? so this is why we actually talking about and beware of what happened to other people, beware of what is happening in other countries at other times in history. please let us be alert and make sure that americans fight against this. thank you very much. host: here is pablo in fairfax, virginia. you are undocumented? caller: good morning.

no, i'm not. why would you say that? host: because you are calling on the undocumented line. caller: no, i was calling on the independent line. host: we changed it up. but anyway, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am hearing a lot of this interesting rhetoric from both sides. this is my second time i called. the first time i called, i told you was a democrat, and i went with trump this past election. the illegals are indigenous folks in america. i believe that there is a

difference or someone doing it legally and coming to the country, making sure that you are vetted, making sure you, and it is a positive factor in america and building this wonderful country. the issue is when the illegal people come. i have not seen it. i have seen people come from a different country, and i have seen it have a very negative effect on the country. you are bringing crime, drugs, all that stuff. my point is about deportation, there's a lot of checks and balances. there's no way trump will start rounding up people like hitler did. we have seen both sides of the aisle, there's no way a

republican is going to allow the rounding up of legal immigrants host:. host: i wanted to ask you about the use of the military. caller: technically, i do not think the police has the legal power to go knocking on the door and rounding people up. host: so you would rather it be the military knocking on the doors, may be kicking down doors? caller: i highly doubt that will come to fruition because the very fact that donald trump and his cabinet, they are focusing on the criminal elements. some of these folks already here are in jail -- host: but the incoming border czar is saying that anybody that

is here in the country illegally is a criminal because they have broken immigration laws. really, it is anybody that is here undocumented. caller: what i am hearing, number one, there is no way that -- we have the fourth amendment, the fifth amendment, and other failsafes. because the framers of the constitution, it would not provide that liberty for someone in the military to do that. host: i have got to move on. let's look at what was said on fox news last week, encouraging self deportation for criminals and non-criminals. [video clip] >> working on a plan and will go to mar-a-lago this week to put the final touches on it. they have not been able to arrest them because secretary mayorkas.

he says you cannot arrest anybody unless they're committing a serious crime. we know right now, looking at data from the trump administration and the biden administration, removal of illegal aliens, do the job, secure the country, protect american communities, arresting bad guys first. >> this will be resource intensive. finding the people would be resource intensive, politico said. detention capacity would be costly and immediate, and lawmakers need to appropriate the funding. the administration will need to hire, vet, and train more officers, no easy feat. will you be working with the new administration in january? >> we have to. we gotta have the resources to do the job. how many people can you remove

the first year? well, how many agents do i have? can we bring retired agents back ? how many buses do i have? how much money for airplanes? can dod take anything off our plate? a lot of ifs. i do not know the current budget. i have an sight. how much money can be reprogrammed? president trump is committed to doing whatever he can to getting us money we need. host: talking about the cost of the mass deportation plan. here's becky in ohio. caller: hi, i support them to take them out, only because there's been so many women murdered, killed, raped, children -- i can't. i am raising my five grandchildren because of fentanyl. ok? these people come here, bring their drugs here, these

illegals. they said they want to take them out first. they need to take all these bad ones out. they say they are not going to break up the families, the kids can go home with the families. that is how it should be. they came here illegally. host: i wanted to show you something real quick. this is cpb.gov, total criminal convictions by type of noncitizens, so anybody that is a noncitizen, not necessarily here illegally. it says homicide and manslaughter, here it is -- if you start looking at fy 2021, looking at 60, 62, 29, and 29 year to date for fy 29. the biggest one here criminally is illegal entry.

you also have illegal drug possession, trafficking, then driving under the influence are some of the ones with the larger numbers. sexual offenses, here are the numbers. year to date, 284 for noncitizens. here is glenn in florida, good morning. caller: good morning. i don't think it is a good idea because what we're doing here, you are going to waste the resources of the u.s. military, national guard, and active duty personnel, and it will reduce our military in case we have got to go to war or battle with a foreign enemy. why do that? does not make any sense. you're talking about running out millions of people, and it will take years. that means if we have to go to war or go to a certain engagement, we will not have those resources available.

we will not have the personnel to do it because you will waste all your time trying to do this. bigger question, if we in this country do exactly what he wants to do and you have all these people rounded up, these illegal aliens that it will also include american citizens, sending them to countries that have never been to before, who is going to replace them in the fields to get the crops out of the fields to put them in the grocery stores for people to eat? who is going to replace those folks? once they are gone, these are jobs americans do not want to do. who is going to replace them? you have to keep so many in the country so they can do the hard labor work. that is not with this is about. if you choose to do that, that means you have to replace those people with americans to do the work. i will tell you right now, black americans will not do this work. these are not black jobs. so, white people in this country, if you think you are

going to replace those immigrants with black people to do the work or go back into the fields, you can forget about that. that is the reality of this situation. that may not be something you're talking about now, but they will have to replace the workers. so get ready to go into the fields and go to work. host: this is representative clark who says deploying the military to carry out aas deportation would be egregious and a dehumanizing act against immigrants trying only to better thr families lives. it is un-american american and an abuse of power that can only bring a moral and economic catastrophe. doug in virginia, should the military be used for mass deportations? caller: i do not have a problem with it. i am retired military. one thing right off the bat about this country, undocumented

or illegal is not acceptable in this country. if you do not think it has ever happened before, you need to look up 1954 and 1955, do dwight d. eisenhower, he could not even use the term for it, operation wetback, sending 1.5 million people out of this country that were illegally here. no country in the world will allow you to cross their borders illegally. why don't we change our law so if you come across here, you go to jail for 6, 7 months without seeing a lawyer? that is what mexican law is if we cross into mexico illegally. we need to stop the rhetoric in this country that is a racial issue, that all hispanics are bad. it is not that. they can get a green card and come across legally. host: you said you are a

military event, the previous caller said using the military this way would reduce our readiness and we would have less troops available for war if that was necessary overseas. what do you think of that? caller: number one, we need to stop making wars. number two, we need to have our military stronger than what it is. young people today do not have any pride in this country. they could care less about going to the military. where else could you go at 18 years old and at 28 retire with full medical and full retirement and pride for your country? people in the country don't want their kids going to war and get killed, they will get killed in the streets as it is. host: maybe using them for mass deportations would help with recruitment or do you think it would harm recruitment? caller: i think they recruitment

is already screwed, that is just the way it is. we need to go back to using the draft. what is wrong with everybody in this country -- when you graduate, go in the military for two years? host: let's talk to ricardo in new york, good morning. caller: wow, just hearing all of this rhetoric from people supporting undocumented immigrants is just unbelievable and really toxic. i am peruvian, and i came here, very luckily, via visa. i am very lucky with that. but i understand also that our country worked with the citizens in our own country. but for those who come here undocumented, they need to do the things necessary. but we do not serve the large population of citizens.

we're -- they are committing large crimes,why do they get a ? it absolutely is a racial thing. it sounds like i am better than thou. as far as the military going into and handling deportations, i think it is very threatening, and i think the resources not being properly placed in the proper places with immigration, i don't think it is right. it sounds like a dictatorship and it's really, really scary. host: this is dennis in hudson, indiana. good morning. caller: i have a question for the democrats and bleeding heart liberals calling in. do they think all of the illegals in this country are working? in order to get a job they have to prove they are an american citizen. they had to steal somebody's identity.

host: hold on, dennis. that is not in all cases. if an employer does not ask you for any proof, you can work. caller: well then, that employer needs to go to prison for the rest of their lives. host: that is not being enforced now. caller: i wonder why -- biden. they need to be thrown out to the last man, woman, and child. then we need to put -- border to stop them from reentering. if they try to come back in, shoot them and stack their bodies up in the desert. host: aurora, colorado, good morning. caller: good morning, mimi. am i coming in clear? host: you are. caller: i definitely oppose using the military -- they

should be used at the border, but not to some extreme degree. host: you are fading out. sorry. you started out strong, but you are fading out. try again? caller: is this better? host: go ahead. caller: first of all, people saying -- that is one thing you need to look into. another thing is all the regulations that make it very complicated. what they need to do is change the law, and that is congress. i'm talking to you, you need to change the law to make it easier to come in legally. host: got it. steve in massachusetts, good morning. caller: good morning, mimi. i think that what we should do is cut the head off the snake.

what they need to do is drone the cartel that are making 10,000 dollars on every illegal immigrant that's coming over the border. if it is 10,000 dollars, that is $100 million, i'm sure it's more than that. plus, they make them carry drugs and what not to come in this country. i had a son who was 33 years old who died from fentanyl who was a marine mechanic. what do we have, venezuelans doing that now or peruvians. five airplanes crashed per day from fentanyl. that is how many people die per day. we need the cut the head off the snake and get these people out of our country for our grandchildren that this country is going to change. host: i want to ask you, you talked about the fentanyl issue. fentanyl coming across the

border. as far as those who are already here, do you think that they are involved in trafficking fentanyl? that removing them would help with that issue? talk about how that is related. caller: how did they get here? did the cartel just let them come in? when is it going to stop? when is enough enough? why don't we worry about russia going into ukraine? they should just let them into ukraine. why is our border not important but other people's border czar? -- borders are? host: johnny in granite falls, washington, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. absolutely not. i opposed turning the military loose on the american people, because that is what is going to happen. this is just one more step in donald trump trying to take over the country in ways that are not healthy. i just wanted to make a comment

about saying that emigrants are the people who are killing and doing all of these horrible things to people. i personally have been threatened twice in my life and they have not been immigrants. believe me. they have been good old american citizens. i think that that kind of fear mongering is not a good thing. host: this is matt. new york. good morning, matt. caller: i am not a donald trump fan. i'm actually against him. but it is in the word illegal immigrant. if it is illegally, they shouldn't be here. they should be here legally. it is that simple. on top of it, why did jd vance call donald trump hitler? that is a very scary point for me. thank you. host: this is a talking pnt, he says inva national emergency use military assets.

is not clear the national emergencies act is the provision that would allow trump to u the military for anything at all. in 2019 trump invoked it to gain access to funding to sections of a wall along the southern border. tional emergencies act is not what been keeping national security and emergency laws up at night it is the thmost worry.act that has caused under that law trump has a oad,irtually unchecked ability to deployed troops domest. he cond invoking it in resp tohe 20 george floyd protest. at one point it is why soldiers don't just shoot protesters. that is in talking point memo. this is this is rich in illinois. caller: thank you for taking my call. i went to get my real id made

the other day. to get my id made, i needed to have a birth certificate and other documents. when i go in there to get it, because i did not have the original copy they would not accept my identification. it occurred to me that, we put a convicted felon into the white house and we are going to trust this form of government so that if somebody stopped me on the street and i didn't have my original copy of my birth certificate to prove who i was, you know, i would be considered undocumented. i didn't have the proper documents. they could detain me, incarcerate me. somehow through the miracle of government bureaucracy my identification that i showed got lost, they could report me.

