♪ host: this is the washington journal for january 14. in the early morning hours of today, former special counsel

jack smith's report on his investigation on january six that were released. if the case were allowed to continue, he claims, the former president would have been convict it. later today around 10:00, the president-elect's nominee for the defense department, pete hegseth, will undergo his confirmation hearing before the senate. you can see that on c-span, c-span3, and our multitude of platforms. if you want to comment about either the events of today, here is how you can do so. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to comment on the jack smith report or pete hegseth's testimony, (202) 748-8003 is how you can do that. you can also post on facebook and x. it was about one :00 this

morning when the special counsel's report was released. you can find it online. if you go to our website at c-span.org, we have a highlighted special section where you can read the report and its findings. here are some of the findings from the special counsel. when it comes to conspiracy to fraud the united states, jack smith's report says, the report of -- the core mr. trump's obstructive seme was a false narrative of outcome determinativ voter fraud, which he had his surrogates over two months. he knew that it was false. mr. trump's false claims were repeatedly debunked, often directly by him by the very people best position to ascertain their truth. campaign personnel told mr. trump that his claims were unfounded. so did state officials, a white house official engaged with mr. trump in his capacity as candidate, and even his own running mate. this was from the jack smith report released earlier today.

there is also a section in the report highlighted under the topic of threats and harassment of witnesses, jack smith says, mr. trump's rert to intimidation and harassment during the investition is not new, as demonstrated by his actions during the charged conspiracies. a fundamental compont of his conduct underlyi the election caseas his pattern of using social media. at the time, twitter, to puicly attack and seek the influence of officials, judges, and election workers who refuse to support falselaims that the election had been stolen or who otherwise resisted complicity in mr. trump's scheme. aftemr. trump publicly assailed these individuals, threats and harassment from his followers inevitably followed here the context of the attack on the capital on january 6, mr. trump acknowledged that his supporters listened to him like no one else. the report was released in the early morning hours. you can find it online. if you go to our website at

c-span, you can find it. there is a special section. you can also comment on pete hegseth, the president-elect's nominee to head the defense department. he will be before the senate armed services later today and his confirmation hearing. axios, their website, has a portion of some of the opening statement that you will hear later today from pete hegseth, saying, as president trump also told me, we repeatedly placed people atop the pentagon with supposedly the right credentials. whether they are retired generals, academics, defense contractor executives. where has it gotten us? some more of that opening ceremony will read as such, i humbly agree it is time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm. a change agent. someone with no vested interest in specific companies, programs, or approved narratives. hegseth will say in his testimony, his only special interest is the war fighter. you will hear more that today.

our coverage on c-span, this channel, will start at 9:30 until 10:00 when the house comes in. when that happens, the coverage of the hearing, live and unfiltered, will be at 10:00 on c-span3. you can follow along on a multitude of platforms. c-span now, our app, and c-span.org. if you want to comment on the release of the special counsel's report or on today's hearing later on featuring pete hegseth, again, the numbers are, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. we will hear directly from pete hegseth. he was with reporters on capitol

hill as he was making the rounds meeting with senators. he talked about, amongst other things, conversations with senators concerning his alcohol use. [video clip] >> had great conversations about who i am and what i believe and frankly the man i am today because of my faith in my lord and savior jesus christ and my wonderful wife jenny, right here. i am a different man that i was years ago. that is a redemption story that i think a lot of americans appreciate. i know from fellow vets i spent time with, they resonate with that as well. you go to top places on behalf of your country and sometimes that changes you will little bit. by the grace of god and my lord and savior, i had the opportunity to come up out of it and do great things with great veterans organizations that fought for vets, for reform at the v.a., for war fighters, and the fox news channel to advocate for those same causes. i'm proud of what i fought for. i want back down one bit. i will answer all of the senators' questions. this won't be a process tried in the media. i don't answer to anyone in this

