you or your community? whether politics, environment or community stories, share your message with the world. $100,000 in prizes, including an opportunity not only to make an in -- impact but beewarded for your creativity and hard work. enter your submissions today. scan the code or visit the website for all the details on how to enter. deadline is january 20, 2025. c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including wow. >> the world has changed. a fast and reliable internet connection is something no one can live without, so wow is there for customers with speed, reliability, value, and choice. it all starts with great internet. wow.

>> wow 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. marc caputo, the bulwark national political reporter, caught -- talks about president elect trump's cabinet picks and their path to confirmation. then roger zakheim, washington director at the ronald reagan presidential foundation and institute, discusses his organizations survey finding a record high number of americans favor more u.s. engagement and leadership in international affairs. "washington journal" is next. join the conversation. ♪ host: good morning, monday, december 9, 2024. the house returns at noon

eastern today. we are here with you for the next three hours today on "washington journal." a look at birthright citizenship, the idea that if you are born in america, you are automatically a citizen of the country. yesterday, president trump -- president-elect trump vowed once again to end or threat citizenship. phone lines split as usual this morning. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. a special line this morning for immigrants, (202) 748-8003. you can also text. please include your name and where you are from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media. facebook.com/c-span or on x with handle @cspanwj. a very good monday morning. this was president elect donald

trump yesterday on "meet the press." this is what he had to say about birthright citizenship. [video clip] >> you plan to ban birthright citizenship on day one. is that still your plan? >> yes. >> this says in the 14th amendment that all people born in the united states are citizens. will you do an executive action? >> we are the only country that has it. if somebody sets just one foot on our land, congratulations, you are now a citizen of the united states of america. yes, we are going to end that because it is ridiculous. >> through executive action? >> if we can. i was going to do it, but we had to fix other things first. we have to end it. do you know we are the only country in the world that has it? >> what about the inevitable

legal challenges? >> we have thousands of judges -- somebody walks onto our land and we have to now say welcome to the united states. they could be a criminal or not a criminal. we release them into our country. it is called catch and release. we release them into our country -- wait just one second -- and now they get our lawyers, and the lawyers are very good lawyers, and everybody has a lawyer, and do you know how many judges we have? thousands, thousands. here is what other countries do they come into the land, and they say, sorry, you have to go, and they take them out. host: donald trump yesterday. one note on what he had to say, there's about three dozen countries that provide automatic citizenship for people born on their soil, including canada and mexico. there is a chart from the law library at the library of

congress showing the countries in pink that have unconditional citizenship at birth. that is a post of citizenship through parental status, including pencils like spain, germany, and great written -- including countries like spain, germany, and great britain. the 14th amendment of the constitution was ratified after the civil war, and this is section one, which says all people born in the united states are citizens of the united states and of the states where e. no state shall make or enforce ws that shall encourage privileges or immunities of citizens of thed states, and no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the united states. there was a wide-ranging interview on "meet the press" yesterday we will talk more about some of the other issues the president-elect brought up in that interview. but we are focusing the first hour on birthright citizenship. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. immigrants of any status, we want to hear from you in this segment, (202) 748-8003. blake and mississippi is up first, independent. good morning. caller: first of all, as a veteran of this country and an african-american, i want to say i am thankful for my president i voted for, mr. donald trump, for addressing this issue. not only have african-americans not been given their proper due

and proper stake in this country, but we have denied them education. we expect them to be the bedrock for all others who come here. it has been like that since day one. all these other races came to our community, exploited our community, to build their nations back home. along with the other races that were already here. host: what about birthright citizenship? caller: i think we should get rid of them. no place in the world can you show up at -- look at china, they are sending their people over here. they are having babies in hotel rooms, and that baby is a u.s. citizen. and that baby is obligated to the same thing you and i and everything, just because his mother came here off a plane or across the border or whatever and had a baby in hotel room, they are equal to our vets? they are equal to our soldiers,

to our students come into our future? are you crazy? real immigrant, if you sit down and talk to them, nobody in their right mind would go for that. thank you, mr. trump. i love you. host: that line for immigrants, maryland, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i am privileged and glad to listen to this program, and this is my say. i listened to donald trump, who was electronically rigged into winning, and he is from germany. his mother is from scotland. so he is not even from this country. now, for him to be talking about the amendments so that even if

you are born here -- by the way, let me tell you that i am a proud african. i do not want to be anything but african. i have five children here, and i have over five grandchildren. according to the argument of donald trump, who is a felony and is not even supposed to be the president of the united states, this gentleman has three felonies. african-americans, rights to vote taken away, and this man we put him there to be president of the united states. isn't that ridiculous? no, the only person that can talked way donald trump is talking is the native americans. africans do not belong here if native americans do not want us

to be here. the killings of the native americans was done to snag their lands, and then not allowed to say anything about who is supposed to be here. to be questioning people born here, look at the people coming from the border. they are not supposed to be coming here. these are native americans flowing to their own habitat. host: the first trump family member who came to the united states, according to a story in newsweek, 1885 in the tober, friedrich trump, a one-way ticket but to the united states, and the trump family has been in the united states since then. olivia, good morning. caller: thanks for having me on. the mississippi gentle man who

called, i don't know, i guess he does not understand that the amendment to allow people birthright was created because slaves were not considered citizens. so here we go. to remove that amendment or to threaten to remove the amendment, i do not know if it is just for publicity to get people up in arms about these things, but to try to remove birthright citizenship is absolutely insane. immigration is the bedrock of the formation of our society. to try to take away that right of people, what would happen to the people who are citizens and who have children overseas? how do you not confound that situation, as well? host: to amend the constitution requires a two-thirds vote in

the house and in the senate, and if it goes to the state, it would need to be ratified by three-quarters of the state. do you think that is possible in as divided of america as we have seen, almost evenly divided in this country, do you think something like that is possible today? caller: i do not think that vote would pass in congress. you look at the democracy of congress now, it is not 100% of any one cultural democracy. it is a bit varied. and even within that majority, there are some variations. a lot of people's families were not born in the united states. host: what one of the other callers brought up in what the trump administration has talked a lot about, what about this idea of what they call birth tourism, late pregnancy women in

the united states to give birth in the u.s. so the child can then have automatic citizenship in the united states? is that something you can curb? caller: i do not think you should try to cherry pick situations where people are trying to come to this country to make a better living better life for themselves. host: i guess the idea is simply to have the child in the united states and then go back to the country they were living in. caller: i do not know the circumstances by which people have babies in the united states, whether they returned back to their country or if they stay here. but it is usually in order to make sure the child has a better opportunity, whether it is a health reason or a safety reason or whether it is for economic reasons. it is not safe to say that if this person is going to be a great citizens of the united states and the return at any one point or another, that should be a problem. and if the person returns, what is the problem with that? host: this is the story from the

"wall street journal" today on trump's comments, saying his transition team is drafting several versions of his long promising executive order to curtail automatic citizenship when one is born in the united states. that is according to several people familiar with the matter. though an executive order needs -- through an executive order or a rulemaking process by an agency, they note, president elect trumpets also expected to take steps to deter that birth tourism. there are different issues, one on birthright citizenship as a whole and one on birth tourism. ron in maryland, and dependent. good morning. caller: i think it is very important that we differentiate legal versus illegal. ok? a lot of your callers will say

immigration is a fabric of our country. we are talking about illegal immigration. ok? and i challenge your callers and listeners to travel to europe, any country, they want to know if you are pregnant, how long you are staying. they have laws and they enforce their laws. why are we not enforcing our laws? that is what it boils down to. when you look at the birthrate of our country, it is declining. i hate to say this, but gain is over. illegal immigrants are coming in and having 3, 4, 5, 6 babies. most american women are not having as many children as they did in the past. game is over. we are talking about legal immigration. i challenge you to travel to europe, travel to those countries in europe and east avenue europe, and i guarantee you they have laws and enforce their laws, and they will not have what we have going on in

this country. thanks. host: the map from the law library at the library of congress, taking a look at citizenship statuses by country around the world, birthright citizenship were citizenship is unconditional at birth is that magenta, that pink color, mostly the western hemisphere at the united states, canada, mexico, and several countries in south america. other countries have other ways to establish citizenship, including the status of the parents. that is how it is in great britain, germany, spain, and other countries, as well. there's also the outright banning of birthright citizenship, not available in the countries in orange. charles is in florida, good morning. caller: [no audio]

host: i can hear myself on the tv, so i assume you walked away from the phone. this is walter in minnesota on that line for immigrants. caller: morning. yeah, that is an interesting thought. but i would connect it with the right to vote. meaning, you have to go through whatever, like us immigrants have to go through, a series of questions to get sworn in, and so on to achieve the citizenship. then connection with that, that might be a good idea. host: so you think people should not become citizens until they are old enough to take and pass a test on citizenship? caller: you have to pass a test before you can vote. does not matter where you were

born, except the native americans. that is a different story. host: what do you mean that you have to pass a test to vote? caller: to pass a test before you vote, to get the right to vote, you have to pass a test, like a driving test. host: where would you have to do that? caller: well, i did mine up here . you get questions -- host: is this when you became a citizen? caller: yes. host: so when you are becoming a united states citizen, you took a citizenship test? caller: correct. host: that is what you think people should do to be able to vote or become a citizen in general? caller: in connection with the birthright, because the reason i

am saying that, some people are born, so they think they are better with more than others. [laughs] there is the constitution and the idea of the united states. in that should be honored. and i have seen that in the last eight, 10 years, whatever. yeah. host: what country did you emigrate to the united states from? caller: germany. host: that call for minnesota. phone lines are split by political party. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. and that line for immigrants of any status, (202) 748-8003. birthright citizenship is what

we're talking about this morning. donald trump again saying he would consider ending birthright citizenship. it was an issue he brought up in his first term as president, which did not come to pass, obviously. promising to adjust that issue in his next term starting in january. donald trump sitting down for an interview with "meet the press" when he talked about this. joe is in fort wayne, indiana, and dependent. your thoughts on birthright citizenship. caller: children were born here, their citizens are that is my comment. host: it was a little muffled. caller: i was practicing. the reason they started birthright citizenship, it was not because of slavery, it was because the children of three slaves were being denied their citizenship right.

so they came up with the 14th amendment. then the early 1970's, pregnant women would start crossing the border, and when their babies were born here, they became citizens. so whoever said it was because of slavery was wrong. but i would change it to a few came and to the country illegally, then you could not have birthright citizenship. if the mother was illegal, then her baby could not be american. host: that is joe in fort wayne, indiana. the 14th amendment passed in the wake of the civil war, has been the law of this land since then. after the war, the reconstructionist congress passed several civil rights laws, including the 14th amendment. the most sweeping creation of birthright citizenship in the u.s. history. it defined citizenship as to

plight -- as a point all citizens born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, notably most native americans were excluded from the amendment here the history channel with their wrapup of the 14th amendment goes on to note one of the most important legal challenges involving the 14th amendment, 1898, the definition of birthright citizenship was a major -- met a major challenge in the form of a chinese-american clerk who had been born on american soil, the chinese immigrant in 1873, before the chinese exclusion act was passed which prohibited must chinese immigrants, by extension their naturalization -- the naturalization of chinese citizens. since his parents were not citizens and he was born in the united states, it was unclear whether he could join us right citizenship. the story goes on to note, when he was denied -- when he was denied reentering the u.s., he was forced to wait in a ship in

san francisco harbor for months as his attorney pursued his case for citizenship here at he was a test case that the department of justice selected, and his case went to the supreme court. then something unexpected happened, he won. the 14th amendment, and clear words and manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the united states of all other persons of whatever race or color domiciled within the united states. that was in the surety opinion that came from the supreme court. james is next in florida, and dependent. good morning. caller: good morning. the part that i think that is being missed is the part that says under the jurisdiction thereof. the way i understand it, and i guess this is one reason why we do not teach civics in our schools anymore, we keep getting diverse scenarios, it has to do with indians.