host: what do you think of those in the country illegally that it is confirmed they are in the country illegally? do you think that there should be a mass deportation of those individuals? caller: i think using the military to do such a thing is something, this is why people would refer to donald trump as an adolf hitler. that is what he did. he was using his brown troops. they were government people who carry that out. that is what you are opening this up for. and for people, we talk about this form of government, it is his way of trying to circumvent our government out of the loop. what he is actually doing is, give me the power. i'm going to go in and i'm going to do that. we are going to do it right.

my god, doing it right in his idea is kind of like, you know, my involvement with the government, and alike i say there is the right way, the wrong way, and the government's way. and that might not be either one. host: laura in spokane, washington. caller: good morning. i support the idea of getting these illegal immigrants out of our country because of the 350,000 border babies and children that are being used for sex trafficking, oregon harvesting, and slavery in our country. that is set up by the cartels. it is sanctioned and supported by the democratic party. these are babies and children. host: do you support the military being deployed domestically to round up anybody

who is illegal and deport them? caller: yes, i do. we have to get this stopped. those children are innocent. they are the tiny voices nobody ever talks about. it is not ok to have this going on in our country sanctioned by political party and protected. it is a big time business and it's horrific. remember, that is what tom homan and the rest of them are going after. to try to rescue these kids. host: ron in florida, good morning. caller: good morning. i oppose it. what it comes down to is it is racism. me being someone who resembles someone from mexico, i am native american and i hear this all the time, social media

or in person. "go back to where you came from. go back to mexico." my question is, if this goes into effect is it going to turn into racial profiling? how are they going to determine who is who? here in florida, most of what you can consider, who looks mexican, everyone is either island people, puerto rican, puerto rico, and so forth. my whole thing is, how are they going to determine who is who? host: this is harold in pennsylvania. caller: hello. yeah, i support it. they can use the troops as security. they are not going to go in busting doors down like everyone thinks. they are not going to be hurting anybody.

they are therefore security, as they should. they are here illegally. i work with a lot of them who came here legally. it takes five to six years sometimes to become a citizen. they are for too getting them out. host: i want to ask you, because we have a text from richard in respond.s and i want you to richard said when obama ed an increased number of illegal immigrants he didn't need to use the military. he reid cooperation from state and local officials as well as the public. imagine all of us together trying to uphold our laws. how would you respond to richard saying that obama deported more people than trump did in his first term and he didn't need the military? caller: the governors helped them do it. they didn't have someone fighting. we are going to come in and

protect all of the illegals. we need everyone to work together because this is hurting our country. they are probably paying a lot more money than deporting them to keep them. everybody is hurting from it. it's sad, but we have to deal with it. host: here is paul in sparta, wisconsin. caller: thank you for taking my call. i live out in the woods and i am surrounded by dairy farms. can you imagine how much milk is going to cost when you decide to ship all of the illegals working on these farms back to wherever they are from? my wife is an immigrant. my two sons are in the military. are they going to come and send their mom home? these people are insane. host: is your wife here illegally? caller: no, ma'am.

she's a naturalized citizen, which stephen miller says he wants to go after too. host: he wants to go after naturalized american citizens? caller: yes, ma'am. he said that in a speech that he wants to end that program and take those people too. host: let's look that up because that does sound a little strange. victor in westwood, new jersey. caller: good morning. how are you doing? i am a marine corps veteran. my two brothers fought, my father served, and my parents are immigrants from italy and they came here the right way through ellis island. one of them was born in 1912 the other in 1923. i firmly believe that trump should deploy troops. he should deploy them on the border. he isn't going to put them in every state. he's going to put them on the border and stop the cartels, the illegal immigrants from coming

over. at the same time he is going to deploy ice to go after all of the illegal immigrants. host: no, no. you are right that they are supporting at the border. we do have u.s. military at the border. we are talking about mass deportations, so we are talking about them being used in the interior of the country to deport illegal immigrants that are here. caller: i don't believe trump is going to do that. i really don't. i think it's ridiculous and i am a trump supporter. i firmly believe he will use them more at the border than anything. people are panicking and taking all of his words out of context as usual because they are trying to bash him. he is trying to get this country back on track. we need this. it is insane what is going on, it has to stop. they have to stop the masses coming in. they left this border open for four years. it's ridiculous. it has to end because all it does is because all of this

aggravation and people suffering. it's got to stop. i think he's going to use ice more than anything to round up these people that are felons, murderers, rapists. yes, i believe he is going to stick the military at the border more than anything because the border is hundreds of miles long. he will use them they are more than anything and that is my comments on this thing. host: let's go to texas to jim. good morning. caller: i am against the mass deporting people, but they need to be here legally. i am prior military. if they sent me down there, i was not a police officer. i was a firefighter. i was in the military to do my job during wartime. this is not wartime. the other thing, trump needs to think about where he is coming

from. he needs to get a cup of coffee. they went to his resort and they found illegals they are doing labor-type jobs. who do you think is going to be doing the lawns, washing the dishes? he needs to clean himself up. this is not -- if we got rid of everyone that did labor-type jobs, we would be hurting. host: stefan in cleveland, ohio. good morning. caller: i don't understand why people are against it. you just can't have unchecked, un-background check to people coming through the border. as far as the costs, elon is going to get rid of two thirds of the wasteful government. i think it will offset it, but

you have to get rid of these people. like lincoln riley -- laken ri ley and all of the people who were murdered, how do you think those parents feel about illegal immigrants coming into the country? host: you are ok with the military doing that? caller: i look at it like this. they are sending all of this money over to ukraine. the biden administration authorized tactical missiles to be used. russia is preparing to go to war . switzerland is telling people how to survive during the fallout. they are preparing for the next step. america has all of this money to spend over there to israel. in this war. the money that they are using to house the immigrants.

mayor adams, he already projected a $9 billion budget for housing and feeding them. what are we supposed to do? just keep housing them and feeding them? host: jesse in florida, good morning. caller: yes, ma'am. to me this is just an economic issue. it doesn't make any sense at all to me to remove people from our workforce who are contributing to our economy, let alone the cost of removing those people. if you want people who are working and contributing to our economy, that plus putting the tax on imports is going to drive our economy to ruin. to me, this is not a racial or anything else like that, it is

the economy. you are going to ruin the united states' economy if you do the things that trump has in mind. host: mark in middletown, ohio. . good morning. caller: hi, i support it. springfield, ohio, what are they contributing to? they know where they are at and they can get them out, no problems. they are not going to go bother nobody. they already know who they are looking for. the people in the hotels. they're going to create places for the veterans to state. that's what i've got to say about that. host: the cler was talking about stephen miller, about d -nuralization, going after naturalid u.s. citizens. he posted on x from october 11.

yes, we started a d-naturalization project under trump. in 2025, expected to be turbocharged. we will find out more about that. this is anthony in greenville, mississippi. caller: yes, ma'am. how are you. host: i'm doing ok. go right ahead. caller: i'm listening to everything that people are saying. don't you believe in god? israel and the exodus. god made them move from a place of poverty and suffering to make them move to a better life. exodus. exodus cannot be opposed no government, no politician, or nothing. it is the power of god. no citizen, no border should

deny people from moving, migrating to another country. thank you. host: cj in virginia. good morning. caller: hey, how are you? i think, mimi, if you would do the whole country a favor, you and all your cohorts should just tell -- what kind of medications are you on to put up with the likes -- host: chandler, arizona, good morning, nickel. -- nicole. caller: my comment is about immigration. people act like this just came up yesterday. this issue has been going on for a long time. the democrats and the republicans have failed to do anything about it over many decades. and they know what to do. we are smart.

we've got all the phd's and think tanks and we already know what to do. but when it comes time to make those decisions, the lawmakers and the congress always block each other. the republicans don't want the democrats to win on this. in the next session, the democrats don't want the republicans to win on this. we've been dealing with this for a long time. we know the answers, we just had a bipartisan bill that addressed the issues allotting the amount of money that is needed to adjudicate all of the illegal aliens, illegal immigrants and illegal immigrants. we need more money to process all these people according to our laws. now, the trumpeters want to ignore the law of america and make new laws to go do something erratic and immediate to shock everybody.

what we should be doing is handling things like intelligent people who can discuss the issue and come up with a proper and respectable answer on how to handle it. they don't want to do that now. they just want to go start grabbing people out their houses and let everything go out of control. that is why the laws are there already and things have been kept to a certain way. ultimately, if you want to spend money to get the military and this and that, and to build all of these detention centers, just put that money to where it should be going so we can adjudicate these properly so it doesn't take seven years for a case to be heard because there are not enough judges and border workers. we already know what to do. we know how to pay to get ice and have more people on ice. instead of doing that you want to get the military and make everyone afraid and start being

like an authoritarian dictator over everybody. host: this is ed in florida. caller: greetings from the free state of florida. i served in the military on the dmc. on the border of north and south korea. we lost troops over there. host: ed, you have to mute your tv and just talk on the phone. caller: secondly, when we came back from the dmc in korea, we went to riots in birmingham, alabama -- host: willie in jackson, mississippi. caller: long time no talk. you look good this morning.

i appreciate you taking my call. i oppose mass deportation for several reasons. this is what i want to ask, are you going to deport 150,000 ukrainians, iranians, who came from the southern border? are you going to get people who come to new york on visa and overstay their visa from all of those european countries? are you going to get them first? are you going to get those people first? are you going to look those people up? all these schemes and ideas and how they need to deport people that is the boogie man, you need to get your facts together and find out what is really going on. why don't they deport you? if you are european-american and you commit a crime and your ancestors are from sweden, anywhere in europe, do you feel

that you need to be deported because of what your people done? do you see how ignorant and silly it is? i am going to tell you something. it's going to take about three years and all these people, you are going to get it first. we are sitting back talking and seeing who supported him and boasting. don't come to us. don't come to me because i don't have nothing. for you. when you start with the deportation start with the 150,000 people who came in over the southern border from ukraine, china, and iran. host: up next, a discussion on how foreign policy will change under the new trump administration with brad bowman from the foundation -- foundation for defense of democracies and mara rudman from the university of virginia. if changes are coming for

federal workers come january. that conversation with eric katz , the correspondent from government executive. we will be right back. ♪ >> watchmen tv's live coverage of the 75th annual national book awards. from new york city, the national book awards are given for the best works of nonfiction, fiction, poetry, translated, and young people's literature. the finalists include -- watch the 75th annual national book awards live wednesday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2's but tv. -- book tv. >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors, to

congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> attention, middle and high school students across america, it is time to make your voice heard. the c-span studentcam documentary contest 2025 is here. it's your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact. your documentary should answer, your message to the president. what is she was the most important to you or your community? whether you are passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, studentcam is your platform to share your message with the world. with $100,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of