group. none of you. not to that camera at all. i answer to president trump receive 76 million votes on behalf of a mandate for change. the 50 to 100 senators who are part of this process and those on the committee, and my lord and savior, my wife, my family. i'm proud to be here as long as donald trump wants me in this fight. i will be standing here in this fight, fighting to bring our pentagon back to what it used to be. host: that was last month. you will hear more later on at 10:00 when that hearing takes place. you can watch it live on a variety of platforms on c-span and you can comment on that or the release of the jack smith report. mike in ohio, the independent line, you are first up. caller: good morning, pedro. let me get this straight. mr. smit releases this report at 1:00 a.m. in the morning that was so important that would have showed that president trump defrauded the government? let's talk about the defrauding of the government. we had biden, the newscasts,

everyone hiding his incompetence and delusional. you talk about defrauding. let's talk about january 6, destroying evidence knowing trump will come in and reopen the investigation. who is defrauding who? trump was elected because we are finally tired of the democrats' lies and deceit. pam bondi will set things straight. we will do legal law fair. they spent $200 million trying to get rid of this man. when is it not enough? we, the american people, have had enough. host: let's hear from fran in new hampshire on the democrats line. caller: anyone who has read the article in new yorker magazine about mr. hegseth would understand that he is totally unqualified for the position. he is a chronic alcoholic.

he is a danger to this country because it is possible that the enemy -- within us and around us -- might take advantage of his alcoholism to corrupt what he is thinking about, or he might simply not be awake when there is a national emergency. in a quote, he talked to two former secretaries of defense who say that they never slept through the night. one said he never took his day clothing off because he was so worried about a national emergency occurring in the middle of the night. this man is totally unqualified for the position. amen. host: that is fran in new hampshire talking about the pete hegseth and his nomination hearing later today.

the previous caller talking about the jack smith report. connecticut, the republican line. caller: good morning, pedro. how are you? host: well, thank you. caller: do you realize you are becoming msnbc with the trump bashing daily? do you realize that, pedro? host: you can comment on either of the things that we listed. what do you want to say? caller: what is my comment going to do? host: you made the call, go ahead and comment. caller: i told you what i think. you are becoming msnbc. host: let's hear from jeff, little rock, arkansas, democrats line. caller: how are you doing today? host: fine, thank you. caller: you really kicked the can today. i'm a 20 year air force veteran and i want to say that the person that they are trying to select to be the secretary of defense is a fraud.

i am not behind it. host: why not? caller: he is not qualified, even though they say he served in the military. i don't like his attitude or background. host: you say he's specifically not qualified and you talk about his background, what do you mean? caller: they try to promote afghanistan and overseas in a war situation, but not everyone who goes to the war, so-called, is in the war. there are a lot of people like jack officers who never even see combat -- jag officers who never see combat or combat related situations, you know? host: commenting about pete hegseth who will have his confirmation hearing later this morning. you can see it on c-span initially at 9:30. 10:00, that moves over to c-span3. you can watch it on c-span now and the website is c-span.org.

in the washington times opinion section, this is offered by a republican political operative and combat veteran. it is about pete hegseth. under the headline, combat veterans' choice for the pentagon. he writes, having worked alongside mr. hegseth, i've seen firsthand the caliber of leadership he brings to any challenge. his ability to rally individuals towards a common goal, his focus on operational excellence, his unwavering commitment to service make him uniquely qualified for the role. with years of military experience, deep understanding of the challenges facing our veterans, and a bold vision of the future he leads with clarity, purpose, and resilience. the op-ed goes on to say that the passion, his passion for veterans is not just a political stance, it's a core part of his identity. mr. hegseth's extensive work with the veterans organizations demonstrates his commitment to those who served. as secretary of defense this

would translate into a genuine, unwavering focus on improving the welfare of our military personnel, veterans, and their family. writing in the pages of the washington times if you want to see about his thoughts on pete hegseth becoming the next secretary of defense. the confirmation hearing from the senate takes place today. you can share your thoughts on that or the release of the jack smith report, which we showed you earlier. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. george on the republican line in ohio. hello. caller: hello, pedro. thank you for taking my call. pete hegseth hasn't even taken the oath of office but look at all of the democrats who have taken it oath of office. these people should be prosecuted for nothing more than treason. i mean, you look at president biden, for one thing. it has been treason ever since