they specifically did not want indians who were born in this country to be full citizens. that is why they had to be under our jurisdiction. indians were not completely under our jurisdiction. but if people sneak into our country, they are not under our jurisdiction, they just snuck in. now if we allow them at the border and give them a court date, whether it is 10 years out or 10 days out, we have legally allowed them in and they are now under our jurisdiction. host: illegal immigrants can be prosecuted. many times when there prosecuted, they are deported. they go to deportation proceedings. but they can be prosecuted for crimes in the united states and are subject to due process laws. would that not make them under our jurisdiction? caller: the point i am saying is, yeah, if they come in -- if they come into a port of entry and we give them a court date,

that means we let them in. but if they come in through the desert, no, we did not let them in, they just snuck in. host: but if an illegal immigrant does a crime, they are subject to due process laws. doesn't that make them under our jurisdiction? caller: not when it comes to citizenship. they are under jurisdiction because they're criminals and broke the laws of our country. but we're talking about citizenship rights, not legal rights for criminals. host: correct. i am talking about perhaps the children of illegal immigrants. you say illegal immigrants are not subject to due process. so i assume you're saying children of illegal immigrants may be born in the united states are not citizens. but if the children are born in the united states be citizens? that is how the 14th amendment reads. caller: i guess what we're talking about here specifically

is, what is an illegal immigrant? i am saying if you come into our border, even if you're qualified for simon -- asylum rights, if you go through our system and we say you can come in, hang out for 10 years and then we will have a court date, we let them in. so when we let them in, they are under our jurisdiction. if they go through the desert that we knew not let them in, they are not under our jurisdiction. it is a little complicated, but the words are the words of the constitution. that is what they say, they have to be under our jurisdiction. it was written, if you read the notes in the library of congress about what they were discussing at the time, with indians. host: got your point. emma in chicago, democrat. caller: in germany, both parents have to be born in germany, otherwise you will never be a citizen. host: do you think that is a good system? caller: yes, i think so.

host: why? caller: i think those people, you know, you are born in germany. i think it is the best way to go. host: this is stan on staten island, independent. caller: good morning. yeah, i am calling in reference to the birthright tourism. i spent a winter in florida and witnessed it with my own two eyes. everyone in the building was a pregnant russian woman walking with a stroller with two or three kids in it. and there were flyers sitting on the front desk regarding tourism. they hook you up with a doctor, with a limousine if you could afford it. but once those kids were born here, they are full citizens with all the rights. that is unfair. there's very few things i agree

with donald trump on, but this happens to be one that he is absolutely 100% right. this needs to stop. host: how did you find a place like that? did you talk to anybody that was there? caller: it was a condo. when i rented it for the winter, i did not realize that this was the place that the russians use as a birthing place, for instance. they would come -- all the women were pregnant. it was unbelievable. it was a big eye-opener. i thought it needed to stop then. host: was the intention to stay in the united states or go back to russia? caller: i'm not sure. 95% of them did not speak any english. my feeling was that they just wanted to grab that citizenship. what they were going to do with it as far as whether they were going to stay, i did not believe

so, kind of expensive to stay there. i am not sure what they were going to do, but they were definitely doing it. it was written in these flyers, they hook you up, depending how much money you were willing to spend, you could have a limousine service to and from the doctor, or you could go on a budget type thing. but it is definitely an industry, a major industry in florida, sunnyside, florida. host: this is william in kentucky, democrat. good morning. caller: yes, good morning, thank you for taking my call. i have one question and perhaps a comment also. number one, i do not think people really understand what it means to open up the constitution for amendment, and that is what it would take to add this into the 14th amendment . if i understand everything correctly. also, he wants to deport

noncitizens and birthright citizenship. what about our americans that are serving overseas and their spouse gives birth to a child there? is that going to apply? this is opening up a whole ball of wax. i do not know if people will be into it. host: you talk about how hard it is to repeal the 14th amendment or pass a new and minute, two-thirds vote in the house and two-thirds vote in the sit it -- senate. it being that hard, do you think this is just a distraction? caller: i absolutely do. i think he is doing this to keep everything stirred up. that is just my opinion. but this thing could open up a pandora's box, and we really do not know what is going to happen. because they open up the constitution for amendment, this will not be the only one that is proposed. host: do you think there's ways

to regulate what the caller before you was talking about, the birth tourism, coming into the united states in order to gain that citizenship for the child and then leaving? caller: i do not agree with that. but i do agree, if you were born in this country, you have a right to citizenship in this country. host: that is william in kentucky. we are coming up on 7:30 on the east coast, spending our first hour in the "washington journal" today talking about birthright citizenship. it is because of that "meet the press" interview yesterday, donald trump sitting for that interview. a lot of issues came up, other immigration topics came up, the dreamers, young children brought to the united states illegally that have lived in this country for most of their lives, also

talked about, separate from earth right citizenship. donald trump -- separate from birthright citizenship. donald trump was asked about dreamers in this country and what might happen to them in a second administration. [video clip] >> you said once in 2017, they shouldn't be very worried about being deported. should they be worried now? >> the dreamers are going to come later, and we have to do something about the dreamers. because these are people that have been brought here at a very young age, and many of these are middle-aged people now. they do not even speak the language of their country. yes, we're going to do something about the dreamers. i will work with democrats on a plan. but the democrats have made it very difficult to do anything. republicans are very open to the dreamers. many years ago, they were brought into this country, many years ago. some of them are no longer young people. in many cases, they have become successful. they have great jobs.

in some cases, they have small businesses, some cases they may have large businesses. and we're going to have to do something with them. >> you want them to be able to stay, that is what you are saying? >> i do. i want something to be worked out, and it should have been worked out over the last three or four years, and it never got worked out. host: in today's "wall street journal," the editorial board calls at the most interesting note of that wide-ranging interview, the editorial board writing that it is great to hear if mr. trump is willing to deal on the dreamers, democrats should shift from the first of opposition to any immigration deal and the country would be better for it. that is the editorial board of the "wall street journal." this is christian in arizona, republican. good morning morning. we have been talking about birthright citizenship. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i wanted to jump in because i have not heard -- i heard a discussion between a caller about due process. all persons are entitled to a fifth amendment, and let's just say, compulsory due process of the fifth amendment and sixth amendment. 14th amendment, you as an alien or someone as an alien does not have total, complete 14th amendment rights. because your subject to the president of the united states, and this is why we have elections, because the president of the united states is the executive. in article two, we went over this many times during trump's first term when all of the democrats and all of the liberals in all of the rinos

were running to the court and the ninth circuit and district courts trying to stop trump from implementing this policy on immigration, on alien entry, on the border, and the court upheld the power of the presidency. so now when it gets to the birthright citizenship issue, a lot of these issues are going to be dependent on what the executive says in terms of how that person entered the united states. it is going to come back to who is the president, who is the executive. host: how their parents entered the united states? because they were born in the united states. caller: well, no, it is going to come back to how they were granted entry, did they have the proper documentation at the time of the child's birth, all of that is going to come into play.

i am simply saying they do not have total, complete equal protection and due process like every u.s. citizen. there are limits to that when you talk about entering into the united states. the u.s. supreme court was very clear in that case of hawaii fee v trump where there was a huge dispute over whether trump was allowed to stop alien entry right at the beginning of his presidency back in 2017. host: do you think it is a different issue of alien entry or even legal entry in order to have a child in the united states versus birthright citizenship, just the concept of if you are born here, you are a citizen? caller: it is all on the table. again, when people enter the country, many are entering the country because of asylum or for

some other economic reason, but those reasons -- the whole world is not allowed to enter the united states. we have laws, the immigration nationality act, the president of the united states who is the decision-maker and who has broad discretion on alien entry, that was already settled by the u.s. supreme court. so these things will be have out, and yes, we do want to open up this pandora's box. yes, we do want to go into the u.s. supreme court and get all of this settle because it was supposed to be settled by the democrats were slowing it down. now we will get to finally settle all these issues. host: that is christian in the grand canyon state. this is walter in maryland. there is walter in gaithersburg, maryland. go ahead. caller: hi there.

this is kind of an offshoot of the issue or a little bit of a tie on the issue, in a sense. my father was born in germany. his parents and my father came to this country in the 1930's, survivors of the holocaust. german law -- by the way, i am the firstborn american. my father became naturalized when he came over he actually followed -- when he came over. he actually fought in the u.s. army. he returned to europe as part of the u.s. army, landed at d-day, but that is a different story. at any rate, i am firstborn. german law allows victims of the

holocaust who have emigrated to other countries and their descendants to acquire german citizenship. the idea being these folks were kicked out of the country and were denied citizenship, denied the benefits of german citizenship at the time they were persecuted, and therefore not only they but their offspring should have the right to citizenship, something that they would have been entitled to but for the horrible events of the 1930's and 1940's. so i actually had the choice of becoming a dual citizen. i can acquire my german citizenship through this law. by the way, it is a process, somewhat rigorous. you have to apply.

you have to show to documentary evidence, birth certificates, various other evidence to show that you are a direct descendant of somebody who was actually persecuted and kicked out of the country. so here i am. as an aside, my son has acquired the dual citizenship for various reasons. host: explain how dual citizenship works here the united states does not recognize dual citizenship, but another country may recognize dual citizenship. so germany may say that you are a dual citizen, but that is not recognized by the united states, right? caller: i am not sure the law, to be honest with you. but i do know that i am entitled in terms of the german citizenship, i can acquire

basically the rights that would have been enjoyed by my dad and would have been enjoyed by me had things that happened the way they did. i am firstborn american, by the way. we actually have a cousin, i believe, who was born in germany and brought here and is an american citizen. host: walter, thanks for telling us about your family immigration story. did your father ever make it back to germany during the war? caller: as part of d-day. host: did he go all the way to germany? caller: yes, he did. and he was in the army for quite some time. he was actually stationed in germany as part of the postwar efforts to weed out extremists. he was part of that organization

to see that extremism did not reemerge in germany. yes, he was in the american sector. host: how long did he stay in germany after the war? caller: i think for several years. i think he came back after three or four years. this was after being in the army. he landed on the pacific after d-day. he was in an organization, i forget the name, but it was a precursor, must have been a precursor of the cia, one of these organizations that protects united states citizens from overseas. stationed on the american sector and came back and then became -- started his life here, went to law school, became an attorney. that is the story. host: thanks for telling us

about him. what was his name? caller: fritz. host: that is walter in gaithersburg, maryland. a little bit more on dual citizenship in the united states. walter mentioned the cia. cia, if you go to their website of citizenship status in every country in the world to see how it works, this is healthy united states is listed -- this is how the united states is liston. citizenship by birth, birthright citizenship. dual citizenship, the u.s. does not recognize it, but the u.s. government acknowledges that such situations exist. u.s. citizens are not encouraged to seek dual citizenship since it limits protections by the united states, but that is how dual citizenship works. in germany, if you go to their entry on that cia page, they note that germany does recognize

dual citizenship in their country. this is pat in huntington, west virginia, independent. caller: hello. i would just like to say that week by week, the legal ignorance and legal deviance of donald trump will become more and more apparent to this country in the world, and i just hope to goodness that our country and our constitution is able to survive what he has no idea about doing that is really legal and that is really for the country's benefit. it is pitiful to think of what this guy is saying he is going to try to do to this country. thank you. host: michigan, robert, republican, your thoughts on birthright citizenship. caller: good morning.