$5,000, this is your opportunity to not only make an impact but to be rewarded for your creativity and hard work. enter your submi today. an the code or visit studentcam.org for details on how to enter. the deadline is january 20, 2025. >> c-span now is a free mobile out featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the court, campaigns, and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span tv networks and radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available in the apple store and google play.

scan the qr code to download it for free or visit c-span.org /c-spannow. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we've been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policy is debated and decided, all with the support of america's cable company. c-span, 45 years and counting powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to "washington journal." we are discussing foreign policy in the upcoming trump administration. our guests are mara rudman and bradley bowman.

welcome to both of you. mara, i will start with you. what do you see as the biggest topline differences between president biden and president-elect trump? guest: i look at foreign policy's national security writ large. the biggest difference that i see right now is president-elect trump's willingness and interest in appointing people who i don't think have front and center the national security interest of the united states in a way that is sustainable. for example, the secretary of defense nominee who causes me great concern. host: what do you think, brad? topline differences? guest: one of the main differences we will see in a second trump turn will be a different approach on iran.

i suspect we will see the trump administration implement a renewed pressure campaign that seeks to restore sanctions and some of the key elements of the max pressure campaign of the past. and a max support campaign for the iranian people, viewing that regime as the leading threat to national security and u.s. interests there and believing that the iranian people have the same right to freedom and liberty that we have in the united states and that they deserve our support. host: let's talk about both of those things. mara, do you think that there is a trump doctrine when it comes to foreign policy? is there a cohesive foreign policy approach? guest: no. i'm not sure that there is a trump doctrine about much other than donald trump's interest in donald trump. host: in what way? guest: in his own personal brand.

in his own ability to do as much as he can for himself and for his family. i don't think that there is a doctorate in terms of the united states and the world, which to my mind requires being able to work with others, work in alliance, work with other democracies to strengthen the united states, strengthen u.s. security. i view that is pretty critical, and i don't see that within president-elect trump's capacity. host: do you agree about their not being a cohesive foreign policy approach? guest: i think sometimes, as we were talking about earlier, times these things emerge in hindsight when you are looking back. like the truman doctrine with the benefit of decades of learning. maybe it's too early to talk about any sort of trump doctrine in detail. what they're saying now is peace through strength which is a term going back to the romans.

if you want peace, prepare for war. there good ideas behind that. i think that american strength and international leadership is a source for good. i think when we are weak, that is destabilizing. at the most broad level i think that peace through strength is good but the devil is in the details. guest: peace through strength, i can't think of an administration who wouldn't have that as a basic tenet. the challenge is on how you execute. guest: the devil is in the details. exactly. host: you have the first trump administration to look back on and see if there was any kind of , may be, foreign policy approach. he has been called an isolationist. do you think that that's fair? guest: i think that there has been at times those who were advising president trump in his first term who were indeed isolationists. you see some individuals posturing themselves for a position in the second trump

term that have positions that i would say are contrary to the american interest in terms of viewing foreign military posture in american military posture as the problem rather than something to secure our interests. i am of the view that american leadership and international engagement in strength is a good . i think president trump -- it is important who he picks for his advisors. as we learn from h.r. mcmaster's book, the chair of our center, i was honored to have an event with him, who is advising the president matters and there are differences between the first term and what we are seeing now. that tells us a little about where he may go in a second term. host: there are differences among those who he has selected so far for his second term. between more traditional internationalists, like senator rubio who i would put in that

category, and his vice president or secretary of defense nominee. within this upcoming term i think that we can see some differences. host: let's drill down on that. you mention pete hegseth for defense. why is that giving you concern? guest: because i don't believe from what i've read of his public statements that he understands or supports, even though he served in the military, the idea that military officials take an oath to the constitution and not to a president. they have an obligation to follow the constitution and reject, for example, unlawful orders. past positions that he's taken i think our white contrary -- he's taken i think our quite contrary to that. putting aside his personal behavior, when the secretary of

defense, he would be a role model for those in civil service in the pentagon and military. host: there has been a problem of sexual assault in the military. so, yes. i see your point. what about tulsa gabbard -- tu lsi gabbard? guest: i rarely agree with wall street journal editorial sows interesting to see them raising concerns about her. in some ways her selection has almost gone under the radar because of the number of other nominations that came out at the same time. her public commentary has been all over the place. certainly at a variety of different extremes.

when in the position of the director of national intelligence, you want someone steady and consistent who is careful with their public statements and choices of words given the nature of the very sensitive information that they have access to. also, they are in the role of looking at what information the president gets in things like the president's daily brief. you need someone with superior judgment and unquestioned integrity. i think that she has neither of those. host: what do you think, brad bowman? guest: i worked for nine years advising members of the committee. i have deep respect for the armed branch of our government providing advice and consent to nominees. i think that pete hegseth was chosen by president-elect trump because of his military service

and his role as a tv personality. these allegations that have emerged our very serious. if i were a staffer, i would want to make sure that i gave my boss the details on this. if some of these allegations are true, then those would be disqualifying. when you're leading an organization like the department of defense that is diverse and reflects the diversity of our nation, you can't have an individual who was engaging in the types of activities that we want to prevent in our department of defense. it's as simple as that. host: besides the character issues, which i understand you are saying are disqualifying if true, what about his management experience? remind us how large of the department of defense is and their budget. guest: join o -- ginormous is the technical term. i respect his willingness to raise his right hand and to

deploy but he doesn't have experience managing large organizations. the next few years will be pivotal in terms of addressing the threat from china, russia, iran, north korea, and you need someone in that position who can make the bureaucracy bend to the goals set forth to make our country more secure. to me you want someone with experience managing large organizations. host: if you have a question about foreign policy and would like to join our conversation with brad bowman and mara rudman, you can do so. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. nato and the g20, biden has been

there the last few days. when ucs trumps view of those international alliances? guest: i would characterize his view was problematic. i think that that's because it goes to a little bit of what i was commenting on earlier. frankly, i don't think, domestically or internationally, donald trump appreciates alliances, friendship, of making sure that the united states is able to lead on its own when it must, but work with others at every opportunity where it can. host: why is that important in your view? guest: that is important because to ensure -- it is very similar to how i would say we conduct our personal lives. you want your family to be safe and secure. you want to live in a safe and secure community. you want to be able to depend on your neighbors in times of

emergency. that just having your home on your own without knowing the people who live around you, without being able to work well with them, it won't make you feel safe and secure. nato is the premier neighborhood for the united states in terms of like-minded allies who share common purposes and goals. ultimately, it is going to enhance our security and frankly do so at a lower cost than if we had to do it on our own, both in terms of the personal treasurer of our armed forces and the amount of financial resources. nato is a very good deal for the united states for our safety and security. host: do you agree? guest: i do. i think china, russia, iran, north korea are working together more than we've seen in a long time. as anyone knows when the bullies come around the corner, it's good to have friends. most of the threats that we

confront, the challenges that we confront come you cannot resolve alone. this is a time that we need allies more than ever. this political impulse where we are dissing our friends when we need them the most. host: i want to ask about ukraine. president biden did green light ukraine being able to use long-range missiles into russia. remind us about those weapons, what they are capable of, and why you think that they have been greenlighted now. guest: i try to call balls and strikes. the biden administration, i give them credit for making the case to the american people of why it is in our interest to support ukraine and why a victory for boudin would be a disaster for us -- victory for putin would be a disaster for us. also providing the ukrainian people a little. -- a louisville slugger.

there has been this dynamic since february of 2022 where they ask for a particular weapon system and the initial answer is no, then months later it is maybe, then yes. in the meantime ukrainians are dying to defend their homes and the russians are advancing. this has been on the table for a long time, and i think that it's unfortunate that president biden has taken so long to provide this permission. all of the russians have done is move their forces a little bit back as they pummel ukrainian men and women in their homes. the short range ballistic missiles can precisely hit their target and prevent or make it more difficult for russian forces to attract ukrainian men and women and children in their homes. host: and this is for the use where the north korean forces happen to be. what is that dynamic?

guest: the idea for kyiv is that they did not want to be playing defense only. they wanted to go on the offense to strengthen their negotiating position if and when the russians go to the negotiating table. they wanted to have a presence in russia that could be used in those negotiations. i would encourage the viewers not to miss the fact that this is the largest war in europe since world war ii. we have putin engaging in naked aggression and he is engaging with china, iran, north korea intangible ways. this isn't something that we talk about in class. this is happening now. these are adversaries cooperating and making each more effective and there theaters of aggression. host: gaza and lebanon, given the relationship between president-electronic and netanyahu, what you think will change in the middle east?