he has been elected. a january 6 committee didn't even look at all of the evidence. they destroyed evidence. the democratic party is nothing but -- their agenda is to destroy the nation. look at all of the truth of the last four years and four years before that. look what they've done. look what they've done to our nation. they should be considered a terrorist organization. that's all i got to say. thank you. host: steve in missouri, independent line. caller: good morning. i don't know a lot about pete hegseth. i've heard about the drinking allegations. yeah, that could be something that the senate has to dwell into. you know, i never heard -- some woman called in a few minutes ago and said that he was an alcoholic. these people -- i read a lot of stuff but i've never read

that he was an alcoholic. number two, ima, infantrymen from vietnam. the guy with a 20 years of air force downplayed pete's service in the military. never do that, sir. if you have a combat infantry badge, you can talk. pete's got one. you don't. thank you. host: one of two topics if you want to comment on that. many of your talking about the hearing later for pete hegseth. some are talking about the jack smith report released in the early morning hours of today. it comes in the case against president trump and january 6, when it comes to the idea of insurrection and the legal journey that the counselors considered saying, "the office recognized white courts described the attack on the capitol as an insurrection, but

was also aware of the litigation risk that would be presented by employing this long-dormant statute. as to the first element under section 2383 proving an insurrection against the authority of the united states and laws thereof, cases of the audi -- of the office review provided no guidance on what proof would be required to establish an insurrection or distinguish an insurrection from a riot." that is from the central council's report. if you're interested in reading a summary put out by the special counsel come the report itself, the department of justice making it available. it's also available on c-span.org. you will notice when you go to the front page and look to the right, there is a box about the report. you can click on it and read some of the findings for yourself. you can see on the website, pete hegseth talking about the hearing today as he becomes -- as he attempts to become the next defense secretary and the

incoming trump administration. oliver in falls church, virginia on the democrats line. caller: hello, pedro. can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: listen. i want you -- i want to pat you on the back for being able to take some of the abuse from the maga crowd that is trying to take this country back 50 years. donald trump is a criminal. he is a con man. he is a liar. he is an adulterous. host: let me focus you on either the special counsel report or pete hegseth. caller: ok, pedro. the special counsel report will let you know that people have their sense to get their hands on it and read it. i haven't yet, but i will. like the mueller report, it shows donald trump is a criminal

who has no business in the white house. thank you very much. host: that is all of her calling from virginia. let's hear from russell who is calling us from missouri on the republican line. caller: hello. i would like to ask, is jack smith an iranian? did he come here from iran? i really don't think he should be anywhere near president trump. host: what does one have to do with the other? caller: excuse me? host: what does one have to do with the other when it comes to the report? caller: well, he is the one who wrote the report. is he from iran? host: i don't understand the basis of the question. why are you asking those questions in relation to the report? caller: because he wrote the

report. host: ok, russell in missouri. another opinion pays in the -- another opinion piece in the pages of the washington report. a regular columnist for the washington post, the u.s. is unprepared for a major war. pete hegseth fixed that. some of his findings from this morning saying, the problem isn't that the u.s. military has gone "woke" as maga partisans like hegseth allege peer the problem is america became complacent after the cold war when it downsized its armed forces and defense industrial base. since then come the united states prepared and military suitable for fighting insurgents in afghanistan or iraq, but inadequate for an extended fight against the major power. also max boot adding this to his

column, saying, now it will be up the senators to decide if hegseth, who was dogged by accusations of mismanagement and misconduct at the two nonprofits that he ran, is the right person to rebuild america's atrophy defense capabilities. committee members should grill him not only about his past, but about his plans to address this challenge. his record doesn't inspire confidence that he can rise to the task that would severely test far more experienced executives. that is from max boot in the washington post. this is from connie in ohio on the republican line. caller: hi. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i wanted to say that i'm all for pete hegseth. he to me is the ultimate, true american. i think trump did a great job of picking his cabinet. i think he is one of the best. i mean, i can't understand some of the people talking about even