there's many reasons i for president trump's action on ending birthright citizenship. but i would like to comment on the baby tourism, which i seem skeptical about from the caller from miami that this exists. i am a retired physician from michigan, and i know colleagues from around the country, in california, there's hotels that were housing chinese nationals that were bringing in women nine months pregnant to have children. they also witnessed mothers coming across the border nine months pregnant, waiting for the baby to crown in the parking lot of the hospital. then delivering the child and getting citizenship. but i would like to comment here in michigan, personally, at hospital i was on staff at, there was one physician of middle eastern descent, and

female, who delivered more babies than all the other physicians put together. the nurses finally exposed what was -- i would call it an illegal, fraudulent scam. her husband was a travel agent and would bring women from the middle east pregnant and get a commission from doing that, and his wife, who was the ob/gyn doctor, would deliver these patients at the local hospital and collect the fee from medicaid, because in michigan, anybody without insurance automatically the delivery would be covered by medicaid. the hospital enjoyed it. the doctor enjoyed it. she built a very large building and bought restaurants and was getting rich until the nurses turned her in. and the fbi, i believe,

investigated, and fined her substantially, but it was more like a slap on the wrist. in my opening, she should have been deported for this illegal activity. host: where was the hospital where that was happening? caller: in dearborn, michigan. i am sure you have heard of dearborn, it has a large middle eastern population. and these people would blend in pretty easily. host: is it a story that made the local news? i was trying to find the story. caller: i am not sure if it made the local news, but i do know that, based on what the nurses told me, that she was reprimanded. not sure if she lost her license or not. but this was going on for a substantial amount of time. it is just wrong, does not make any sense that somebody could

just step foot on our land and become a citizen. you know, it is just a flaw in the law. i think it should be changed. i think reasonable people should agree on this. host: i did not find that story, but i found this one from september, southern california men and women convicted of running a birth tourism scheme. a federal judge convicting a san bernardino man and woman for that birth tourism scheme in which they took tens of thousands of dollars from chinese clients, helping them travel to the united states to give birth. 10 of international money laundering and federal courts in los angeles, scheme involving helping chinese women hide their pregnancies and coaching them on how to circumvent u.s. authorities to get to southern california and give birth. that was from september of this year. this is kathleen in georgetown, delaware. good morning.

democrat. caller: good morning. as far as i know, for the longest time, mexican women have been swimming across with their belly up in the air, and as soon as their toes touch american soil, they got that baby and it is an automatic citizen. and then what they do, their entire baby is entitled to social services. they get medicaid. they get everything. but that is what they are doing. host: we're talking about birthright citizenship. you think it should be ended? you think it should not be the law of the land that if you are born in this country, you are a citizen? caller: i do not think in the situation. just for the opportunity that they are doing, because they know that if they can get to america and have that baby, that baby is an automatic citizen

entitled to all the rights of every citizen in america, which includes wic and food stamps and medicare, all of it. but then, i had a situation -- i am an american citizen and work for a minimum wage, which was five dollars and change at that time, we thought it was a big deal when it went up to six dollars and change. i was in my 40's, had cataracts. i had medicaid. i was working, so i needed medicaid to go to the eye specialist. i cannot afford one checkup without that medicaid. i sat in social services office from 8:00 in the morning to noon time, we vacated until 1:00, and i came back and set and set. here came a mexican woman, a

baby in the stroller, a toddler hanging onto the stroller, and a baby in the belly, coming to apply for social services. and they took her. she had to have another woman with her to translate for her. so i do not think it is fair. host: do you know that she wasn't a citizen? caller: here comes this woman while i am sitting and waiting, and they took her straight back and put her immediately on social services because of those kids and that baby. so i know years and years ago, my grandfather told me immigrants came to ellis island unless they had a sponsor here with a job or family waiting for them, and they had to go to classes to learn the english language, learn the constitution, and do everything. then they had a ceremony when they were inducted as american

citizens, and they were very proud of it. it was just recently that i saw a group of about 25 people all dressed up standing in line smiling, getting indoctrinated as citizens and happy to do it. but now today you can come in with asylum and you do not even have to learn english because you move to a neighborhood that is primarily your national whatever. they do not even have to because they got people to translate for them. host: got your point. you mentioned those naturalization ceremonies. they happen across the country all the time. one that we had covered on c-span about a year ago was december 15, 2023. at that ceremony, melania trump,

future first lady, a naturalized citizen, spoke at a naturalization ceremony. it took place in the national archives surrounded by the founding documents of this country. here is some of what melania trump had to say about a year ago. [video clip] >> even if my dream of becoming a citizen pushed me to meticulously gather every last piece of information required, ensuring that no detail was overlooked. my personal experience of the challenges of the immigration process open my eyes to the harsh realities people face, including you, to try to become u.s. citizens. and then, of course, there are nuances of understanding the united states immigration laws and the complex legal language contained therein.

i was very devoted, but i certainly was not an attorney. eventually, it became critical for me to retain counsel. i was fortunate to do so, as ultimately my journey was streamlined and brought me over the finish line as a naturalized citizen. while challenges were numerous, the rewards were well worth the effort. i applaud you for every step you took, every obstacle you overcame, and every sacrifice you made. host: that was melania trump last year at the national archives. you can watch that in its entirety on our website, c-span.org, type melania trump in the search bar at the top of the page, and you will see that ceremony in all the events of

the former and future first lady has appeared at over the years. this is iva in maryland, independent. we are talking about worth right citizenship. caller: good morning. i guess i called the wrong number, i am actually an immigrant of this country. i am just calling to say i totally agree with president elected trump to cut the birthright, because i believe that every person or individual that comes to this country needs to learn english and they all need to go through the proper paperwork to be a legal citizen of this country. thank you. host: what country did you come from? caller: philippines. host: what was that process like for you? caller: oh, it was a lengthy process. however, i did it, and i believe

everybody else can. host: when did you come to this country, and can you explain a little bit of how long it was? caller: i came here back in 1997. i joined the military, so i am now a legal citizen of this country. sorry, i am out of breath, but yes, that is all. have a great day. thank you. host: this is lavona in pennsylvania, democrat -- south carolina. go ahead. caller: how are you doing this money? host: doing well. caller: i was wondering, what does it matter about the u.s. birthright, as long as everybody is peaceful and trying to do the right thing? but in reality, donald trump don't need to focus on birthright, he need to focus on

the corruption in the police department and the justice department. my son was murdered in north carolina. i live in south carolina. they never notified me my son was murdered. then when we got to the jury trial, the judge never even acknowledged us. he catered to the murder. it is a lot. but won't he focus on changing the justice system and getting people to proper justice and rights due to them? this girl killed my son in front of my grandbabies. cps services swore up and down they didn't. they gave the murderer family my cranberries -- my grandbabies. they said i don't have a right to my grandchildren so what difference does it make if it is usm birthright if black people and people of color do not receive the proper justice they deserve in the court? it is bad. it is bad. i mean, it is bad, sir.

i am worried about my life right now and my family's life because the attorney general and all them catered to the murderers. host: i am very sorry for your loss. thank you for sharing your story. kim in pennsylvania, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. the one question i have, or comment, i guess, i understand with regards to immigration that there is the vacation birthing and what have you. my concern is with regards to being born in the u.s., could that extend to book -- to those of us who have been in the country for years? like if my children have children, we have been in the u.s. for however many years, and are their children going to have bconcerned about being dert orotaving citizenship? thank you. host: that isim in pennsylvania.

one of the story to inyou to on this, on the exact issue that the caller brought up, it was from the university of illinois news bureau, an interview with one of their law professors, michael laroi, an expert on immigration law. he talked about this issue of whether citizenship can be repealed. let me scroll down a bit, in which he talks about that issue. he talks about donald trump's call for the naturalizing some citizens and whether that can happen. under extremely limited conditions, he says, u.s. laws allow the denaturalization of a citizen, also called citizenship stripping, including situations in which someone runs for a political office in a foreign country or enters into military service in a foreign country, applying for citizenship in a

foreign country with the intention of giving up u.s. citizenship, committing treason against the united states, or committing a narrow set of crimes as set by laws enacted by congress and not by unilateral actions by the president. when a person is stripped of citizenship, they immediately become subject of deportation, even if they have no connection with another country, and that person becomes stateless. this is steven in new york, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not agree with the liberal agenda. i know what donald trump is saying, but a lot of callers are telling stories about things i heard from someone else. there are stories in the papers about trump allowing russia to use his miami hotel for birthright citizenship centers, and no one is calling and saying that.

how can he be against something when he profited off of it? the trump miami hotel has been used for birthright citizenship, so i do not believe donald trump is talking about rescinding this from mexico or the europeans. i believe it is all based on haitians, mexicans, but it is not going after -- melania trump's family has a chain migration, baron and her father being deployed. thank you. host: this is angela in bakersfield, california. good morning. we are talking about birthright citizenship. caller: i believe end the birthright citizenship. if somebody is here and they are not a citizen the automatic

birthright should go to the mother citizenship. if she is here illegally and she gives birth to a child, that child's birth would go to whatever country she came from. host: that is how you think it should work? caller: that would end the illegal migration because i guess they fly them in through china and they come through mexico and then they go ahead and they are paying to have their children here so they get the automatic birthright. this would end that. they would come if they are pregnant. just because they are born here they would still have the birthright of the countries the mother came from. host: that is angela from california come our last caller in the segment. plenty more to talk about. up next we will be joined by marc caputo to talk about his reporting on the trump transition and later a

discussion on attitudes about u.s. military abroad and its role in the world. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> this week on the c-span network, the house and senate are in session. the house will vote on the final versions of legislation authorizing water infrastructure projects constructed by the army corps of engineers and to add new federal judgeships to district courts. the senate will continue voting on bidens district court nominations. on tuesday, lewis dejoy testify on the finances and performance and ongoing efforts to modernize the u.s. postal service and on wednesday secretary of state antony blinken testifies before the house foreign affairs committee, reviewing the biden administration's withdrawal of american troops from afghanistan.

watch this week live on the c-span networks or feze -- or c-span now, our free mobile video app. c-span. your unfiltered view of government. >> a book called the wise men was first published in 1986. quote it was about six friends and the world they made. the names are only to be found in the history books today. co-authors evan thomas and walter isaacson were in their mid-30's and the updated 2012 introduction to the paperbacks they wrote in their times, the wisemen operated largely behind the scenes, little known by the

public. they achieved great things according to thomas and isaacson. those great things included the shaping of the world order today , the creation of international institutions, the forging of lasting peace in a perilous time. we ask evan thomas, now in his 70's, who are the wisemen of today? >> evan thomas with his book the wisemen: six friends and the world they made on this episode of book notes plus. book notes plus is available wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: c-span viewers are familiar with marc caputo, current bulwark national political reporter.

your take away from president elect trump's meet the press interview yesterday. what stood out to you? guest: not a lot of surprises. what stands out to me is lot of surprise from the news media that he is planning to be serious about mass deportation. callers seem surprised now that that could include families of legal immigrants. i do not think the united states has the power to deport legal immigrants but he is saying there will be a family separation policy. host: what reaction outside of the political media -- has there been reaction from congress? guest: i have not paid attention to that to be honest. congress has its own fiscal deadlines it has to meet and it is tied up on the senate side

and what to do about trump's nominations or his nominees to be in his cabinet. guest: let's go to the -- host: let's go to the nominees. p tag seth. what is -- pete hegseth. what is the latest on his nomination? guest: the last few days of the week he closed strong. no new allegations of wrongdoing, allegations denied. they believe the longer the nomination proceeds and the senators do not say no at least publicly, the higher the chances are that pete hegseth gets a favorable vote and becomes the next secretary of defense. host: who are the republican senators who could still say no you are watching? guest: joni ernst is the one to watch. there is lindsey graham to a

degree. the likelihood that lindsey graham winds up bucking president trump on a secretary of defense nomination is small. ernst is under incredible pressure from the grassroots, the right wing. that is the state, iowa, he won by 13 points. she is up for reelection this cycle. the likelihood of her saying no politically speaking is low but we will have to wait and see. she has not said no, she has not said yes. on friday she and pete's sake -- she and pete hegseth said they had a second productive meeting. if that gets thought it is hard to see how he winds up without a majority of the republican conference. it is expected right now that susan collins of maine and lisa murkowski of alaska and senator mitch mcconnell, the former leader are no votes.