guest: i'm not sure. i think that president trump is facing a much more challenging middle east. i think that part of that, frankly, goes to what his policies were with iran. while, to the comments earlier about iran, i share the overall intent. my concern is the ability to execute because of the nature of the relationship that has grown and been further leveraged between iran, russia, china, and north korea. with the ways in which saudi arabia, a key player in the region, is, along with the emirates and others, leveraging the relationship with china vis-a-vis the united states, i think president-elect trump will face that. you have the saudis in a

leveraging position. the saudis have in the past not been particularly concerned to call it straight about the future of the palestinians. they are now. i think that the crown prince in the kingdom of saudi arabia, whatever his personal views might be, recognizes and has made public statements about the importance of having a pathway forward for palestinians and that being the price of the saudi interactions with israel. all of these dynamics play into what is possible regardless of the strength of the relationship between prime minister netanyahu in president trump. i think that they will have a lot of reevaluation to do on bringing these conflicts to a close. host: let's bring callers into the conversation. anita in michigan, democrat, good morning. caller: i would like to know,

what will both guests think that the democrats and republicans will do in terms of african? i've watched shows where there has been a push to make sure that there is a great, i guess contact with the nations of africa. i don't think the president -elect trump is going to do much of anything. all they talk about is gaza, russia. japan says that they want to do more to be more involved in africa. what i'm concerned about is that the democrats are more concerned about russia when -- the republicans seem to be not aware that there is a whole continent out there. china has made it crystal clear

that they want to control all of the natural resources and make a whole bunch of money because they have that silk road from china to africa. host: we will get an answer. guest: sure. you raised some important points about the importance of the entire african continent and the challenges that the democratic and republican administrations have had in addressing effectively u.s. interests in africa in the continent and relationships. i would say that i would hope that those who are concerned about the united states' position in the world vis-a-vis china should be focused not only on the middle east but also on the african continent and african-american. -- and latin america. china, regardless of what you think about their internal dynamics, have been visionary in their approach. visionary i recognize is a

positive word. strategic. strategic about the belt and road initiative. they have built out rapidly to secure supply chains for key minerals that the entire world needs that china largely controls because of how much they controlled and key parts of the african continent and latin american continent. russia has been quite aggressive in terms of militia control, whereas the united states and the amount of resources that we put in to deal effectively with, and providing opportunities throughout the african continent and latin america, has lagged behind. i want to be clear that that is not in my mind what diplomacy from the state department is important foreign assistance is important, it's about business opportunities and figuring out how to use the leverage that the united states has at its disposal through the department of commerce, through the

development finance corporation, to really think through what are strategic opportunities that can better place and advance us in key african countries and throughout latin america? that is part of being able to have an effective national security position vis-a-vis china and russia. host: deerfield beach, florida, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling because -- i actually have a couple of comments. one, i thought tulsi gabbard was the creme de la creme when she was a democrat. now, all the democrats are bashing her talking about how unqualified she is, so forth and so on. i didn't hear any of that when she held office in hawaii. only when she left the

democratic party have they been blowing up on her. trump is in office for four years and he never took a salary. when i heard her say how he wants to benefit himself and his family, i don't understand how he is getting so benefited from not taking a salary for four years and all that hell he went through. if you listen to everything that was told to him the first four years from all of the bureaucrats and all the old school folks told him that they knew best. he listen to that and all they tried to do was sabotage him. now he is in there and doing things his way. i think if trump nominated abraham lincoln for vice president, you people would have something negative to say. host: tulsi gabbard first. guest: i disagree with you yvonne. i think that she would be surprised to hear that.

the views that democrats had about tulsi gabbard and the concerns about her that preceded even her run for president in the democratic primaries. she was a volatile figure then, and there is a lot of concern about here among democrats at that time. i would note that democrats and republicans alike were raising these concerns. i referenced the wall street journal editorial earlier today. this is an area where there is bipartisan concern about her. and about mr. trump benefiting himself. host: how would he use foreign policy to benefit himself and his family? guest: i would make the point that he didn't take a personal salary but look at how his personal wealth and income increased during the time of his presidency and afterwards.while it may not be transparent because he didn't reveal his tax returns, as every other president has done, he had the trump hotel that was near the

white house. you saw the number of foreign dignitaries who stayed there. his son-in-law jared kushner has established a private equity fund that has huge investments from countries that jared kushner was dealing with directly. if you look at the personal wealth of the family, and president trump, he certainly advantages himself that way. host: chris in boston, democrat. caller: hello. anyone who knows anything about the middle east knows it is nothing more than a lobbying outfit for pro is really interests masquerading as a 501(c)(3). they recently hired lt. col. -- of the israeli defense forces as an advisor, arguably a member of a genocidal organization. would the guests care to comment on that? guest: thanks for the call.

some strong accusations there. i am proud to work at fdd. we are a 501(c)(3) and one of the reasons that i'm proud to work there is don't take government funding. not everything tank at washington can say that. i am a proud american interested in the success of our country. because i'm interested in the success of our country i know that we need friends and allies and israel is one of our best allies in the world. all of israel's enemies are america's enemies. the lt. col. does work for us, he left his previous position, and he expresses his previous opinions. he is a friend, but fdd is an independent american research institute. to your accusations of genocide against israel, they are not based in fact.

on october 7, 2023 hamas, a foreign terrorist organization and enemies of the united states, israel, and jews everywhere conducted the worst slaughter of jews since the holocaust and israel has been taking action to try to prevent that from happening. genocidal would be more appropriately applied to hamas which is a bloodthirsty, brutal, foreign terrorist organization. guest: i agree with what bradley doubt. i may not agree -- what brad laid out. i may not agree with some of the specific positions put out by fdd. i traveled in israel in december when he was with the idf as a public spokesperson and he and i don't agree on much, but the assertions about him are terribly unfair, as are those about fdd. host: the topic that we laid out this morning, the use of the

military for mass deportations in this country. you are a former military officer. i went to ask first your reaction to the u.s. military being used internally in the country and what impact do you think that would have and how it work. guest: this is a softball. [laughter] there are a lot of people who call themselves conservatives these days. my view on being a conservative at the most basic level is someone who respects the law, respects the rule of law, respects institutions and norms. who is reluctant to see rapid departures from those because they understand based on an informed view of history and human nature that it is easier to destroy than to build. i think that is why a lot of conservatives have a problem with illegal immigration, because it is a this respect for our country. it's a disrespect when you enter illegally, for our home, our

country, and our laws. i understand the conservative impulse to be able to control our border. if we can't control our border are we a nationstate? i respect that, but i think that if one is going to try to remove people who are here illegally, starting with those who have violated additional laws, how you do it matters. it needs to be done in a way that is consistent with our constitution, the bill of rights, and our laws. we will be watching. host: do you believe using the military is not consistent with our laws? guest: i am not a military lawyer, but i think that this process should be conducted via the law and led by civilian agencies and civilian law enforcement, and that we shouldt to bring the military into this. host: why should be -- why should we be reluctant? guest: the military is to protect us from foreign threats. when i served we swear an o to

support and defend the constitution against foreign threats and domestic threats, but how view -- how americans view the military and civil military relationship is very important and we need to be very careful to avoid anything that would increase -- make the military partisan or make it used as a tool of one party or another. we serve the constitution and we need to protect that, because that is one of the things that makes our country what it is and we should be careful to do anything that would endanger that. host: he worked for the obama administration, who did carry out a lot of deportations. tell us about that experience and the relationship of the country that those individuals are being deported to. guest: to be clear, i worked for president obama. i was at the white house for a limited period of time and then worked primarily in regional work. i was not directly involved in this work. but i would harken back to what

we were talking about earlier in terms of the importance of relationships you have with different countries throughout the world. in this case our relationships with latin america, where folks are leaving the countries they are in, taking extraordinarily dangerous routes through various parts of central america, goes to the level of desperation people have. i agree with what brad said about the concerns within the united states. wrinkly, i have some conservatism, by his definition. i know a lot of folks on the democratic side do as well. the issue is what you can do to solve what is a serious problem for the united states. what tools do you have? what can we do to improve the ability for folks to stay in the countries they are in? to help in terms of our relationships with other countries in latin america at the same time we are working to

make sure those who have violated our laws do not stay in this country? so, the kinds of relationships you have matter great deal. host: let's talk to curtis in virginia, independent. caller: hey, how you doing? it is chris. i am an african-american, but i just had a few points on -- for the gentleman and gentlelady. do you think u.s. policy will increase on our media sources, our mainstream media sources? and if that is drew -- due to the trump term what do you think the reasons for that are? then to the gentlemen, thank you very much for your service. i would like to say, what do you think trump's stance on the russia-ukraine situation will do with our political conventions with bringing russia back to certain political conventions? that is for the gentleman. for the gentlelady on israel,

religious location, do you think that will have anything to do with the cease-fire in that location at any point in time, as far as getting that resolved? host: chris, what did you mean about religious locations? in israel? caller: how he went to jerusalem. host: moving the capital to jerusalem? caller: yes ma'am. since he had going on when he went there and met with netanyahu and kind of transitioned capital, i believe it was, before he left office. i'm not familiar. i'm not too sure. lastly, for both individuals i just wanted to ask, with our foreign policy leadership changing, do you think that our foreign trade policies will ramp up as well? especially with other organizations like brics

coming into idealization of our dollar currency. does that have anything to do with our dollar and do you think president trump can influence our trade? guest: are you just getting some help on some sort of term paper here? guest: we are going to need to schedule a second hour. [laughter] host: i'm just joking with you. happy birthday. we will get you some answers. guest: chris, thank you. we will schedule lunch and go through all of this. i will take maybe two of them. the russia-ukraine, i heard that. i think there is a core american interest in helping ukraine. i think the world is watching and if pyongyang, tehran, or beijing conclude america made a good show of it and lost interest, that is going to affect their perception of

america and will increase the likelihood we will see aggression elsewhere, including in the taiwan straight. i think we would regret that. what happens in ukraine manners for europe and american interests there, but also elsewhere. i think we have a vital interest. we are spending less than 3% in security helping ukraine versus what we spend on the pentagon, and that is a bargain. on jerusalem, i would just say it has been interesting to me for those who have concerns about israel moving its capital to jerusalem. jews first made their home in what we now call the state of israel 3500 years ago. they are not exactly interlopers here. i think that was the right move, and anyone who suggests otherwise maybe needs to look at their history books. guest: first of all, happy birthday, chris. i'm going to disagree a little bit here with what brad said. israel has claimed jerusalem as

its capital since its earliest days, which 1948 is when it was founded. i think the religious doctrine about jerusalem is a different one, brad, and what president trump did was to change united states recognition of jerusalem as the capital of israel. the issues with that has been that the united states has previously under democratic and republican administrations held back recognition of jerusalem as the capital, along with many other countries in the world. because they knew that jerusalem , the old city of jerusalem, where i have been many times, is actually shared religious -- incredibly important religious sites for jews, muslims, and christians. and was a key issue for any kind of pathway to a palestinian state. because it has also long been

the central point for palestinians who live in the west bank and gaza, as well as the many palestinian residents of jerusalem. on that point i think it is a difficult issue. i don't think president trump showed particular leadership. i think what he did was dangerous and has further exacerbated some of the challenges on the ground in jerusalem. i do want to point out on foreign trade i think he made some important points, and that is where i would like to see the united states, regardless of democratic or republican administrations, improve our ability to interact with the rest of the world through a variety of trade mechanisms and more effectively compete with what china is doing. guest: i respect the response, but just, the law says that -- the u.s. law said that the capitol capital should be moved to jerusalem and there was a waiver that successive presidents exercise. president trump decided not to use that waiver and it is an

important place for their three great monotheistic faiths. i agree. it was not detrimental to that, and the palestinians have had many opportunities through the years for a two state solution, and that solution is further now away because of what happened on october 7 and we cannot blame israel for that. guest: i'm sorry, i just cannot allow that to stand, because i was working in congress for the house foreign affairs committee when that legislation passed. then-prime minister you talk or being, who was assassinated by extremists who are now supporting prime minister netanyahu, did not want that legislation to pass. it was against his interests at the time. that part of the reason every president before president trump issued waivers was to follow what was in the united states' interest and israel's interest