trump after what has happened these last four years. he put people in who need to be put in to get us back where we are supposed to be. host: what makes pete hegseth the best in your mind? caller: well, i just think he is a true american. watching him, i'm not even sure of what they are saying about him. i have read things and i don't see where he is the bad guy and the whole thing. he is an adulteress, or whatever it is. he is the ultimate soldier. they stabbed him in the back and he withdrew from the military because he wasn't what they wanted to protect the president. he wasn't a democrat. [laughter] that is just my opinion. i think he has a really good cabinet coming in. host: connie in cincinnati, ohio

giving us her thoughts. some of you posting on various social media sites or texting us. doug from facebook when it comes to the confirmation process writing, pretty amazing to me how bitterly contested, contentious and political even the cabinet confirmation process has become. another one from facebook saying, when it comes to pete hegseth, i believe, looks like a good pick. i'm just hoping he'll do discourse for one and all. another from texas saying i don't know if hegseth is qualified for the position or not but i would hope he is being properly vetted. those are some of the commas that you can make on x, @cspanwj . facebook, facebook.com/c-span. even with the text us, (202) 748-8003. you can call us on the main lines if you want to talk about pete hegseth's confirmation hearing later today and also i

the release of the jack smith report from earlier in the morning hours of today. in louisiana, i believe it is on the independent line, anthony, hello. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. i would just like to comment on the pete hegseth guy. i just can't understand how, with all the talent and people in a position to control a massive amount of spending, and not just because he fought in wars. i congratulate him, -- fighting for our country, but the department, the size of the department of defense without no knowledge of the background of how that works is just absolutely absurd to me. it seemed like if you don't work for fox or if you don't, if

you're not a famous athlete, you are not a trump nomination. host: anyway, that's how i feel. anthony in louisiana. james in kansas. on the democrats line. hello. caller: hello, everyone. it seems to me that the entire cabinet of 47 is unqualified. pretty much the same as him, conmen. host: one of the people who sit on the senate armed services committee was democrat tammy duckworth, she herself as a military veteran, talking about previous comments that pete hegseth had made about the women in combat. topics that will most likely appear later today when he appears before the full senate armed services committee. here is senator duckworth from last month. [video clip] sen. duckworth: he has been saying that women are not as strong. the one in those roles have met

the same standards as men and passed rigorous testing. he is flat out wrong. our military could not go to war without the women who wear this uniform and america's daughters are just as capable of defending liberty as her sons. >> what you think of the idea that women make fighting more complicated? that was specifically what he focused on. sen. duckworth: it shows his lack of understanding of where our military is. he was a pretty low ranking guy in the military and never had a command position. he was a platoon leader once or twice but never commanded a company. this is a man who is unqualified for the position. remember, the pentagon is 3 million servicemen and women and civilians. it is over a $900 billion budget. he has never run anything near that size. frankly, women make our military more effective. i personally have found -- i brought many insights to my job

when i was a company commander and a logistics officer that came from my personal background that made things better. i took better care of my men in my unit. i was often the only woman in an all-male unit and my gender wasn't a problem. i adapted and we performed the mission. host: senator duckworth from last month. the washington journal highlights another person that mr. hegseth will hear from, senator joni ernst, herself a combat veteran. this is from the wall street journal saying, mr. hegseth's performance will be closely watched and what is expected to be a contentious confirmation hearing today. also in the spotlight, senator ernst, a republican from iowa who supports the -- whose support of the trump transition team is seen as critical, indoor criticism from trump supporters last year after publicly raising specific issues that she wanted hegseth to address. the role of women in the military, sexual assault in the military come auditing the