that is expected. that is enough with three no votes to get confirmed. they feel relatively good about it. the trump transition team does. they believe time is in their favor as long as they can keep grinding the clock. on december 20 republican senators leave town for winter break or holiday break. if there is one thing senators hate it is republicans -- asking about controversial nominations and whether they will confirm them and that goes away december 20. that span of time with pete hegseth does not withdraw and there are four no votes in the republican conference, then the chances increase closer and

closer. the bottom line is the trump transition team, the trump base believes he has a mandate, he won the popular vote for the first time for republican since 2004. he won a majority of the electoral college vote. there republican majorities in the senate and house and they expect his nominees get confirmed by the republican senate. it is an understandable position. host: if the nomination falls apart for whatever reason, is ron desantis the next man up? guest: it looks that way where we stand now. one of the dangerous things is predicting what donald trump will do. it is what makes him a unique figure. it is confirmed donald trump did call ron desantis when the initial crush of bad headlines

started to tear away at hegseth and in that conversation trump had mentioned the possibility to desantis of being secretary of defense. this is a conversation he started having in june. it was not really in june, trump had not been elected yet. in conversations just a few days ago, trump has dangled this possibility and ron desantis signaled that he was interested in it. that does not mean he will necessarily do it and does not mean it will be offered. there are a lot of things that have to happen in between but the main thing that has to happen is hegseth needs to withdraw one way or another and right now he is saying he will fight like hell, donald trump has told other people he likes the fact that peter hegseth fights like hell and he is starting to publicly push him more. things are looking ok for

hegseth in the minds of the trump transition team. that can change on a dime. host: about 20 minutes left with marc caputo. if you want to join the conversation come easy to do. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. you can see his work at the bulwark. magaville is the name of his sub stack. one of his recent pieces, the two nominees donald trump is prepared to go to war for, that includes tulsi gabbard and rfk junior. caller: those are the two who were a feature of the trump campaign. they traveled the swing states together, they appeared in these joint events where they drew 1000 people in places like

dearborn, michigan and las vegas, nevada and trump featured them as being part of his new coalition, his new political coalition, and now implicitly's new governing coalition. they are both former democratic candidates for president and they both left the democratic party. they are representing the actions of the canceled. more to the point they are antiestablishment figures whom trump wants to burnish his record with, his legacy with. there is certainly a lot of controversy over both of them from the health establishment. kennedy would be the hhs secretary. from the intelligence community. kelsey gabbard would be the director of national intelligence. in the trump view, the more you have the establishment criticizing the picks the more it indicates how valuable they are.

the opposition to hegseth largely are on personal matters. his behavior, the same with matt gaetz, the now withdrawn attorney general into a smaller degree cash patel, the fbi pick donald trump once delete the agency. whereas gabbard and tennessee -- and kennedy are more on policy grounds and that is something the trump team tells me trump intends to fight for. host: you mentioned kash patel, what is the latest of him on the head of the fbi? guest: not a lot. cnn just did a piece on how he grew to loathe the d.c. establishment and that makes the republican hearts at mar-a-lago go pitter patter. i have not heard what his count is yet. while there are opponents on the left, the media, critics, and a

few on the right, there's a feeling in trump world he will probably make it as well. host: marc caputo is with us another 15 minutes. bruce out of kentucky. independent. good morning. caller: hello. host: are you with us? this is donald out of hawaii. independent. you're on with marc caputo. caller: good morning. i would like to ask you, i hear all of these politics on tv and you hear first black president and you hear this person. why isn't halsey gabbard, -- why isn't tulsi gabbard, her record,

not being pushed like every other thing that is going on in our country? why is that? guest: i cannot answer for why the rest of the mainstream media is not talking about how she would be a historic first, a woman from hawaii, a woman of color. i guess what the caller is getting at is the perception widely held, and i'm not saying it is wrong, of media bias, where a lot of the mainstream media will spend time touting someone is a historic first because of their race or gender they are not doing this with tulsi gabbard. i think it is a fair criticism. it is a good question for nbc, abc, cbs, new york times, washington post. host: another media question for you from x, saying are any of the nominees not qualified to fill their positions and why are so many in the media upset the

nominees are not members of the swamp. it appears most of the u.s. does not feel the u.s. government is working well so why not stop the insanity and have a new type of nominee? guest: i meant is well-made. -- the comment is well-made. the harvard kennedy's full institute of politics at the heads of the trump campaign and the heads of the biden-harris campaign talk about the election and there was an interesting comment from rob flaherty, who was deputy campaign manager for biden and harris presidential campaign who had said that for the left, for democrats, the amplification systems of the mainstream media and hollywood comp and pivoting off of my comments from the last caller, that is a clarion call for the rest of us in the mainstream media to start analyzing how we

cover republicans and cover these issues going forward. in the eyes of democrats, the mainstream media is part of the megaphone. while it is our job to report the news, there is a lot of risk there if we are continuing to be perceived as favoring one side. host: what is the amplification system for the right? guest: in that conversation, they discussed that the right has a bigger wealth of alternative media. elon musk owns twitter. there are all of these podcasts that are starting to eat up major amounts of market share from the mainstream media. guest: this is -- host: this is samuel out of colorado. independent. you are on with marc caputo. caller: can you hear me? i wanted to say that most of the

people trump is picking are these rich white guys. there is babel a woman. -- there is maybe a woman or two. people will have buyers remorse when it comes to donald trump. also i would like to know if you voted for him. a lot of men are whining about trump and most of these men voted for him. guest: i am not whining about trump but i think you're accurate in saying the voters might have buyers remorse. i think you see that regardless of who is at office. we elect president and we elect congress and then the american people wind up not happy with them. look at the polling. it happened to biden, it happened to trump, it happened to obama before him, and when they leave office everyone is like they are great. host: another question is what

is the role of vice president. caller: -- guest: that is a great question. that is a story i've wanted to write for a while but i do not have enough color. from what i'm being told from folks around trump's he plays an important advisory role and he is being used currently as the sherpa and congress for some of these more controversial nominees. he is trump's eyes and ears in the senate, he is making the case for jd vance as vice president elect, he is talking to his fellow senators trying to get these nominees across the finish line. in one case with matt gaetz there just were not the votes. with these other three more controversial ones or four controversial ones, the question is still open and the jury is still out and vance is working. host: the advisory role capacity is it just the senate or are

there issues where jd vance is advising donald trump? guest: i don't specifically know that but the two have a very good relationship. trump is well known for taking advice from everyone and soliciting every possible opinion. bob woodward's book war just released -- i would not recommend reading it. there is a great anecdote in it in which he discusses how trump was in a meeting with keith kellogg, one of his generals while president. he solicited opinions from all of the officials in the room. generals and high-ranking officials. there was a person who was a notetaker, a low-level staffer taking notes, and trump asked that person their opinion and wanted to solicit it. the person was like i'm just a notetaker and he said it doesn't

matter you and the room, what you think. it is a good example of how he processes information. host: why wouldn't you recommend it? guest: it read as if it was co-authored by antony blinken and jake sullivan of the secretary of state and the national security advisor. it paid short shrift -- it went out of its weight to praise biden's for policy. i'm not saying his foreign-policy was bad, and it did a good job of explaining why the ford parsley with ukraine was a success, but it spent russia's time on the failures of the withdrawing afghanistan and this is supposedly a book about war. it did not delve enough into the total lack of vision by our intelligence services. jake sullivan specifically on the middle east and october 7,

eight days before october 7 jake sullivan was boasting about how there was peace and quiet in the middle east in eight days later that wound up not being true. that is something that deserves little more exegesis and a book about that topic yet it was completely absent so it read like a biased account. nevertheless there good nuggets in there but bob woodward has written better. no shade to him. he is a fabulous reporter. that is not a book i would recommend. host: what is a book you would recommend? guest: i am reading the demon of unrest by eric larson about the civil war and i'm reading another book about the united states from 1870 to 1878. what is relevant to me is that

donald trump walks out of that period of history, the frontiersman. the growing nation. he seems to be more of a throwback to that time than we have seen in the recent era although he is more modern iteration. i could probably do a better job explaining this had i thought i was going to talk about the books i was going to read. host: if you want to watch books rather than read them c-span's book tv cover the demon of unrest a couple of times. eric larson speaking about his book. back to calls. i know we only have a little bit of time. this is david in new jersey. good morning. caller: thank you and your guest. i have a larger question about human beings and change. i would like to reference the comment by my wife's cousin, a friend of rfk junior, and

probably the most renowned security analyst in the country. in the sunday new york times he talked about how people change and gavin, himself, i know through the family, had an excruciating life growing up and is now probably the top security analyst in the country, a major advocate and security analyst for some of the most famous people. gavin commented about rfk junior's troubled past and how he had changed and learned and become stronger. i think the meta question with selections like pete hegseth and others, who has done things none of us would be proud of, can people change and can they become stronger through their life and through very bad choices? i think that is the question. i would like to know what your guest thinks and i think you both for considering my comments. guest: that is a thoughtful question.

my answer is yes i think people can change and learn. i think i have. i don't know pete hegseth's character and the degree to which he has learned from past mistakes. he says he has but that is a question to be answered by the united states senate. sorry to dock that but that is the best i can do. host: john in massachusetts, independent, good morning. caller: how can you explain that when the trump presidency was ending all of the legacy meted speculated that trump would pardon his family members and cabinet and now they are justifying it. another question is the democrats want to resist, and then they complain that nothing got done. should they be popping champagne and saying we do not get anything done, we resisted everything trump wanted to do that was good for the country? everyone says bidens son should have never had that gun charge because there was no other crime committed.

his brother's wife took the gun because she was scared because she was having sex with hunter and they were both doing crack and she took the gun and threw it away in the crash can across the street from a school. there was another crime committed with the gun and then the cia came to get it. host: i've gotten hunter biden pardons and resistance there. guest: i do not think the mainstream media and itself is celebrating joe biden's pardoning his son but this is a recurring theme in this discussion, i think the caller represents a great frustration in the way in which the media covers and amplifies those voices on the left saying donald trump is so bad he will pardon himself when he leaves office, that did not happen. then there is not as much coverage of hal norm busting it was that joe biden did this pardon with his son. that gets back to us in the mainstream media who might want

to listen a little more to some of those voices. i'm not saying those are always correct about anything but there's a lot of criticism and concern. host: talked about several of the nomination so far. what is the most interesting one we have not talked about? guest: that's a great question. i am a florida person and i have covered marco rubio since 2003. more than 20 years. marco rubio will occupy a unique position in that he is the first cuban-american secretary of state, bilingual, he was basically that effective secretary of state for the western hemisphere under trump when he was still in the senate. how he executes the trump policy regarding only latin america but the middle east and assad will be a fascinating thing to watch for guys like me who have covered him or a while.