at the time. guest: interesting. ok. host: lisa in florida on the line for republicans. go ahead, lisa. caller: good morning, y'all. as far as foreign goes, i think trump kept the faith. biden is about to get us in world war iii, totally bypassing congress. it seems to me elite people, they don't understand us. would we want as americans is peace, and we want trump to do exactly what he does. the d.c. swarm critters that are part of the bureaucracy. also you talk about these so-called sexual allegations against hegseth, congress has a $17 million slush fund for their sexual allegations. they are hypocrites. she was theirs. host: let's get a response on, what do you think, trump kept us

safe and biden was going to lead us into world war iii? how do you respond to that? guest: i think the world is a difficult place and dangerous place. i think it was dangerous under president trump. it has been challenging for president biden as well. i think that is why it is important that the united states, frankly, come together, see the importance of alliances, invest in our national security resources writ large. i hope president trump does those things. i'm concerned about his ability to do that. guest: yeah, so, to keep us safe i think we need to dramatically increase defense spending. anyone who has spent time listening to bernie sanders lately would say, what are you talking about? you're spending 3% of our gdp -- gross domestic audit -- product on defense. the only time we spent less on defense since 1940 was a few years right before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

there is a dramatic dissonance between the commission you served on, saying the threats are more serious than anything since 1945. if the threats are so serious why are we spending near-post-world war ii lowe's? -- lows. host: hi, jill. caller: thank you for letting me call. i'm really concerned about ukraine. i'm concerned about trump's relationship with vladimir putin. i don't know what putin has on trump. i don't know if it is black male or financial, but i'm concerned about him becoming president because i feel that foreign policy is going to be dictated by putin, not by an american. and i'm really concerned when you look at his staff announcements, by tulsi gabbard. she is obviously pro-russia. everything that putin says she

does, including her trip in syria. and she also supports dictators. and i'm baffled they are going to put her in the director of national intelligence. our regular allies in nato, are they going to withhold intelligence information now, because if we do have any assets that give us information on russia they are not going to want to give us to that -- give that to us because if she asks for that her staff has to give it to her. i'm concerned she's going to tell putin, these are your spies, that are spying on you. and of course he will do more murders. another thing i'm concerned about is the anti-semitism in the united states. host: let's go ahead and take up the situation with putin and tulsi gabbard. guest: putin is an autocratic saga. he is no -- thug. he is no friend of america. he has a kgb background.

i am on the side of abraham lincoln. i think we should be confident that our form of government is better. you have something good that doesn't defend itself you have to defend it. ukraine is on the frontier of freedom fighting for their political lives against naked aggression and we should support them. i think president trump is not the first politician who thinks that their personal charm can -- you know, george w. bush had a moment like that where he thought he could win over a dictator. trained kgb operative. we need to be very careful and we need to see our enemies and allies clearly and understand that his interests are not ours. host: might our allies be reluctant to share intelligence without for fear of, as the caller said, tulsi gabbard is too close to putin? president elect trump is too close to putin, in her opinion. guest: i think some of tulsi gabbard's comments are concerning. i'm sure those will be questions

in the hearing. if i were a member i would advise them to ask about that. i think we are safer because of intelligence sharing with our allies. if our allies come to believe -- i know we are. if our allies come to believe that the information they share with us may be leaked, then they are going to be less likely to share that with us and americans will be less safe as a result. guest: can i add briefly to that? i agree with everything brad said. i would also add that i think it is a challenge we have in the president-elect someone who has shown himself to be susceptible to personal flattery. and the strength of autocratic leaders in doing that. he praised victor aurburn -- victor orban. i'm concerned about the ability of foreign leaders to flatter

the president of the united states and change his perspective on different things that are incredibly important to the united states. host: you mentioned iran early in this segment. on two things, what you expecting future president trump to dupont the nuclear weapons program in iran? and secondly, their ability to support terror organizations in the middle east? guest: thank you. iran, we published a major report on month ago on this. iran is inching its nuclear weapons program forward. what had happened for many months after october 7 was, israel was confronting attacks from iranian -- counter punches going at the puppets.

i think america cannot permit this leading state sponsor of terrorism to acquire the world's most dangerous weapon. we will not have the kind of civility we want in the middle east until you have a new government in iran. that is not calling for me to use the u.s. military for regime change. that is me calling for a pressure campaign and surprising -- and providing support to the iranian people. host: how do you have a maximum economic impact, a pressure impact on iran without working with allies? if it were wires working with allies how do you propose that happens? guest: max pressure would be more effective if we work with allies. most everything you and i would want to do we're going to be more effective if we work with our allies. i think it would be a false choice to suggest otherwise. host: let's go to annapolis, maryland. ned, hello.

caller: last two collars -- and thank you for allowing me to call in -- the last two collars really covered everything i wanted to say. stole my thunder. quite seriously, quick questions. are we already in world war iii? the other question, what can president biden do between now and the end of his office to support ukraine? crazy idea. i want to entertain you, but i think we should be doing field training exercises. that sends a strong signal to russia, and it places president trump in the position where he has to abandon ukraine. thank you for your time. guest: we are not in world war iii now, thankfully. as i would define it.

but there is a real risk of it. i don't say that quickly or reluctantly. hastily. but, again, if you look at the bipartisan congressional mandate and national defense strategy commission you served on, you all concluded that there is risk for near-term great power war and we are unprepared. i agree with you. you are exactly right. that is why i think the next two years are so important. and that is why i think the dissonance between what we should be spending on defense and what we are is so dangerous. even if we are spending a perfect amount on defense right now that is not going to result in combat capabilities for years to come. i think our adversaries on a war footing -- is on a war footing and we are not, and we need to change that. host: here is carol. carol is in new york, republican. caller: ok, the hypocrisy is just incredible. iran's new leader reached out to the u.s., and israel started an

incursion. just like the playground example you gave, israel does not want iran and u.s. to be friendly. you always go back to january 7, but for years i have watched on tv these teenage boys throwing rocks at the idf. they come over, they shoot them, and they take off on their jeeps. why is it ok for russia -- why is it not ok for russia to take land, but israel can keep expanding the settlements? you keep saying israel is a democracy. democracies don't occupy other nations. democracies don't kick out the press. democracies don't cause genocide. and when we were trying to get out of occupation from the british do you know what they called us? terrorists. the trail of tears occurred do you know what president jackson called the indians? terrorists. host: i want to clarify what you said, something in the beginning about iran. you said the leader of iran reached out to -- caller: the u.s.

they said they want to have better relations with the u.s., and right after they said that israel started an incursion, because israel does not want iran and the u.s. to be friendly, because it is not good for israel. guest: thank you for the call. i think maybe there is some sloppy historical analogies and maybe some conspiracy theory mixed in. the bottom line is, if you look at the top u.s. military commander they have been consistent that the leading threat to regional security in american interests is the alarming -- is the islamic republic of iran. they are horrific on human rights. if you believe in women's rights, minority rights, our bill of rights, you should be very upset with the islamic republic of iran, which hangs people, tortures people, brutalize his people, and you have seen what they have done to iranian women.

i hope you would bring the same standards of human rights you have expressed concerned about to the islamic republic of iran. he said january 7. i think human october 7. october 7 was the worst single-day slaughter of jews since the holocaust. any human being of decency should say that is unacceptable and should never happen again. we can criticize what israel has done since then, but we should all be able to agree on the orders of october -- the horrors of october 7. host: is there any communication between the government of iran and the united states government? or is it only through other intermediaries? guest: it is through intermediaries. i'm smiling slightly because president-elect trump's current best buddy, elon musk, was reported to have met directly with iranian officials, i believe that the u.n., sometime within the last couple of weeks. which was eyebrow-raising, given what you asked about, u.s.

policy in terms of direct interactions with iran. guest: in my view there is one president at a time. yes, there will be conversations when you have a president-elect, but you have to be careful to make clear we are not presenting someone as a government official when the president is not even in office yet. this is a tried-and-true playbook for the republic of iran. whenever they are feeling pressure they offer negotiations, because they want to reduce that pressure. only once, for me twice. we have seen this before. host: john is in new jersey. independent line. caller: hi. i'm thrilled at listening to this curious discussion of really serious issues. i would like your guest advice for all of us out here, where to get a clearer picture of what's

really going on in the government in an accessible way for the general public that is not, like, competition between two parties creating -- you know, trying to create anger among the voting public. thanks a lot. guest: i will take a stab, and i should also cite back to chris, who's birthday it was, because he asked about media sources and neither of us got to that. it troubles me because i think so much of media's focus now is siloed out to different audiences, and there is few opportunities to hear the kind of exchanges that john was talking about. i appreciate the fact that c-span provides an opportunity. i think what brad said about senate hearings on confirmations will be an important opportunity. by c-span and others. there will be a lot of partisan

back-and-forth, but particularly on the national security nominees i think you are going to see people on both sides of the aisle ask tough questions, even the folks that have been nominated and the state of the world right now. i would encourage folks to tune into those hearings and listen closely. listen underneath the product -- the rhetoric you here to the serious questions that convey the serious jobs these people have to do. guest: i agree with that. we are in a particularly partisan tri-ballistic moment in our history and our american politics were too many of us are confusing citizens of good faith with whom we disagree as enemies. i never use the word anime for a fellow citizen with whom i disagree. we have plenty of enemies in the world. we don't have to invent them at home. our adversaries want us at each other's throat so our government's model looks less favorable. i think if you are concerned about national security the

first place you have to start is building mastic unity. if the next administration pursues extreme policies then we are going to see the democrats making big hay in the midterm election and it will be a short-lived run. so they have a political interest in not going to those extremes and we have a national interest in identifying centrist policies. guest: i agree and endorse everything that brad said. i would also add, just on media sources, that people need to be concerned about what they are listening to because our foreign adversaries want to exacerbate the divides. they can manipulate social media for those in -- ends, and they have. guest: we published a major monograph, and the research substantiates what you said. good job watching c-span, but if you are watching only one other source of news i think you're making yourself susceptible to manipulation by foreign actors who want to deceive you, want to

degrade our democracy, and distract us. host: that is brad bowman and mara rudman, miller center professor at the university of virginia. thank you both for being here. guest: thank you. host: later, a conversation with eric katz, senior correspondent for government executive on how the size and scope of the federal workforce could be changed under the new trump administration. more of your phone calls after the break in open forum. you can start calling in now. we will show you a portion of president biden's remarks from the g 20 summit yesterday, where he called for a global pact to combat hunger, send more aid to gaza, and an end to hostilities in the middle east and ukraine. take a listen.