pentagon for waste and abuse. her vote could be the key to hegseth's future and her own. the senate armed services committee will force joni ernst to battle loyalty to president-elect donald trump with her long-running effort to combat sexual assault and support women serving in the military. she is up for reelection in 2026 and has a measured and her comments about hegseth. mr. trump has continued to back him amid allegations of sexual assault and drinking that raised doubts last month about whether he could be. more from the wall street journal and more of what you will here play out later today. 9:30 is when we will start showing what is happening in the room when it comes to the senate armed services committee. 10:00, the house will come in. the hearing will move to c-span3 anyou can watch it in its entirety. also o our other platforms as well. that is a little bit of aio board on pete hegseth. his background, you can comment on that. if you wish, you can comment on the report from special

counsel jack smith, now former special counsel. mark in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i have a comment on the report. first of all, i don't think anyone is aware of how corrupt this man truly is. i want you to help me out a little. pull up page 27 of the documents case, the indictment. you will see how corrupt this man is. c-span and the other stations contributed to this dishonesty. there were two pictures put up during the case being discussed for days, weeks, months, years. of the ballroom and the bathroom. i that most of the callers and people who watch don't realize that those pictures when they were released -- and i don't know where you got them from -- but they indicated that trump stored classified documents in the bathroom and ballroom.at least, to me they did . host: that is the documents case. tell me how that relates -- hold on.

tell me how that relates to the january 6 case specifically. caller: the thing you put up on your website mentions the document case. that is why i am bringing it up. it is in the first line when i start to read it. i am talking about the dishonesty of jack smith. if you want to trust him, you're going to trust at your own peril. will you bring it up and show it to the people? there wasn't a single document found in the bathroom or ballroom that were classified. that was sent out as misinformation to the american people deliberately to indicate something that wasn't true. secondly, the documents pictured in his office were a plant. host: because we are talking about the report and you bring up the documents case, we can let people go to the documents case if they wish.stafford , virginia, independent line, charles, hello. caller: my thing is pretty straightforward. i've known for a while about the allegations of sexual assault and alcoholism.

i think as far as a cabinet member, he is uniquely unqualified. i don't need to know about his qualifications as soon as i heard about the degree of sexual assault and perhaps rape and the statements on his relations with women in the past. he famously stated that he didn't believe women who were unconscious could be raped because rape requires women to be under duress. i don't think we can have any kind of person with those kinds of opinions leading such a massive military or having so much power. those are my opinions on hegseth. host: charles in virginia. we will continue on. you can comment on charles, as charles commented on when it comes to pete hegseth and his confirmation hearing today, and if you wish the jack smith

report released earlier this morning. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. let's go to tj in florida on the democrats line. caller: hello. i just want to say that i am calling for the republicans, i couldn't get into that -- host: i will stop you there and invite you to call back on the line that best represents you. if you want to make that call, go ahead and do so. if you get through, we will put you back on the republican line. ken, virginia, republican line. caller: good morning. regarding the hegseth thing, with all of the personal issues and character issues aside, personally, i was an auto mechanic in the 1980's. fast forward to now, i would be

similar to letting me run the incorporation of general motors. how do you think that would turn out? you don't think about it realistically. as a personal behaviorist, it's not good. we shouldn't even be worried about that. the basic qualifications would be like taking an auto mechanic and letting them run general motors. that's all i wanted to say. host: ken in virginia. some of the other confirmation hearings on c-span and follow along the rest of the week, for wednesday, here is the current slate. kristi noem and her attempt to become the next homeland security secretary. marco rubio to be secretary of state. pam bondi to be attorney general. chris right to be the energy secretary. john ratliff to be the cia director. those are slated for wednesday. for hearings slated, sean duffy to be the transportation secretary. russ vought to be the office of

management and budget director. when it comes to thursday and what you can expect, eric scott turner to be the next secretary of housing and urban development. lee zeldin former new york republican to be epa administrator. scott bessent to be treasury secretary. doug burgum's hearing was supposed to be today but was pushed to thursday because of paperwork issues. also pending, doug collins he was supposed to be at his hearing today to become the head of the next veterans affairs, secretary of veterans affairs. you can keep track of that on the website. let's hear from the nikia in las vegas on the independent line. caller: hi there. i think that any president should be allowed to have any person that they want in their cabinet. i understand the confirmation process, but it seems to me