his nomination should probably sail right through the senate. host: is this a position marco rubio wanted? how long you think you thought about this post? guest: he definitely wanted to be president in 2016. out of all of the positions in the trump white house that marco rubio would leave the senate for , secretary of state was up there. i think he might've gotten cia director. he is on the intelligence committees and that cloak and dagger stuff deeply fascinates him and he has a very thorough background and knowledge of. host: what are you writing about this week at the bulwark.com? guest: i am floating at the moment. i think hegseth, we might do another iteration of hegseth with the situation in the middle east. the question is how is trump

going to handle this? syria poses a very unique puzzle because of the roles of turkey, israel, saudi arabia, and iran. i would like to know more about that. the book i am reading, which i would recommend everyone by his alan taylor's american civil wars: a continental history. that was the title of the book i am reading. guest: always appreciate the reckoning date -- host: always appreciate the recommendations and recommend you would go to the bulwark.com and sign up for marc caputo sub stack. thanks for being on the washington journal. guest: great being here. host: several programs and head and we will get more of it, including a look at u.s. foreign policy in the military role around the world. that is coming up later this morning. up next is our open

the numbers are on your screen. start calling now and we will get to the calls after the break. ♪ >> are you a nonfiction book lover looking for a new podcast? this holiday season, try listening to one of the many podcasts c-span has to offer. learn something new through conversations with nonfiction authors and historians. we talk about the business of books with news and interviews about the publishing industry and nonfiction authors. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now

app. ♪ >> attention, middle and high school students across america. it is time to make your voice heard. the documentary contest is here. this is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact. your documentary should answer this year's question. what issue is most important to you or your community? whether you are passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, share your message with the world with $100,000 in prizes. this is your opportunity not only to make an impact but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard wor enter your submissions today. the deadline is january 20,

2025. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: here is where we are on capitol hill this morning. the house meets at noon. the senate is in at 3:00. a lot going on in washington including at 9:30 today, eastern time, in just about an hour, the american enterprise institute hosts a discussion on the benefits of protecting personal data by claiming it as private property.

later today, a discussion on how latin american and caribbean cities can use new technologies to create equal access to services and sustainable development. that is at 11:00 eastern. today at 1:00, the american enterprise institute hosts a discussion on reducing addiction among children in the welfare system. now, it is our open forum. any public policy issue you want to talk about, now is the time to call in. we turn the program over to you. we will throw the numbers up on the screen for you. we will start in durango, colorado, todd, independent, go ahead. caller: i was calling regarding a lot of the issues regarding building a border wall. it seems most of the focus when we discussed immigration does

not focus on the impacts of a border wall on major wildlife corridors along some very wild places along the u.s.-mexico borders. it is kind of frightening to think about what "drill baby drill" means from an environmental perspective, and deregulating the energy industry, it is a very scary thought. just wanted to see what people thought about that. i mean, mainstream media does not cover this issue very well at all. they never really bring up the aspects of the impacts on wildlife. host: that is taught in colorado. this is james in michigan, democrat, good morning. caller: there are two things i'm interested in. a president who has been indicted and convicted, his

interest in law enforcement. and the second thing i am interested in is bringing the kushner relatives into the country without following normal immigrant procedures. thank you. host: john is in california, republican, what is on your mind? caller: good morning. a couple of things. one of the callers was worried about the environmental impacts. i work in the port of los angeles. when you deal with environmentalists, they claim that their interest is the environment and regulating certain machinery that puts out certain emissions.

but all that is really doing is taking away american jobs. we have a port that is being built in los angeles where it is basically autonomous. it is man-less. they are taking the jobs. i think republicans need to regulate foreign companies from coming over and taking american union jobs. the blue jean working-class, middle america working-class man, is now leaning more to the right, not to the left. the rank-and-file and all the unions across the nation listening to this, the upper brass need to pull your heads out of your ass and start voting with the rank-and-file and not your own self interests. thank you very much. host: that is john. this is event in florida, line

for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. one of your previous colors mentioned chain migration and that is how one of trump's relatives became a citizen. her father was a card-carrying communist. i was wondering how a card-carrying communist becomes an american citizen. when i looked that up, it said if you have not been a card-carrying communist for 10 years, then it is ok, you can become an american citizen. i thought that was kind of interesting. host: where did you look that up? where do you go for immigration and citizenship information? caller: i googled it. [laughter] i googled it. i wanted to know about her parents i guess is what i was doing. i found out he was a card-carrying communist.

and then i looked little further and found out what the situation is there. i have never heard anybody talk about that before, so i thought i would call in and throw that out there. host: yvette in florida. here is a story from back in 2018 when melania trump's parents became citizens of this country. the npr story on it from 2018. the first lady's parents become citizens thanks to chain migration, if you want to read it. peter in new york, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to address your birthright citizenship. they are not going to change the constitution. there are not enough people in this country who want to change it.

i do agree with president trump that if you are a dreamer and you spent the majority of your life here, you should be given preference as far as citizenship is concerned. but the only thing they possibly can do are change the laws regarding chain migration because i am not sure the exact figure but i believe it is that every immigration that comes in and becomes a citizen brings in approximately 30 more people into the country through chain migration. that is one way they can change it. regarding children born here from illegal parents, they can change the law saying that if a child is under the age of maturity, they do not lose their citizenship, but if their parents leave the country, they have to go with their parents.

tom holmes said that. when they reach the age of maturity, if they want to come back and live in the united states, they can do that. there are a few ways they can get around the citizenship law in the constitution, but the congress has to have the will to do it. host: executive order perhaps. another route perhaps is to tighten rules about women coming to this country to have children, the birth tourism issue several callers have brought up. while not changing birthright citizenship, there are ways to prevent that from happening as much as it is happening now. caller: i agree, john. if you are coming to the united states on a tourist visa and are pregnant, they can say that you cannot come into the country under those circumstances until

you give birth. granted, the left in this country will fight it in court. they may win, they may not win. but that is another area where you can put restrictions. ambassadors who live in the united states who have their families here, if their children are born in the united states, they are not automatically american citizens. so, there are ways of getting around this. as far as changing the constitution, that is not going to happen, john. they are not going to change the 14th amendment. thank you. host: amy in florida, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. i know this might be a little bit off-topic but i am concerned about the large amounts of foreign by up -- buy-up in the united states like the steel mill in pittsburgh.

also, china is buying large swabs of land -- swaths of land around military bases. i'm concerned about that. why are they doing it? also, you have russia buying large swaths of property in coal mines and infrastructure in kentucky. those are the things i am concerned about because when we go to conflict with these countries, they can cut us off from buying steel in pennsylvania. they are looking on our military bases to see what we are doing because now they own that property right next door.

you start buying into where russia owns large-scale corporate operations. those are the things i am concerned about. host: on that topic, this story getting a lot of attention recently. japan's nippon steel is committed to a $15 billion acquisition of u.s. steel and according to reuters is confident of completing the deal at the end of the year. but strong u.s. opposition including from president-elect donald trump. there is no global strategy without the u.s. it aims to raise its global steel production to 85 million metric tons a year. the asset is core to its goal of lifting production capacity to more than 100 million tons

long-term. that might be one of the stories you have been hearing about in the news. this is michael in pensacola, good morning. caller: yes, i am talking in reference to the media events president-elect trump creates. this is the latest thing, verified citizenship. they asked if he was going to do it through executive order. he said yes. you cited that the constitution being for has to have two thirds of the congress, house and senate, as well as congressional buy-in. he creates immediate events that have no substance. that is similar in reference to the people eating dogs and cats,

him dressing in the mcdonald's uniform. this is all show. he is a promoter. there is no substance to anything, to his whereabouts. thank you. host: about 30 minutes left in our open forum. any public policies you want to talk about, the phone lines are yours to do so and also to talk foreign policy. this is the lead story in just about every major newspaper. assad flees to russia. rebel forces seizing the capital of damascus in syria. it was president biden yesterday from the white house pledging support to syria and its neighbors after the collapse of the assad regime. this is about a minute and a

half of president biden yesterday. [video clip] >> we now see new opportunities opening up for the people of syria and the entire region. united states will do the following. first, we will support syria's neighbors including jordan, lebanon, iraq, and israel should any threat arise from syria through this transition. i will speak with leaders of the region in the coming days. i have had long discussions with all our people early this morning. i will send senior officials from my administration to the region as well. second, we will help to ensure stability in eastern syria, protect our personnel against any threats, and remain on our mission against isis, including security of detention facilities where isis fighters are being held as prisoners. we are clear eyed about the fact isis will try to take advantage of any vacuum to reestablish its

capabilities and create a safe haven. we will not let that happen. in fact, just today, u.s. forces conducted a dozen precision strikes, airstrikes, within syria targeting isis camps and operatives. third, we will engage with all syrian groups, including within the process led by the united nations, to establish a transition away from the assad regime toward independent sovereign syria with a new constitution, a new government that serves all syrian sprint this process will be determined by the syrian people themselves. the united states will do whatever we can to support them, including for humanitarian relief, to help restore syria after more than a decade of war. host: was president biden from the white house yesterday. saturday, it was president-elect trump who put out his thoughts on syria in a long post on truth

social. it ends by saying this, there was never much of a benefit in syria for russia other than to make obama look stupid. in any event, syria is a mess, the president-elect writes, it is not our friend in the u.s. should have nothing to do with it. this is not our fight, do not get involved. this is howard out of ohio, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. are you there? host: yes, sir. caller: if people want their government, a true american government, you have to stop all of the donations, all the lobbying. the elites are running this country. you should make it to where you take away all lobbying, take away all of that crap. what you do is you make them go out and beat the roads and get

votes that way. if you want to donate, make it to where you can donate $500 per household. that way, the corporates cannot get all of their employees money to donate to their candidate so they can run the country. get all of the corporate crap out of the country and let the american people run the country. enough is enough. $1 billion harris spent on her campaign and she still owes a couple of million dollars? how ridiculous is this? what did all that money go for? just ads? it is stupid, crazy. half of the ads are lies. you don't know what side to believe. that is the other thing. the news needs to quit putting their opinion in and put the news, not their opinions, the news. host: howard, on the lobbying aspect, when folks in the

lobbying industry have come on this program to talk about what they do, they will say what they do is protected by the first amendment, that it is in the first amendment that you have a right to petition your government for redress of grievances. that is what lobbies -- lobbyists do. what do you think of that, that lobbying is a first amendment right? caller: petitioning something is different from buying them off. come on. if we was all rich, we could buy off a lot of things. it is crazy. they are running the country. until us american citizens figure out and stop it, they are going to keep on running this country. host: howard, one more question. a report on just how much money elon musk spent on campaign 2020 in an effort to support donald trump. over $250 million is the number cited now? caller: i am a trumper.

i don't care. it needs to stop all the way around! it needs to stop it. as far as your congressmen and all of them, devote themselves -- they vote themselves in a race. where have you ever work at a job or you can vote yourself your own raise? host: they have not gotten a raise in a while. caller: 170,000 dollars-plus a year plus expenses, what do they need one for? when congress goes into session, half the time, they walk in, do their little stance and then they say something, then they have a prayer, then they dismiss it for the day. host: howard in ohio. you can watch the house when it comes in today at noon eastern. the senate comes in at 3:00 eastern on c-span2.

matt is in decatur, georgia, good morning. caller: congress will not be in until noon. that is not why i called. the way you do it sometimes is so impressive, instantaneously get on the screen the view of the congresswoman from north carolina telling the representatives of the free press to shut up. i want to introduce my topic by sharing with the audience that don't we all listen to c-span because we care deeply about important stuff? don't we agree that c-span offers an opportunity for people to hear some really important stuff, if you can get through on the line? i did not call to be part of a discussion. i called to make a statement. if you would please follow the instructions on the screen and mute your television, then we

have callers that have something worth hearing they will not be denied an opportunity because their time will not be taken up by the host telling the caller to mute their television. do you have screen prompt on the screen telling journalists to shut up? washington journal's answer to that is saying good morning to each other. that is insane. what do you call it? unacceptable, c-span! go say good morning to the next caller and we will interview somebody that knows nothing about anything and ask them 21 questions that do not make sense! i have got to go. i do not want to stay on the phone. i just want you to start doing right, pretty please! thank you, bye-bye!