pres. biden: we all have to work to end the conflicts and crises around the world. ukraine, -- [indiscernible] everyone around this table should as well. by the way, russia's invasion of ukraine led to the highest food prices in history. as of said before, israel has a right to defend itself. [indiscernible] matters a great deal. the united states has led the world in the military and aid -- in humanitarian aid to gaza. we are going to keep pushing for a cease-fire deal.

i ask everyone here to increase their pressure on hamas. and on sudan, one of the world's most serious humanitarian crisis. on the brink of famine. this deserves our collective attention. external actors must stop arming generals. stop tearing this country apart. stop the violence. as you know, this is my last g20 summit. we have made progress together, but i urge you to keep going. [indiscernible] a new era of sustainable development. this all may sound lofty, but

this group can lay the foundation to make that achievable. thank you very much, and i look forward to the rest of our discussion. [applause] >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings from u.s. congress, white house events, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available in the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download it or visit c-span.org/c-spannow.

c-span. your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of celebrating congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government. taking you to where the policies are debated and decided, all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span. 45 years and couing. powered by cable. >> the tension middle and i school students across america. it is time to make your voice heard. c-span's studentcam documentary contest 2025 is here. this is your chance to create it -- create a documentary that can make an impact. documentary should answer this year's question, your message to the president. at issue is more -- is most

important to you or your community? whether you are passionate about politics or community stories must studentcam is your platform to share your message with the world. with $100,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of $500,000 -- $5,000. this is your opportunity to not only make an impact, but be rewarded for your hard work. into your submissions today. scan the code or visit studen.org. the deadline is january 20, 2025. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are in open form here on "washington journal" for the next half-hour. and taking your calls on anything public affairs-related, politics-related, anything happening with the transition. phil, you are up first in jupiter, florida. independent. caller: thanks for c-span and

taking my call. i was hoping to get in in the last segment. i would like to continue the discussion on the u.s. funding of israel's war in palestine, number one. and if possible, u.s. funding of nato's war in ukraine. host: you said nato's war in ukraine? caller: or, u.s. funding of the war in ukraine. excuse me. i would like to go back to israel, and i want to tie this back to our economy. you know, every dollar that we are allocating to funding these wars is for the most part being borrowed from the fed. and those affect our economy. as far as inflation and all. but before that, i want to say

that, i wish she would have somebody like allison wier of " if americans knew," or robert f. kennedy, jr. on the panel to talk about the u.s. funding of the war in ukraine and how that started in 2014. but the other thing is, allison wier talks about the history of how palestine did become israel, and it is a shame you don't have her on the program. i'm seeing this more for your listeners and viewers. i don't think we are getting the full history. host: we appreciate the input. here is deborah in burlington, vermont. republican. caller: sorry about that. maybe you called on the wrong line. host: ok.

caller: i just wanted to say, i am really alarmed to hear the amount of people who are advocating for turning in your neighbors and citizens, and think that military deployment on u.s. soil is a good idea. it sounds like stalinist tactics, and it is extremely scary. host: and in wisconsin on the line for democrats, james, you are next. caller: yes, i think people listening should be aware i did read a book on this and that the cia when it was set up, people's argument was the cia would be valuable because it could make our foreign policy much better than our state department or congress and the white house. now we are kind of seeing these guests we had on here today are trying to fulfill that idea that the cia is better-qualified to decide foreign policy. look at russia.

to have the kgb running their country. the cia is valuable, but we don't want them making our foreign policy. thank you. host: and on the line for independence -- independents, bobby. caller: thank you for taking my call. excuse me. i think it has been lost in the shuffle, and it is about the linda's brothers in california. folks that are not aware, they are the folks that cold-heartedly shot there folks in -- shot their mother and father in cold blood. they are considering changing their sentencing because of a netflix special and because they were communal, prisoners. the bottom line is, they shot their parents in cold blood. number one, it was premeditated. number two, i realize there was a problem with the dad, sex

fiend, and they decided to kill both their mother and their father. when they came in they shot them both, and then they went back out again. and at that moment in time they could have rationalized and said, look what we just did. because their mother was still alive. no. they reloaded, went back in, and shot their mother. i would just say to them, one question. was your mother's eyes, the woman who brought you to this life, the mother who raised you as babies, the mother who took care of you to ellen -- to adolescent age, were her eyes open when she saw you actually kill her at that point? host: all right, bobby. this is joe in st. clair, michigan. republican. caller: good morning. you do a good job, by the way.

you have had on the show people talking about farmworkers, immigration, who is going to harvest the crops. i from 200 acres of vegetables. did. i had to hunt the 12 employees. about 190 of them were hispanic or haitian. when anyone gets hired in this country, including you, you have to fill out an i-9 form. if you pull it up on the computer you will be able to read the form. you have to provide proof you belong in this country, whether it be a passport, whether it be a birth certificate, whether it be a green card. if the employer questions any of your evidence that you give him, he is guilty of discrimination. so, whatever -- if they give you a green card the ink is still

wet on you cannot scrutinize that card. also, no farmer is going to plant the crop and put $1.5 million into the field without a stable source of labor to harvest that crop. you cannot hire illegals. host: joe, would you be in favor of -- being the law of the land? caller: absolutely. and we hire people we use a program called h2a. it would be nice if you could get an h2a expert on. you have to buy a permit from the government. they don't tell you that they are going to allow you to bring in h2a workers until the crop is planted. host: what do you think should be done as far as the agricultural workers who are not legally able to work in this country? let's put it that way. that are being hired, that are working.

what should happen to them and what should happen to their employers? caller: well, if an employee gives me phony documentation and i'm going to get charged with discrimination for scrutinizing it, then i have to take it face value whatever he gives me. the right thing to do is to use the h2a program. the program, the requirement to pay people in michigan is $18.50 an hour i'm a plus you have to pay their travel expenses from wherever they come from, and you must provide them with the house. so, your cost ends up being about $22.50 an hour for each employee. host: do you think, given your experience with agricultural work and having your own farm that once a deportation plan

gets underway, do you think food prices will go up? caller: no, because there is not that much food grown in america anymore. most of the food we get comes from mexico, from chile, from honduras. mexico can take over, with the exception of a few crops. host: kate in michigan, line for democrats. you are next. caller: good morning. that was a great call, and i don't know what i was going to say. listen to c-span all the time. there is all kinds of things i want to say, but i worked in migrant camps. i was a social worker. i'm 71 years old. i know that side of it too. i have seen how people have to live, and then many of them have settled in our community. and they are so welcome, and we celebrate our hispanic community here, and it has worked out really well.

but the one thing i kinda of wanted to say was that, listening to all of this and watching the footage this morning and seeing the board rooms, there are no women. host: i just wanted to ask you about the migrant camps you worked in. can you explain where they were, why the migrants were there, and what is the status of those migrants? had they crossed the border illegally? are they asylum claimants? caller: actually, to tell you the truth i worked for them for 40 years but i never quite understood how it all worked. i knew we had families that did not speak english and we had to get interpreters, but i did not quite know how all of that was. and you would go into restaurants and the people working in the restaurants all speak spanish. so as far as the laws and all of that, i'm not real sure. yeah, i just know it was really

harsh conditions, and i would not want to do it. it is hard work, and those people are wonderful people. i always loved it when i had a family. they would do all of the things you wanted them to do. you know, get their kids shots and things like that. anyway, my call i wanted to promote. host: this is nia in georgia, independent line? caller: yes, it is. in your last segment when the 20-year-old african-american man called in, a question on foreign policy, you are doing it again. you are smiling and carrying on. african-american people do critically think, and for you all to sit at the table and laugh and giggle. host: no, no, no. i'm sorry you took it like that. it is not that, because it was -- it was how long he went on

and all of the different topics he talked about. sorry you took it that way. harold in sandusky, ohio. republican. caller: illegal immigrants came into the states in about 1990, and i am an african-american man. they did not know much about the culture. they asked me if mike enis was purple -- my penis was purple, because i'm so dark-skinned. host: independent line. caller: you won't have to worry about that with me. i think that was outrageous and i apologize for her behavior. i would just like to make a statement. back in the 1980's i lived in miami, and i was in high school, and, you know, senior skip days we would head to the beach. and i will never forget the

sight of the little rubber mast coming over with 10, 15 immigrants on it. and i will never forget the day that my father pulled me out of high school because i was thrown down the steps by an immigrant. i am all for legal immigration. i am all for the lottery system. we need smart, innovative, hard workers. people that will contribute to not only our way of life -- and that is a very important aspect. our way of life. we should not have to learn spanish. they should have to learn english. i have no problem with it, but these illegals are taking over the benefits that americans need.

i know people in my area that eat one meal a day because they have cut their benefits so severely. to feed the immigrants. it is not fair. these are our tax dollars. our tax dollars are to be given to the american citizen. not that one person or their group that crossed illegally. i hear people saying they are not illegal, they are not illegal. the minute they cross over and not through the port of entry, they became illegal. and then you have those they came over pregnant and gave birth to a child in america. and the constitution used to say that if your parents were illegal therefore that child is illegal. it no longer says that. host: wait a minute, tina. you are saying there was something in the constitution

that was changed later? caller: yes, back in the 19 80's we studied this in american history, and the constitution says that if you come to -- it said -- if you come to america -- and i'm going to call it an anchor baby. i know that is not politically correct, but i'm going to call it an anchor baby. if you have a child in america, that child, since it was born on american soil, is american. when, in fact, it is supposed to be a citizen of the country, not for legal citizens, for illegal citizens. so, let's say we have a couple from venezuela come over. they give birth. that child should be a venezuelan. should not be an american. host: all right, tina. this is chuck in charleston, west virginia. democrat. good morning. caller: yes, good morning.