there are always issues between more so the democrats than republicans. all of these people keep calling and talking about pete hegseth and his assault on women, but no one mentions biden or his assault on tara reid and how she had to run off to russia or his son. it is crazy to me. i think everyone deserves to be given a chance and no one can say how qualified he is or not because he is not in the position yet. that's it. host: max from san antonio, democrats line. you are next. caller: yes, good morning. he is definitely not qualified to be the secretary of defense, as a third-year army veteran retiree i can tell you that for sure. for three main reasons. number one, he is not an elder statesman. he doesn't know enough people to staff the pentagon in the upper echelons of the office of secretary of defense.

he doesn't know enough quality people. he doesn't appeal to people across the aisle. he is not a trusted elder statesman. that is number one. number two, he's never led an organization as large as he would be leading in the pentagon. the pentagon, he is not leading just a 100-person staff or 30 people. ken made a good point about an auto mechanic trying to run gm. it is the same scale. number three, he is not a good decision-maker. he jumps to conclusions. he makes accusations without sufficient proof. when you are the secretary of defense, you're making the most dire decisions every day. you have to be able to gather information, you have to be a master of deduction and judgment, and he is not that. he is a talking head.

he's not qualified. that is what i have to say, pedro. host: the new york times highlights the confirmation process. the several states of the confirmation process, i should say. when it comes to the section under senate staff and hearings, it says that only in the middle of the 20th century did senate committees begin requiring nominees to meet with them in person. candidates are vetted by committees that oversee the agencies that they hope to lead. the president's pick for attorney general is being evaluated for example. early on committees may ask candidates to provide disclosure forms for staff members to review our ask them to meet in person with staff members and may be questioned about their policy positions as they might be during official confirmation hearings. mr. radcliffe, who mr. trump selected to run the cia, provided background documents to the senate intelligence committee ahead of his hearing this week. a candidates interactions with committees culminate in hearings, the most dramatic and

visible part of the confirmation process. first they take an oath to speak truthfully then deliver opening statements to the committee that usually summarize priorities and experience related to the jobs they hope to take. members from the committee on both parties have time-limited slots to ask nominees questions. that is setting the table of what to expect that are today. we read you a little earlier from the pete hegseth plant opening statement that you can find at the axios website. you can comment on that or the jack smith report. connecticut, republican line, michael, hello. caller: hello, how are you? host: i am well. thank you. caller: as far as the report from smith, i believe that there is a rule of law where the fruits of an illegal act are illegal. he was illegally appointed, so anything that he came up with is illegal and should not be published. host: ok.

that is michael in connecticut. the president-elect sharing some of his thoughts on the release of the report on his truth social website. president-elect trump writing, two posts, the first saying, to show you how desperate deranged jack smith is, he released his fake findings at 1:00 a.m. in the morning. that he say that the unselect committee illegally destroyed and delete it all of the evidence? the second post to follow up on that, the president-elect saying, deranged jack smith was unable to successfully prosecute a political opponent of his "boss," crooked joe biden, so he ends up writing yet another report based on information that the unselect committee a political hacks and thugs illegally destroyed and deleted, because it showed how totally innocent i was, and how completely guilty nancy pelosi and others were. jack was unable to get his trial before the election which

i won in a landslide. you can see more from the president-elect. jimmy joins us from maine on the independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. i have to give you credit. you deal with some of the sleaziest people on the washington, d.c. crowd on both parties. i'm definitely independent. i voted for trump the first time, bite in the second time, trump this last time. my opinion is, everyone gets all bent out of shape, but let them pick whoever they want to pick. like a joe biden picked general milley and the person missing for a week. they picked the guy with the lipstick who was stealing the luggage everywhere, the guy that was the head of the nuclear program. biden was very liberal and he went the liberal way. the results weren't that great. trump is going to be able to pick whoever he wants to pick, as long as they are not treasonous and open the borders and let 10,000 people in,

terrorists and rapists, i have no problem with it. if it is successful, will vote him back into power again. don't get personal with these people. we are dealing with washington, d.c., these people sell out our country with $35 trillion in debt, both parties. america, wake up. don't get upset at one party or the other party. they are all involved. let the men have a shot and we will see if we get going in the right direction. god help us, we need all the help we can get. pedro, you are a gentleman, thank you for putting up with all of this stuff. host: janine in dallas, texas, democrats line. caller: i was just thinking, i see pete, i can't say his last name very well -- host: hegseth. caller: he is young, his personal life and everything, i don't think that that is as important as what he did if he had any financial discrepancies.