host: matt in georgia. this is "the hill" georgia on the incident he refers to. not happening towards the end of the election cycle -- that happening towards the end of the election cycle in october. you can watch it on c-span.org. that is the headline on it. david in ohio, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question. i would love to get a legal scholar's question on it. it says subject to the jurisdiction of the united states. if someone comes from a different country into the u.s., are they not still under the jurisdiction of their original country? we can just deport them if they

do something wrong. i think there might be some legal play to make a change. just throwing it out there. thanks. host: david in idaho. this is kelly, republican, good morning. caller: we cannot forget our hostages in israel with hamas. we have got to get those guys back. i want to go to the caller talking about china buying our farmland. john, i do not know if you know about xi jinping, but the man, his person he looks up to is chairman mao. this man is totally dangerous. he placed a long game. president biden is not the smartest or sharpest tool in the shed. i'm telling you xi jinping knows how to play biden. i'm totally worried about when clinton was being charged with his monica lewinsky, we let

osama bin laden go. i am worried about the chinese. they play a good game. biden is in their pocket. i am really worried about this, john. if you got anything to say about that -- have you got anything to say about that? host: i was going to point you to a segment on "washington journal" where we discussed with the director of the new frontline documentary about xi jinping, the rise of xi jinping in china. you can find that at c-span.org. it was last week or the week before on the "washington journal." the director speaking about making the documentary about trying to dig into the life of xi jinping. there it is. martin smith is his name. he was on this program. this is dave in new jersey, independent, good morning. caller: i was wondering if anybody is curious about the drones flying over and the chinese subs off our coast. don't forget the indians. they are coming too.

do you know how to fight them? telepathically. host: in illinois, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i am trying not to get emotional. we are heading towards a civil war. this is what donald trump is going to do. people need to listen, especially american people of color. donald trump is going to pardon the january 6 committee. this is all legal. the january 6 people get pardoned. he is going to deputize them to make them his deputies. so now, they can do -- become deputized. they go into minority and people of color immunities and say they are deputies -- deputized to do whatever they need to do. trouble give police immunity. he said everything he's getting ready to do within the first 100 days he is going to do.

the january 6 committee people pardoned, police immunity, going to attack the minority community. the people of springfield, ohio, need to get out of springfield, ohio, because the january 6 -- this is part of history. host: that is david in illinois. you mentioned january 6. this is the headline from the washington post about the january 6 committee, donald trump's comments about the members of that committee in the "meet the press" interview yesterday, saying in part everybody on that committee should go to jail. the committee consists of seven democrats and two republicans. liz cheney and adam kinzinger of illinois. this is illinois in jersey city, new jersey, independent, good

morning. caller: thank you so much, mr. johnson. happy holidays to you. the last time i called was before the presidential election. i was telling you all that i am assigned as a poll worker where i live. i am excited. i just want to do the best that i can do serving the people there and everything. and then, it all happened. you know, obviously i was shocked. and now, where we are, just after the last segment with the birthright citizenship question, you just never know when to call in because you only have one chance every 30 days. i am like, i am calling injuring open forum. it does not matter. like, i disagree with trump and his vision for our country. usually, the republican party. even if something is horrible, like the takeaway certain

people's birthright citizenship, if it passes through congress and the supreme court reaffirms it, it still does not make it just. it still does not make itthere e with them on. host: it would likely have to be a constitutional amendment. birthrig cizenship stemming from the 14th amendment which sa persons born or naturalized t united states are subject to jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside. host: the constitutional amendment would take three fourths of both houses right? caller: two thirds of the house -- host: two thirds of the house , two thirds of the senate and ratified by three quarters of the state assemblies. caller: it doesn't matter, our history has proven to us that -- generations have failed us in the past. this pendulum that swings back and forth in our country you

have an 18th-century black lives matter, 19th century. in this -- this is ridiculous. we need to enshrine our rights into our constitution and a caller called in and said that. i feel like our system in a sense is outdated. it's not getting to -- we can definitely update our system and i had to call in to share that. host: are you going to be a poll worker again in two years? caller: yes. although this was a presidential election this year, just next year we have our primary in june for our state governors race and then my township we have our mayors race as well so next year is important on a local level and although i am independent, i

look more at democrats because they are more progressive and a policy view. the national democratic party failed us. they are not progressive enough, people are not responding and i'll stop there. thank you so much. host: two homer, democrats, good morning. caller: good morning and good luck herding the cats. here's what i have to say, last caller is part of the problem. i'm a blue dog. i made jimmy carville democrat. host: what does a blue dog believer folks who may not be familiar. >> we are working class democrats. we are not elitists. we are union people. you know, we have dirt under our fingernails. and sadly, we've been diminished

-- it's a litmus test. she finished 20 on 20 and i still believe that biden, biden did a good job. building bridges around here as well. sam graves takes credits for it, he did not vote for it. but the thing is it was just too much. too much rainbow. we have to get back to our roots. host: what does that mean? caller: well, it's -- you know, men in girls bathrooms. men competing in women's sports. that kind of thing. that just doesn't fly here man.

it just does not work. and -- we have to get back to the basics man and it will be a guy like fetterman who has to bring it back. and you know what john. i wish i had a dollar for every republican who called in on the independent line. and -- you have a great day john. host: about 10 minutes left an open forum. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats and independent, 202-748-8002. this is brock in new jersey. independent. good morning. >> good morning. i just want to say protect our troops home and abroad, thank them for their service. we are coming to the end of a tumultuous year.

i've learned a lot, i've been blessed a lot. i guess my biggest point is we all have a lot to say and a lot to add and i think it's very important to keep c-span and are productions like this to make sure all of our voices are unchanged. what i feel like is with the money interest in you know we are all on at scale like. you never know so the best thing you want to do, whether you care about other people or a based on a life experience where you start caring more about yourself and that starts to be your concern. we have too many soft targets in this country i believe and i think that should be something we all agree on and work on is americans safeguarding. the fact of the border wasn't as secure as it should have been in the factor immigration system has been abused over the years.

the fact that again i just heard about in hoboken there was a cyberattack. in my city there was a cyberattack back a couple years and we had to pay the ransom. these are things normal citizens don't know about what's going on in their communities and have an effect on the community but it's almost like it doesn't get talked about so people won't get to address those issues. people and places of power that don't know when to relinquish power or when to get new ideas. i understand we have to deal with the current -- the crime issue so that participated why businesses didn't spend. knowing things are going to change and having that forward thinking and view having that insight from other points of view having people think forward and so we can be dropping the ball. with biden what happened was the afghanistan thing so even if he knew he would have to get out he should have had a plan to do it

as soundly and securely. i hope trump -- i feel a trump is under the gun right now metaphorically speaking so i feel like if we make sure he does the best job and make sure we have the best health care, the best food, the greatest type of jobs and i think we should also let ai do what ai needs to do. host: this is bob in utah. democrat, good morning. >> good morning. i'm concerned about this drill baby drill. they talk about drilling on public lands, federal lands and the way to do that is to let the oil companies by the land or the billionaires. trumps pretty easy-to-read. that might be what's going on and that's all i needed to say. host: you're saying buying land

as opposed to leasing it out. the idea to give away federal land or sell it off i should say. caller: i have a feeling that's what they are talking about because right now they are talking about having all the oil we need. that they are drilling. i'm just concerned, that's what makes the west great and you know we own this all of us from new york. all this public land. i would hate to -- lose it. america please keep an eye on what's going on. call your senator. it may not do any good. i'm not -- i'm a guy who does this all the time. i can hear you. host: i'll take your point.

i was just looking up the numbers, bob from utah in a state where roughly 68% of the land is federally managed from 37 point 4 million acres of federal land in the state of utah. one of the states with a whole lot of federal land. most by the euro -- bureau of land management. including national park service. other branches of the federal government controlling land out there as well. this is david in west virginia. an independent, good morning. caller: there are exceptions to the 14th amendment about born citizenship. diplomats, foreign soldiers serving in the united states family, they are not citizens as they have birth in america. military and diplomats overseas are citizens, even though they weren't born in america. i didn't hear anybody discuss that. john mccain was born in cuba i

believe and he was an american citizen. host: i think it was panama. caller: yes, panama. so nobody covered that but there's exceptions. why can't they do other exceptions like they were talking about the people being brought here for birth and then take off and get citizenship. there could be more exceptions. have a nice day. host: this is janet in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning, what i'm worried about is elon musk and that other man take 2 trillion out of the budget. is he going to cut our medicare, is he going to cut our social

security, is he going to do away with that. if he does, what am i to live on. >> the department of government efficiency janet? >> i guess. they have -- elon musk and vivek ramaswamy, whatever his name is. host: the department of government efficiency is what that stands for. this is david in springfield, florida paid independent. >> good morning i'm a frequent watcher sitting here watching now like i do most mornings. my comment is not that specific about an issue, it is about the callers. and it's easy for people to find a problem and have something to say. i would really like to have the callers coming in with suggestions that are workable. they need to understand our

government system and how politics operates and my question is are they involved in any of the government or any of the politics. it's easy to criticize, let's have something positive from it. >> susan in florida, republican per your next. >> yes this is susan from florida and yes i do have something to say, i want the people who are calling in they need to know what they are talking about before they call. host: ok. this is john in maryland. democrat, good morning. caller: yes, i think the democratic party really does a disservice when we ran joe biden to begin with quite frankly. and then, i think he was corrupt from the beginning. i think he had alzheimer's, and

i think by picking the vice presidential candidate to be president, which was a dei hire, to me was a disservice to the whole party and it's going to haunt us forever and then some especially if uh we continue down this woke path of allowing the loudest, most obnoxious, smallest part of the democratic party to have a loud voice. host: what makes you a democrat? what are the ideals that you have? caller: well, i grew up in a democrat household, i was a union worker for 42 years, i was a shop steward, i ran for

office, i grew up in a political family, formed basically the democrat machine in maryland. >> are you going to stay democrat? host: absolute -- caller: absolutely but we need to rebuild from within. host: john in maryland. the last caller in this open forum, we stick around about 45 minutes left a conversation with roger of the ronald reagan presidential foundation and we will talk about the results of the most recent survey on american attitudes about the u.s. military and its role in the world, stick around we will be right back. >> c-span now is a free mobile app 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 hearing from the u.s. congress.

white house events, the courts, 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 tv networks and c-span radio was a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download it for free or visit our website c-span.org/c-span now. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime anywhere. >> the c-span bookshelf podcast feed makes it easy for you to listen to all of c-span's podcasted feature nonfiction books in one place you can discover new authors and ideas. we are making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biography, current events and culture. signature programs about books,

book notes plus and q and a. listen to c-span's bookshelf podcast feed today. you can find the bookshelf podcast feed on the free c-span now mobile app. or wherever you get your podcast and on our website c-span.org. >> the house will be in order. >> 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 two are the policies made and decided with support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting. powered by cable. >> a book called the wise men was first published in 1986.

cover copy says it was about six friends and the world they made. the names harriman, lovett, atchison, mccloy, cannon and bolin are only to be found in the history books today. co-authors evan thomas and walter isaacson were in their mid-30's. and the updated 2012 introduction to the paperback they wrote in their time the wisemen operated largely behind the scenes. little known by the public. but they achieved great things according to thomas and isaacson. those great things included the shaping of the world order today , the creation of international institutions, the forging of lasting peace in a perilous time .

we ask evan thomas now in his 70's who are the wisemen of today. >> evan thomas wi his book the wisemen, six friends in the world they made on this episode of bk notes plus read book notes plus is available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. washington journal continues. >> a focus now on a new survey on the views on military spending and international engagement, our guest is the washington director of the washington reagan as a dental foundation institute. >> to advance president reagan's legacy broadly speaking in washington dc. the director of the reagan institute mentioning here we work on taking reagan's ideas principles and values and making sure that those engaged in public policy, thought leaders here in town are really looking

at reagan ideas and principles as they advance u.s. public policy. >> how are you funded and how long has the foundation been around. >> it's a 501(c)(3) since they started the library back in 1991. the institute in d.c. has been around for about seven years. we have our presence right next to the white house on 16th street. >> when and why did decide to start surveying americans on these defense issues we are talking about. guest: president reagan had a strong legacy on leadership in the world particularly on advancing peace through strength and we for some time have been engaging with american thought leaders and elected officials on these issues and found it really was a gap in the discussion of where the views are the american people. oftentimes your elected officials talk about americans believe x or y but it is not backed up by a lot of evidence. we sought to do with our surveys to make sure when it comes to

foreign policy, and national security and defense there is a survey with a pretty deep dive to make sure elected officials and policymakers understand where the american people were. host: how money people are surveyed. guest: we did this in early november, 2500 people were reached out to buy our polling services, some questions were over 1500. overall 2500 respondents. >> there were talking about 50% overall including 51 percent trtersrefer a "engaged ational american leadership approach on the international stag 79% struggling on increasing defense spending at the highest level ever reported on one of these surveys and 71% for more defense spending in the summer of 2023 polling and so what stuck out from you. >> the first one you mentioned was the one that got our attention.