it has been 64 days since my last call. host: thank you for counting. caller: one thing i want to mention first is, you know, i still think you waste too much time on people who will not use their tv's. as soon as you hear that tv you ought to move onto the next caller. having said that, about 7:30 this morning during your first viewer: segment, a guy called in, and i think i'm quoting him correctly when he said that the illegals are to be deported and if they try to get back in the united states they should be shot and their bodies should be stacked in the desert. and that really threw me for a loop and i thought to myself, is this what we have become as a nation? i think of all of the people that spend their whole days watching fox and newsmax and one american news, not to mention

having their ears glued to conservative talk radio all day with dennis prager and everything like that, and keeping them in this state of perpetual weight -- perpetual range. and now with the election of donald trump it is like they have run out the worst, ugliest instincts, and apparently most of the american people. i just have to say that one remark by the guy around 7:30 this morning just pretty much horrified me, and that is all i have to say. host: pride, chuck. onto the republican line in new orleans. fred, you are next. caller: i wanted to follow-up with the fellow that was talking about e-verify. maybe this is a segue from your immediate previous caller. the federal government sets up a huge program to track illegal aliens and ensure that they are

legal through e-verify. and then they ignore the whole program. so, people get cynical about the whole federal government having all of these laws and methodologies to track these people. host: e-verify has not actually been passed yet by congress. so, i believe speaker johnson does want to bring that up. it is part of hr to -- hr 2, which passed the house but did not pass the senate. caller: e-verify has been around for a while, so i plead ignorance about what is legislative status is. but certainly it has been around and it is administered as a program, because we have some agricultural lands in louisiana, and trying to find employees to work -- and we have had people say, we are not going to submit any of this paperwork.

i'm bringing to your attention the concerns that that previous caller had about how these programs get administered, and they need to be administered appropriate. that is why american citizens get cynical about this stuff. host: all right. walter, south carolina. independent line. caller: hi, this is walter. what i want to say is, you can see that i am an immigrant. [no audio] host: walter, are you still there? caller: we were not allowed to fly over africa, so we had the ability a few years ago to take a cruise up to the west coast of africa, because we had never been allowed to go there before. my overwhelming impression was how integrated the chinese had become in south, central, and western africa. they built railroads which don't

work, and then they leave. they don't employ the local africans, so there is no financial benefit to them. this continues the whole way up the coast, especially the west coast of africa. the united states is out of the game there. there is absolutely no influence, and all of the influence is basically chinese and russian. and in southeast africa, namibia, there are tremendous mineral resources. 80% to 85 percent of those resources are shipped from namibia back to china. so, the united states needs to get on board, because we are losing. i'm very proud to be an american, but having come from south africa we can see what kind of changes are occurring. host: when you say the united states needs to get on board, what do you -- what are you recommending? maybe didn't hear me.

the in palm springs, california. good morning. caller: i just want to say about immigration, i have been in the hospitality business all my life. i have very few of my dishwashers, my janitors, even my service people in my managers were white. they were hispanics. i'm in california, and i don't know what we do. one of the managers said he had hispanics on his farm. and i don't know of too many white people who are going to go around picking crops like they do in california here. we cannot have the agriculture we have if it was not for our hispanics. people. bless their hearts. i don't know why white people -- and i'm white -- think that we

are better. because we don't get down to their level. i don't understand it. anyway, thank you. host: and on the republican line in georgia, james, you are next. caller: good morning. i tried to get in with your two guests, and it seems that both of them was concerned about tulsi gabbard being put into the trump administration. they seem to think that she was a putin puppet. but nobody said anything about what mark milley said to his counterpart in china. that if president trump tried to do anything, he would let them know in advance, which in my mind is treason. you did not corrected them, you did not bring it up, none of your college they called in brought it up.

i'm just wondering now, is this all about what the democrats want? it seems to me it is one-sided. and lastly, i want to say about the illegal -- your last caller just called in -- your -- if your people need to work, get them a green card and let them come to the united states and work. we are concerned about is you have people over here that the american people don't know how they got here. all we want is a process. so, if you want those people to work get them a green card, and we know who they are. host: sean in alexandria, virginia. independent. caller: i've been listening to you for the past couple of days. for me, i am a young man in my 20's. coming from the military, and

then also law enforcement. but the biggest thing is, you know, there has to be a balance as far as immigration goes. i love when people come here. i love it when they come the right way. it is disheartening as someone who served the country, my wife is from out of the country. she came here the right way and we spent thousands of dollars to do with the right way. so, when we see people that come -- for whatever the case may be. i understand everybody's situation is different. when we have people, and they don't do it the right way and they are getting things for free it is disheartening. i think we should allow people here, but we have to do it the right way. and it is illegal immigrants for a reason, because it is, indeed, it illegal for you to come across the border. you cannot just walk into someone else's country and decide to stay there, you know?

in any other country that is not how it works. i think we should just establish something, give people the opportunity to do at the right way, but go about it on a case-by-case basis. host: the line for democrats in louisville, kentucky. patty, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? i called, just the tail end of everything. it is about the immigration. i saw thing on the news today where donald trump had retweeted something about the military, using the military to go after the illegal immigrants. it was somebody else's post, but he reposted it and then wrote above it "true," himself. this is really worrying me, because i don't know that we have ever had the military come

up against american citizens, and i know that some of these places where they are going to go, these families probably have one illegal immigrant in their family. you know? and it worries me, because what is going to happen if the military does this and they come up against resistance? are they going to start shooting american citizens? i mean, i'm really concerned about this. host: all right, patty. and a couple of items for your schedule for later today. at 10:00 a.m. visa and mastercard make up the vast majority of debit and credit card networks in the u.s. and globally. this morning the mastercard president and visa senior advisor, and others, will testify on the lack of competition in the credit card

market and its impact on consumers. that is the senate judiciary committee. he can watch that live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. and also today on c-span3, fema administrator diane criswell testifies on the admonition -- on the agency's response to recent hurricanes. that is the senate oversight and accountability. we will have that live at 2:00 p.m. eastern, also on c-span3. both of those are on c-span now and online at c-span.org. lee in grande forge, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that after holding back weapons to ukraine over three years in biden's last few weeks he approved long-range missiles to ukraine to attack russia. we know biden is not in charge anymore. who in the deep state is making the decision to cause chaos

before trump's inauguration? thank you. host: harry in norcross, georgia. independent. money. caller: good morning, c-span. just got a couple of things right quick. number one, for everybody who calls in and says, why are we sending all of our money over to ukraine and 2 -- well, regrettably -- to israel, we are not sending money over there. we are sending weapons. those weapons are manufactured in this country and make thousands of jobs in the united states. kind of figure it out, people. the other thing, if you understood macroeconomics you know that every president, his work does not really come into view until after about 18 months ofof -- for the economy to catch up with what he's doing.

so, the inflation you been feeling was caused by trump's tariffs and tax cuts. didn't have anything to do with joe biden. host: next, a conversation with eric katz, senior correspondent for government executive, on how the size and scope of the federal government workforce could be changed under the new trump administration. that's next. ♪ >> c-span podcast feed makes it easier for you to listen to all of c-span's podcast featuring nonfiction books in one place to discover new authors and ideas. each week we make it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with clin -- with

critically acclaimed authors. afterwords, book notes plus, and q&a. visit the bookshelf podcast feed today which you can find on the c-span now mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts. in on our website, c-span.org /podcasts. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this timeline tool makes it easy to get an idea but was debated and decided in washington. spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> listening to programs on

c-span three c-span radio is easy. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio and listen to washington journal, important public affairs events through the day, and on weekdays catch washinon today. listen to c-span any time. just tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio. powered by cable. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse our collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home to -- home decor, and accessories. every purchase supports our nonprofit organization. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are joined by eric katz,

senior correspondent for government executive. we are talking about the future of the federal workforce in the next trump administration. guest: thank you for having me. host: tell us about government executive and what you covered. guest: we cover the management and oversight of federal agencies. what federal agencies are actually doing and how it impacts their employees. we can cover congressional oversight of federal employees, and we are read all over washington. host: your article has the headline, trump vows to "dismantle" the federal. let's talk about how president-elect trump is talking about the federal bureaucracy and what his plans are. guest: he is coming in with a promise to shrink the size of the federal government and the employees who work for it.

he has talked similarly in 20 after being elected. he actually oversized light growth in the federal workforce, though most agencies shed employees. he is talking about slashing the agency budget and regulation, slashing what agencies carry out , and in so doing eliminating host: has he talked about cutting programs? is there a plan as to how many federal workers he wants to cut? guest: it is not precise. he hasn't talked about too many programs. has talked about getting rid of the department of education. that would require an act of congress, so it's not clear that would happen. host: let's talk about that a little bit. vivek ramaswamy said that entire agencies could get deleted.

that was his word. if they wanted to close down an agency, and that money has already been allocated by congress, what would happen to that funding? talk us through that process. guest: the funding from congressional appropriation, that money, the president does not have that much discretion in revoking that. the president-elect has talked about the empowerment act, a decades old law that would give the president more flexibility in withholding funds and maybe he could use that, but the legal capacity there is murky. once congress provides the money and authorizes these things it is not really up to the president to say we are getting rid of this agency. when he was the president last

time he tried this on a smaller scale with small independent agencies. congress said no, we are keeping them, and they outlasted him. host: vivek ramaswamy on fox news talking about the plans for reduced government. [video clip] >> are you expecting to close down entire agencies like president trump talked about? the department of education, for example? >> we expect mass reductions and certain agencies to be deleted outright. we expect mass reductions in force in parts of the federal government that are bloated. we expect cuts of contractors who are overbilling the federal government. we expect all of the above. people will be surprised how quickly we are able to move with some of these changes given the legal backdrop that the supreme court has given us. host: he said people will be surprised how quickly we can move. what is he talking about? guest: when he was run for

president he also talked about this. his proposal was, certain legal protections that allow them guarantees before they can be fired. that would protect us from having a system where president could come in and install loyalists. he can get around that by having massive, widespread layoffs. that is what reduction in forces is referring to. he can quickly come in and say that all of these agencies, you are too bloated and we are laying people off. what he is talking about is randomizing it. if your social security ins in an odd number, you are laid off it. if that is an effective way to manage government is questionable. he's talking about laying off

half of the doctors who care for veterans, half of the air traffic controllers, half of the civilians that support the armed services. that is something that i don't think would be practical or that congress would allow to go through, but they do have some ability to try to implement these layoffs. it won't be as quick as he talks about, because federal employees have the ability to appeal those and bog down the system a little bit, but he could do that. host: there are unions in the federal government. talk about how that works. guest: they are obviously going to fight this. in most cases they have collective bargaining agreements in place. they have contracts that in some ways dictate whether these -- the course by which these layoffs would take place, they protect things like flexible work schedules.

ramaswamy also talked about eliminating telework. most employees do not telework at all. most to do spend most of their time on site. host: ramaswamy says that most are teleworking and are not actually working. guest: according to the most recent data, that is not true. when you telework, it doesn't mean you're not working. it just means you are not working from an office. even that is, in many cases, needing to be negotiated through labor agreements. they can try to override that through labor authorities or the court, but it will be a challenge for them to unilaterally try to put that into place. host: i want to read this quote by the american federation of government employees and get your reaction. make no mistake, our union will not by and let any political leader, regardless of

their political affiliation, run roughshod over the constitution and our laws. during president trump's first term his administration atteto gut many of our negotiated uontrts come downsize andocatfederal agencies at a great disruption and cost the taxpayers, and replace tens of thousands of nonpartisan civil servants with political appointees who would blindly do his bidding. guest: a couple of points. unions in his first term, tried to kick them out of the office space that they had and reduce the amount of time that employees could spend doing union activity. i expect those executive orders to come back into place quickly upon him taking office. in terms of the last point, that is a reference to what -- an executive order that trump signed before he left office called schedule f.

it would take away what we were talking about, the merit-based civil service. instead they could be fired because they were not loyal enough to the president. that was met with a lot of backlash. it never ended up going through, but trump promised to bring it back. we will see where that ends up. host: we will take your calls until the end of the program at 10:00 a.m. when the house gavels in. the numbers are, democrat (202) 748-8000. republican, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. federal employees, (202) 748-8003. in the clip that i showed you, ramaswamy mentioned contractors who were overbilling the government. contractors are a big part of the federal budget. how would that work?

has he said anything more about going after contracts? interestingly, elon musk is working with him in the same efficiency department. he is a big recipient of government contracts. guest: i think his contracts are estimated to be worth billions of dollars per year. there is some concern about a conflict of interest. in terms of going after the contracts, these things are constantly being renegotiated, so any administration has the ability to try to work out better deals for the government. trump talked a little about that in his first term. the federal government has enormous buying power, obviously, because of the scale at which they are operating. you can definitely see some of these contracts be reworked,

reshaped. i think every administration tries to do that. it depends what they are willing to go after, what services they are willing to shed if that is up for debate, but they will have opportunities to press federal contractors for what they are building the government. -- billing the government. host: can you talk about previous attempts and what came of them? guest: honestly, it is one of the oldest tricks in the washington playbook. the come in and say we have a blue-ribbon committee that's going to reduce the size of government and get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse.almost every president comes in with some kind of task force to do that. president trump in his first term had a big reorganization plan that was aimed at making government more efficient. that was internal to government

where musk and ramaswamy will be outside of government. that came up with ideas that never went anywhere. some big initiatives happened under president clinton and president reagan that would similarly bring in outsiders to come up with proposals that would really make the government more efficient. they had some success. president clinton really did actually reduce the size of the federal workforce. but some of these proposals never really went anywhere. they would require congressional action. it wasn't just like here is some waste. they were real policy proposals and there was always an appetite for that. host: richard on x wanting to know about the numbers. what is the percentage of america's workforce employed by the federal government? guest: it depends on how you count. there are about 2.1 million federal career civil servants.

there are another 600,000 or so that worked for the postal service.and then there is active duty military. it is a fairly small percentage of the overall workforce in america, but it is not nothing. if you're talking about widespread layoffs of these people, and ramaswamy talked about 75%, that is a major economic impact. you're talking about laying off over one million people. host: let's go to sean in blacksburg, new york. democrat. caller: hello. i just want clarification. i'm not really democrat, i am republican. more independent. clarification. you mentioned the law that he passed before he left the last time, basically made it sound as though he would fire people who were not loyal to him. as i understand it, it would

give the ability to fire a federal employee that was not doing the job. guest: so, the executive order, he would apply the new firing capacity to any federal employee who worked in a policy position. it was loosely defined and there was concern that this could be applied on an extremely widespread basis. what i was referring to is what the administration actually talked about, which was, we have federal employees who are entrenched in these agencies and they are standing in the way of the president accomplishing his goals.when i talk about loyalty, what i mean is that they view much of the federal workforce as adversarial to what they are trying to accomplish, and anyone who stands in their way, this will make it easy to get rid of them. host: project 2025 is said to

privatize as much as possible. can you explain the risks and benefits of hiring employees versus contracting services? guest: first of all, there are many things that are inherently governmental. it's quite difficult to contract those out, unless congress were to rewrite those laws. federal contractors generally bill at a higher rate than federal employees. there is more flexibility there, which is why they are often turned to because they don't have to go through the same hiring processes and they don't have to be responsible for their lifelong pension or health care benefits as career employees, they are responsible for that. there is more flex ability for contractors, but it depends on what you're working on and what you're looking for. host: clarence in north carolina, independent. caller: good morning.

how are you doing? my problem with -- you have too much authority in the union, because you have a program like the union i was in, you can work two days and i can get a doctors excuse and come back the third day. you can't fire anybody. what trump did with the v.a., he made it to where you are not doing your job you can get fired. at the v.a., we had to wait for months to get an appointment. stand in the line, pause on the phone, they ignore you. we have people come in in wheelchairs. good, make them responsible. if you don't make them responsible, you ruin the government. that is one of the main problems. it will never be solved until

you get these unions in line. i was there and i saw it. that will make the federal government run so bad and they will never get it right until they get the unions do what they want them to do. host: what do you think? guest: there have been complaints for many years, decades, that it is too hard to fire federal employees because of what we talked about with the protections that they have. there needs to be justification for firing federal workers besides that they are not politically engaged in one side or the other. the -- it is not impossible to fire them, you just need to be able to support your case. it can take a little while, but thousands and thousands of federal employees get fired every year. it is certainly not impossible. i will quickly mention that the caller worked at the v.a. and

talked about what trump did. he passed a law that made it easier to fire employees at veterans affairs department. that didn't go well, because it was challenged in court, several different courts and panels found that it was unconstitutional the way that they wrote the law. we may try to see them bring that back, but the v.a. is not currently using the law because of the trouble that they had enforcing it. host: jay in burbank, california, democrat. caller: my question would be, didn't dictators like stalin, mussolini, chavez, orban, the first thing that they do when they come in is purge elected civil servant officials. they purge them, they replace them, they ensure loyalty like what is going on here, they

maintain control through intimidation and surveillance. how do you think that president trump's actions compared, and do you see any direct parallels with his treatment of the civil servant, especially loyalty tests and firing officials, using the government for personal and political gain? that is my question. guest: so, that is interesting, because certainly what these over a century now of civil service law is trying to prevent is that kind of system. what -- there are two different things going on here. the efficiency commission that vivek ramaswamy and elon musk are leading are talking about getting rid of employees altogether. not necessarily replacing them with loyalists, just shrinking the size of the federal government.

that would give more influence to the political appointees at those agencies, but would also mean they are doing less. you cannot just replace that with nothing. then there is the schedule f thing, which could lead to the president installing more loyal people to him. there are certainly -- they certainly talked about getting those who are not loyal to him out of the way, because they are resisting his efforts. so, it depends what scale they deploy this in. whether the court lets this go through or not. vivek ramaswamy has talked about how there is a friendly supreme court now. he plans to use that to his advantage to do things. once it gets up to the highest court, they will rubberstamp what he is trying to do. that is a possibility. host: jerry in somerset, kentucky, independent line. caller: if trump is getting rid of told million illegals, 3

million that lay around and don't work like republican say, 3 million are children, that leaves 6 million people leaving jobs open. are the federal government employees going to go do those jobs like picking peaches and cucumbers? i have picked cucumbers, and it ain't no fun. host: the washington post has this about where federal workers live in the u.s.. only 15% of the 2.1 million civilians full-time federal employees in the u.s. work in the washington metro area, including northern virginia, suburban maryland, and a bit of west virginia. the other 85% work around the country. you can see a map. the question is, one of the ideas is, too many agencies in d.c., we can move them out, and people will quit on their own. what are you hearing? guest: that is something that they tried to do in the first

term on a smaller scale. they moved the bureau of land management headquarters from washington to colorado, and they moved a couple of agencies like the usda to kansas city. if their goal at the time, mick mulvaney talked about this, if their goal was to get people to quit, it worked. large-scale, on a large-scale those employees did not relocate. that led to a lot of problems as these are experienced people who have a lot of institutional knowledge as to how things work come of budget functions, and they walked and the agencies didn't have that anymore. it's a good point that people often get that 85% of the federal workforce is not in the d.c. area. most employees are not already here but most headquarters are. that is what these folks are talking about when they want to

relocate. they want to put headquarters closer to where they are carrying out their function. host: patrick in fairfax, virginia. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. my question is, mr. elon musk and ramaswamy, will they be government employees? if so, what type? if so, are they subject to the same conflict of interest rules that all government employees are subject to, especially those employees involved in contracting? they can be suit, i believe, if they violate regulations regarding contracting. guest: announcing this initiative, the president said that this would operate outside of government. allow them to operate more nimbly, but they would work closely with the white house and the budget office to implement the things that they want to

affect. typically, when these special advisor positions, they do have certain ethical constraints and disclosures that they have to make. we will have to see the structure that they set up to see if that would apply, but i imagine musk and ramaswamy would resist that. host: the hill has this article that says federal workers brace for trump overhaul of civil service. what are you hearing from federal workers themselves? are they concerned about this? are they starting to look for other jobs? what is the mood? guest: we are starting to have these conversations. there are two tracks in my conversations. employees who are freaked out and really worried about what is

going to happen. some of them are less so. they're just quitting but if they are retirement eligible they may retire earlier than they anticipated. some maybe are looking for other jobs. i have heard that. other say i have been around for trump administration in the past. it's difficult and we have smaller budgets and more pressure on us from political appointees, we have had to reverse course on some of the things we were doing, but we ultimately survived and got through it and it is important for me to be here, carry out my function, and deliver on the mission of the agency. that is probably the more common thing that you hear. there are definitely nerves and anxiety. specifically in terms of the schedule f proposal, i think that people are really nervous about what that will entail, but most are willing to wait it out

and see how it plays out. host: what will you be watching for throughout the transition and in the beginning of the trump administration? guest: a couple of things. one, the president-elect has not formally cooperated with the biden administration on the transition because they have to sign agreements that statutorily they must sign to deploy their teams into agencies. every transition you send a bunch of people into each agency to get briefed on what they are working on and try to set expectations for what you want to work on when you get there. that is not happening yet. from what we understand it is expected to happen, but we don't know when. definitely keeping an eye on that. if they start to signal what the day one priorities are going to be, we will obviously want to look at that. right after he took office in 2017 trump issued a

government-wide hiring freeze. he hasn't said if you will do that again, but that had a years-long impact because they were trying to backfill all of those roles for all that time. we will keep an eye on that. these executive orders, talking about federal employee union relations or making it easier to fire proposal, these are all things that would have a pretty significant impact and we will definitely be watching that. host: eric katz is the senior correspondent for government executive. you can find his work at gov execut.com. that is it for us today. we will see you again tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we will take you to the house of representatives set gavel in.