57% of the american people believe american should be leading in the world and i think surprising to many of those who looked at our survey, 61% of trump voters. there is a big broad coalition the put president trump back into office, there is certainly a pocket of those voters who actually look to reduce america's role in the world. but the survey bears out the majority of them actually are in line with a very reaganesque worldview. that is up significantly not just to where we were on the last survey as we saw her trump voters were but some demographics that really stand out. this is trump voters, young voters want to see america leading the world. a significant jump in the last survey. host: want to get engaged international american leadership approach is that at odds in your mind with a campaign slogan, a campaign platform that's america first.

>> how you have america first, what is america first and what this survey really bears out in terms of what american leadership is and what president trump often campaigned on and you kind of stitched together how the american interpreting that. american leadership in the world should first and foremost be about america's national interest. i don't think you will hear the trump supporters going through. that's not -- what they want to see in the world is america is leading america's interests are being advanced and that is what i think 61% of those trump voters were probably getting behind. there is a recognition for american interests, american security, american prosperity it can be done simply by fortress -- to observe those acnes require americans leading the world. >> we will dive more into this.

go ahead and start calling in, phone numbers are split this way. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002 and a special line for active and retired military, 202-748-8003. especially want to hear from you especially in topics related to the second part of the survey, confidence in the u.s. military was one of the subjects that 51% of respondents had a great deal of confidence in the military than of the 31% saying they had at least some confidence that is up as you pointed out from the historic low of 45% who had a great deal of confidence in the military after the withdrawal from afghanistan late 2021. >> this is one of the more important discoveries we've had since we've done our survey we had it as far back as 2018 and

we started the survey in 2018 70% of those surveyed had trust and confidence in the military. someone or a great deal but total count was 70% and we saw this decline and we noted that decline really bottomed out in 2021. this year survey that was carried out we saw that number going up a bit, going north of 50%. institutions are taken a hit. we've seen that in our survey over the years so i think the positive indication that the american people responding to this survey have now increased their confidence in the u.s. military. host: what do you do with these numbers. confidence in the military, taking these to members of congress policymakers and say what. guest: first we make them aware and we make sure that those who have a point of view and are doing that are actually informed as to how their point of view

aligns with our survey. we just came out of our reagan and national defense which takes place every year in the first weekend december out in california with the reagan library resides, leaders in congress focusing on national security and the armed services committee the appropriations committee industry leaders gather about 700 people annually at the reagan national defense forum and it drives the discussion because again we want to make sure that those were advocating for increased u.s. role in the world were pushing for u.s. presidents and some of those critical reasons such as the indo pacific, europe and the middle east, they understand where the american people stand with those issues that gives them a conversation importantly this is what elect -- present ringers focused on the american people, and we see ourselves doing that. >> confidence in u.s. military

do you see the measure of that americans have a great deal of confidence that the u.s. can fight and win the wars the future or is it 51% of a great deal of confidence in the decision-makers leading us in fights that we can win. >> it's a great question and it's hard to parse the survey. we have to use other question subsequent competence questions trying get at that. i think generally it is about the focus in terms of the leadership. we have other questions to talk about the u.s. military in its ability to prevail in our conflict one of which importantly viewing the american people in terms of whether the u.s. can prevail in the conflict the people's republic of china. obviously that is the focus of national defense policymakers, the peer competitor in the competition with arc. just over half believe the u.s. actually prevail in a conflict

and it does kind of parallel the trust and confidence numbers we talked about in terms of 51% have trust and confidence. >> getting to those over the course of the segment, roger with us till the end of the program, but want to get to your calls. howard is waiting in chicago first. republican p howard >>, good morning. >>good morning. everyone is talking about the defense budget but why they can't pass one trade and most importantly no one is held accountable for failing their audits. how do we address that? host: -- guest: great question on the audit. first of all there's what you bring up, this is an enterprise that is appropriated about $900 billion and it should be able to have a clean audit. we have certain pockets of the department of defense that actually do have that audit. the marine corps stands out in terms of military service, but overall the department of

defense is struggling to have a comprehensive audit. the process of realizing and this is not bear out in our survey, it does actually connect though course to the support for increased defense spending. the process of carrying out an audit as i mentioned does actually reveal a lot of information that helps the department of defense execute its responsibilities more efficiently so the process of the pursuit of an audit is going on with renewed purpose and focus. and i think that will continue in the coming trump administration. as to when the deparle will have a clean audit comprehensively i think we are years out from that and that is a problem. >> the pentagon, how big of a deal is it to the policymakers you talk to, how much do they care. >> policymakers care deeply about it there is of course a variety of players here to certain members of congress have

priorities. demographically comes to mind. in the u.s. senate. but it makes the department more efficient as they pursue this audit and i think in the previous session a lot of folks intent -- attention on the department of government efficiency thing the audit will be a big part of that. what you have the more you have it. i heard one story just the other day but because of the marine corps audit for example, they found some spare parts that were necessary for the f-35 or a fifth-generation fighter that's critical for a navy marine corps and of course our air force because of the audit and the result was f-35's were grounded we were able to be put to use, that was the result of the process of the audit. it does have a material impact on the operations. host: u.s. weapons to allies from the survey, 46% support giving weapons to allies, that is down 5% from last year with

54% sending weapons to israel, 55 percent for sending weapons to ukraine. guest: the big story on military support to israel and ukraine is the deep partisan divide. notably when it comes to ukraine , harris voter support that at 74% were strong voters support by 42% so the overall average and the majority of american people but it's a partisan divide really bearing out. you must have a flipside when it comes to support for israel enters military assistance. that's critical because ukraine is at war right now trying to defend against russian aggression and restore over its territory great israel the same with the war in gaza continuing. folks talk what was happening in syria in this debility of gaza continues to be israel's focus. one thing i know and you have to

delineate. in terms of their willingness to have u.s. security assistance, israel and ukraine, but overall the united states through this survey we see the american people have strong support for israel and ukraine. 55% of those surveyed view ukraine as an ally as a partner, 74 percent view israel as a partner and ally and to contextualize that, 73% view japan as a partner and ally so there is really strong support for those countries, specific policies in terms of security assistance >>. >>but the majority not opposed to the idea -- 43% support, some that didn't answer. the majority, what is the reason not to do arms transfers print . is it spending money overseas. >> in terms of the overall point

of view we don't have follow-up questions on that we know a bit about this in terms of what they have as it relates to ukraine. there's definitely concern of cost, that we have our priorities, our fiscal situation here it costs too much, there's also concern of that whether the u.s. stockpiles are sufficiently supplied that they're able to deliver munitions and security. we needed for the u.s. military. so i think that is contributing to the concerns about security assistance and military assistance to ukraine. that's for sure going to be there concern. but as you note the majority of american people as it relates to this conflict wanted to continue. >> jeff is in washington, independent. good morning. >> good morning guys. i really believe that we are wildly overspending on defense

and we always have. who is going to fight a war these days. it is -- there is no economic benefit for anybody, china is -- are they going to shut down the straights and cut their own throats on trade. or russia, how are they going to project force. they can even be ukraine. so i would like to see 10% flashes in defense spending and let's get it down to a reasonable level. i think the threats to the united states are wildly overblown and obviously we could use that money much better at home. thanks guys. >> the caller has a point of view that we are wildly overspending, we can take an

historical look that is simply not the case. i know we are hovering 3% of gdp, its exit going to go lower to about 2.5% if you look at defense programs at about 2030 or so. and by historical standards during the height of the cold war when president reagan was in office we were at 6% during korea, it was about 12% at world war ii, one third of what we were spending. what we have today in terms of defense spending as a percentage of gdp grows to mastic product is actually what we were spending roughly at the end of the cold war. that was the moment when truly there was no competitor, we had defeated the soviet union, we were taking a peace dividend and roughly about the same level defense spending. my view and this is where i disagree with the caller. i don't look at the world today and see the united states -- i

see as a competitor that we have not seen in generations in china pray that means militarily. china is engaged in the largest military buildup in generations. you have to look back to where the soviet union did after the cuban missile crisis to see a military buildup that we are witnessing out of beijing and you have to ask yourself what are they building up towards, what are they seeking to do. you look at what are defense leaders and national security leaders are, this is bipartisan, this is the view of the trump and biden administration. what they are doing is attacking our interest not just in the pacific which we have sing of it trade interests but globally more and more, even on the continental united states, we saw this not too long ago and then you add to that what russia is doing and they have certainly been bogged down in ukraine. that's a result of u.s. securities. the ukrainians have fought nobly

in ukraine fending off russian aggression. at the same time they haven't been able to do that without securing assistance of the united states. that's important not just for ukraine sovereignty and the plight of freedom on the part of ukrainians that's important for u.s. national security interest. vladimir putin as we know is aggressive. if you have been able to capture ukraine he would've likely gone on to weaker nato allies. that would put the united states in a far more costly position. we know his conduct in 2008, he invaded georgia. in 2014. he annexed crimea. so i think the caller is perhaps too optimistic about the security situation globally and i think it's u.s. defense spending in my view is underfunded. >> did ronald reagan ever face a defense funding cut from congress? >> president reagan when he was in office ran on a platform of going into office on restrain

and rebuilding our national defense. would've gone so bad during the tenure of president jimmy carter that he actually had an election mandate to build up and there was bipartisan support in the congress. they did that from the time he entered office in january of 1981 ready much throughout his time in office when he left in 1989. by 87, nevers of congress are pulling back and overall a net increase year-over-year. just over 6% of gdp with seven to 10% real growth annually 81, 82 and 83 that was the strength which really allowed for the piece that resulted by the time he left office in 1989. >> line for republicans. good morning. >> talking about the military confidence. we had defense austin, he took some time off and took time for

surgery and didn't tell anybody about it. as far as i know that's on the first things you learn in the military, if you're not to be there you give to your second-in-command and get on with your mission. as i understand that this austin he is still there. he did not get fired. is that true? host: secretary defense austin is still there. speaking on saturday he announced a defense forum, a new ukraine security package. let me show you a minute and a half from saturday. >> i'm proud to announce today the commitment of a new ukraine security assistance initiative. worth nearly $1 billion. [applause] this will provide ukraine with more drones, more rockets, more systems and more support for crucial maintenance and sustaining. that brings the total u.s. security assistance to ukraine

since february of 2022 to more than $62 billion. the engine of our effort has been ukraine's defense contract group whose first step in april 2022 at ram shine base in germany. the contact group insured ukraine has what it needs to defend itself and a force to deter more russian aggression. the contact -- i've been the contact group when he four times now. they've committed more than $57 billion to direct security support. and the percentage of the gdp, more than a dozen contact group members now provide more security assistance to ukraine in the united states does. and together we have help ukraine survive an all out assault by the largest military in europe.

host: lloyd austin a defense forum. >> that is the reagan national defense forum i referenced earlier we hold annually the first weekend in december and sector austin has been with us, this year he served as a secretary defense and this was the fourth time he visited and made some news is you know in terms of what the department of defense is doing for ukraine in the final weeks of the biden administration. >> did he talk about the results of the survey or did you get a chance to go through with them. guest: absolutely. secretary austen referenced the survey in the speech and my recollection is it was about national defense and military spending. the support increasing the defense budget, he made some arguments as to how the biden administration is contributed to that. my own view is it has not been sufficient with the call earlier. >> what are your conversations

like with the incoming trump administration? guest: there are officials as you know being named and announced. those require senate confirmation, they are designated so they are not speaking for the trumpet administration. alex wong is the deputy. president trump as it relates to this issue and the survey ran, he is the first president to run on a platform of peace through strength since ronald reagan ran on that back in 1980. i think we are pushing forward the survey to show how they could pitch together that's reflective of a viewpoint that's a hope and aspiration but goes to defense spending all the way to israel policy and ukraine policy. one of the things that came out in the survey. of secretary austin is what the trump administration policy will

be as it relates to ukraine. president trump announced keith kellogg would be the special envoy to ukraine. our survey showed that 59% of americans support peace negotiations even if ukraine was required to give up or see territory and as far as trump voters, 63 percent support that inherits voters 55%, so you see there is pretty much a consensus around doing that. how they go about that is quite important and another element of the survey i will wrap up with this as i mentioned before 75% of those surveyed leave ukraine is an ally. 80% believe russia is an adversary or enemy and so however president trump will pursue those negotiations that he wanted the conflict to come to an end that will end by the time he is inaugurated, the survey shows of the american people clearly know whatever is negotiated to look like who the

friend is and who the adversary is. greg is next in wilmington connecticut. you're on with roger. gregor you with us. >> good morning. good morning. i don't see a defense spending. i see an offensive spending. we have had so many conflicts, let's start with vietnam going to afghanistan in the 80's in the late 80's and early 90's and then to iraq and syria and afghanistan and palestine, the slaughter has been nonstop john. nonstop. i don't see any defense in slaughtering that's not offensive spending. you know it's mostly of c-span

and of the mainstream media because the american public is horribly informed about what its government does. most wouldn't know we are in syria right now. basically camping out stealing oil from syria to give it to other countries. it is insane our military spending. in saying we spend more money than 10 nations that spend money on military. we do. so it's not defensive, it is offenses. and c-span has to do a better job that's all i'm saying, thank you. >> greg in connecticut, roger what do you think. guest: i respect lou disagree with the characterization. mention syria, bashar al-assad and wasn't soon enough in response to slaughtering 600,000 of his people, u.s. forces there have been engaged to protect

u.s. interests and doing what they can to help the military in crisis caused by that butcher bashar al-assad who again just today is no longer in power. i think the point the caller makes about the u.s. out spending the rest of the 10 nations combined is overstated i would encourage the caller to look at work by mckenzie of the american enterprise institute who's done a deeper dive into the spend on defense and has actually increasingly come closer to what the u.s. spends. just approaching the $800 billion that is china and of course the way they spend their funding is command-and-control economy, civilian resources go to support the military, the u.s. fundamentally has interest globally not because it's looking to fight wars or offensive, it's protecting u.s. interest. our freedom, our security and

ultimately it leads to our prosperity. that's why the survey for example big support, 62% year-over-year support having u.s. forces deployed overseas not because they are engaged in some sort of offensive attack, offensive posture because they know the u.s. presence globally is what we rely upon to provide for the season -- for the prosperity referenced a moment ago. you can see far more conflict in this world that would cost us a lot more than we spend on an annual basis under national defense. >> this question always comes up. 11 carriers and service right now read china has three. why do we need eight more aircraft carriers than china. >> china would like to have 11 aircraft carriers and there's -- there is a critique out there the aircraft carrier is not the most relevant fighting platform

for deploying our -- power overseas and it was in the past because of missile technology for example the people have and so perhaps it's not as effective. that's the military argument why they are less relevant to the indo pacific but overall this is the primary vehicle of the u.s. is used for decades now to project power overseas and for those and have presence and particularly aircraft carrier is the best vehicle to get there and that's assuring the trade routes moving freely pray we see what happens when they're under attack even by a jv terrorist organization like who these in yemen could shut down trade in the red sea as a result, those trade patterns have to change and the cost of goods go up. that's where the aircraft carriers give you. it's a big mistake to think china only has three in the u.s. as 11. we have more than we need. china very much would like to

displace us as a naval power and would love to have those carriers, they made a great down payment for the peace and prosperity we enjoy and has absolute been a benefit for security but for economic prosperity. host: 10 minutes left with roger. this morning. reagan foundation.org if you want to find them online. guest: you can go on and put in the reagan national defense survey in your search to have and it will come up on the reagan institute page print host: this is catherine in cleveland, good morning. >> good morning. you are asking for 100% increase in the budget for military spending. my question is wherewith that money come from. are you willing to take it from people like myself who are on social security, i worked my

entire life. i did not take my husband social security. so i took mine. are you willing to put people like myself on the street or would you be willing to maybe stop supporting the veterans and their needs that they have? host: roger. guest: certainly the reagan institute and the survey itself on that advocate for 100% increase in defense spending. what i was giving historical context at the level were spending on national defense actually is the level we went to in the 1990's after the end of the cold war when president bill clinton was seeking. the view we are spending more than we have historically is actually not the case paired we are under spending and underinvest in national defense. sector defense of both parties, general officers, flag officers to sustain our defensive efforts. we need to have real growth, fund the department of defense beyond inflation pray that

should be to put between three and 5% annually above inflation, that's what we came out to in the defense strategy commission released this summer. i think when you look overall federal spending this is where the caller was getting to in terms of where will come out of. it shouldn't impact anybody who benefiting from social security, people who've worked their whole lives and are now taking from social security, i don't think anybody is advocating that. there is a need for social security reform. a need for reform an overall mandatory spending. i think people forget that when you look overall defense spending as a share of the federal spending it's roughly about 13%. we are spending more to service our national debt than we are spending on national defense, 14% servicing national debt, 13% on national defense. the issue of course is mandatory

spending. social security, medicare and other mandatory programs. those need to be addressed, they are on automatic increase year-over-year. i believe it's the department of government efficiency have to look there because that is what is consuming the overwhelming majority of our spending. it is discretionary spending it is the spending it's mandatory that's an autopilot washington does little about year-over-year and needs to be addressed. >> three to 5% increase, the u.s. debt clock has a spending 951 billion $337 million this year on defense spending so you're saying an increase of somewhere around $45 billion. >> 45 to $55 billion, the idea -- host: where did you get that. >> congress has the over the past two years, president biden underfunding national defense before. the congress recognize that these programs to continue to

take care of the men and women in uniform, to modernize the force, to make investments required and increased in defense spending. we spend trillions of dollars over the past few years on programs that are far last sound to it the constitution calls for. you come down to what government should be spending on it's quite clear article one section eight is congress responsibility to build the army and navy. that's been underfunded. given the reach and the need for our economic security that ultimately all americans prosper four is required a robust national defense. my point is it's actually historically low and increasingly smaller slice of what we spend on it in terms of the total federal budget picture. host: tom and marilyn, independent, you are next. caller: good morning john and as always you do a great job as a host here.

i guess it's a little disappointing hearing the questions you are getting looking at the results of the last election and then seeing this survey saying american spend -- favor more spending and national engagement. and all we are getting are the talking points such as rush of the aggressor, etc. etc.. and we are not spending somehow enough. and the real question here is with the bloat that we see in admirals and generals and all of this wasted spending and so many of these failures and foreign policy, how are we to believe this question in the survey and the results because those results of course naturally are quite dramatic -- favor quite dramatically everything that the organization stands for. so can you tell us a little bit about the survey and was it really objective? guest: absolutely.

thank you for the question. i mentioned before, 2510 respondents in the survey estimated margin of error is plus or minus two percentage points. many of the questions went to about half of respondents. just over 1200. the margin of error there is about 2.8% plus or minus so if you look at other surveys this one is actually has more respondents than what you read about in your favorite paper or feed you get when you're talking about the survey. what we do and we've done it year-over-year in 2018 is ask the questions the american people about national security defense and foreign policy. and we will see where the numbers go. the reality is year-over-year the american people understand and support having u.s. force presence overseas not because they're looking to gauge the u.s. military conflict. but they know that is the best

guarantor of peace and i think that's what bears out in the survey. certainly if there was something in the survey that didn't, my own point of view that is fine. at this point only 52% of americans have trust and confidence in the military. i pointed that out to our service chiefs and said this is a problem. when we started it was 70% and that's a policy area that i believe the military needs to work on the comes out of the survey. the numbers don't lie. and that's why we engage with you on it. >> president biden talked about steps the u.s. was taking in syria after the fall of assad. u.s. efforts there to support the region. and he laid that out for viewers earlier. it was saturday that president-elect trump said the united states needs to stay out of syria. the question from mark in new york, can the guest explained what u.s. interests are in syria. >> i think from a serious

standpoint we don't want it to be an ungoverned space that we have the emergence of isis. i think that is something that president biden wants but it's also summing president trump wants and he was responsible in his first administration for insuring that isis was taken out. so we have experienced from 9/11 we know which terrorist organizations threaten our national security interest and look to developing capabilities to attack the homeland. isis fits that category. that is the biggest risk profile for the united states coming out of syria. beyond that you don't want to have the rgc, the iranian revolutionary guard attack u.s. interest in the region, that could also happen in ungoverned space although i believe out of this development, iran is weaker because of israel and its policies as applied against hezbollah and lebanon. and lebanon and hezbollah

interests in iran as well as in and iranian interests in syria. host: just a couple minutes left, what didn't we get to from the survey you want to talk about. guest: there was one element that stands out as it relates to israel and that is while there are strong partisan divide over u.s. security assistance israel to defend themselves post october 7, hamas massacre in israel. republicans generally support it , increasing number of democratic voters, harris voters are opposed. as it relates to the u.s. hostages to bring them out of gaza, it is over 60% so that is an area of bipartisan support, it's been a priority for the biden administration as we saw from president-elect trump who tweeted out on social media about a week or so ago that he expects the u.s. hostages to be freed out of captivity in gaza and they will -- and there will

be hell to pay, that is a direct coat -- direct quote. host: about seven americans still held hostage by hamas. guest: we think about three of those bodies are americans who perished in captivity. host: support for sending u.s. military to release those final three? support of bringing them home and putting u.s. troops on the ground and getting them out today are two different things. guest: that is absolutely the case. the question in terms of direct action on the part of u.s. forces. my sense -- the sense president trump put out with his social media post is anybody who is not doing their all to bring those hostages out, turkey and qatar can do more. they have -- will be held

accountable by the trump administration. host: the washington director there reagan foundation.org is where you can go if you want to look through the survey for yourself. we appreciate your time on washington journal. guest: thanks for having me on. host: the house comes in at noon eastern on c-span. you can watch all today and we will see you back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern, 4:00 pacific. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] ♪ >> the u.s. hoturns later today at noon eastern. members will debateer

infrastructure projects to be constructed by the u.s. army corps of engineers. also, a bill requiring amtrak to notify congress when it plans to offer bonuses and disclose when they are awarded. eastern today.o back at 3:00 adam kim and adam schiff will be voted in. it will continue to vote on president biden's remaining judicial nominations. the first vote is today at 5 for the confirma of tiffany hnson in georgia. watch all of our congressional coverage with our free video app, c-span now, for our website, c-span.org. >> attention, middle and high school students across america, it is time to make your voice

heard. this is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact. what issue is 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 not only to make an impact but also be rewarded for your creativityard work. enter your submissions today. scan the code or visit studentcam.org for all the details to enter. the deadline is january 20, 2025. c-spanshop.org is c-span's

online store. browse through our latest collection of products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it is more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a publ service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> u.s. defense secretary lloyd austin says t