that is probably more important than his personal life. host: will you be watching the hearing later today? caller: oh, yeah. i'm waiting for it. host: what are you the most interested in seeing from it? caller: mostly how they treat the government affairs. not really their personal affairs. i grew up in the kennedy era. we didn't know anything about the people who ran the government' personal affairss. now we know everything about it. it is kind of fogging up with they are doing with their government affairs, how they are treating government finances and things like that. host: that is janine in texas. dallas, texas. let's hear from larry in illinois on the republican line. caller: good morning..

several of the comments that i've heard about mr. hegseth's alcoholic problem, those people don't know jack you know what when they are talking. when you have sobriety, you go through the steps and you ask forgiveness from god, and you admit your problems and sins to other individuals to be forgiven. now, if you went through that, or even if he didn't go through that, some other program, i don't believe it should be brought up. these people don't know what they are talking about. you want to talk about alcoholism, i don't know a lot of the stories, but i hear congress seems to drink a lot at night together. i think they ought to give pete a chance. as far as him not knowing anyone, i am a fox news watcher. he has interviewed and talked to a lot of people in the military.

i believe that he has 20 to 50 navy seals going to be there for him, because they know him personally. now, if you're calling him a bum, then you are calling the navy seals a bum. host: ok, thank you, larry. patrick is in ohio on the independent line. patrick in ohio? one more time for patrick. ok, rhonda in illinois, democrats line, hello. caller: hi, you know, it is amazing to me that even when this guy's mother came out and said what she said, the abuse of women. that he puts his power over

women. it isn't surprising to me that donald trump likes him, because of what he has done to women. i mean, you take trump's last name, his father, his grandfather, his grandmother, who all lived under adolf hitler in bavaria -- host: how does this specifically applied to pete hegseth? caller: i just think people ought to know what the fbi did not finish that report, because trump told them not to. i mean, if you have to interview these women, let them tell you who he is. by the way, trump's last name, that is about as phony as a three dollar bill. his last name is dunft.

host: oscar on the republican line. caller: good morning, pedro. i am fully in support of pete hegseth. i don't understand these people, especially veterans, calling in, like a few callers back who said that he had been in service 20 years. pete hegseth, therefore, was not eligible to be what he is put up to be. well, out of service, an 88-year-old veteran, i was in service from 1955-1980. you know, i think he is fully qualified. i have done a lot of tours overseas. someone a few weeks back said, if you just did an overseas tour

or combat tour that you got a bronze star. not true. you have to be extra courageous, it calls for a lot of valor. he has two of them. we need fresh people in there, and i don't think anyone can beat hegseth at that job. host: in today's new york times website, they have a story saying senate democrats monday said that an fbi background check on hegseth, the president-elect's pick to lead the pentagon, omitted key details on major allegations against him because it didn't interview critical witnesses. they didn't interview one of his ex-wives before it was presented to senators according to the bureau's investigation. the clamor comes on the eve of the confirmation hearing and days after officials from the trump transition team briefed

senator wicker, senator jack reed of rhode island, and the top democrat on the fbi background check saying there are significant gaps and inadequacies in the report, including the failure to interview key potential witnesses with personal knowledge of improprieties or abuse. that comes from senator blumenthal from connecticut and a member of the committee. you will see some of the people mentioned this morning question mr. hegseth directly when the hearing convenes at 10:00. c-span3 is where you can watch it, filtered and uninterrupted. we will show you pictures from the room in the lead up around 9:30. at 10:00, we will continue with coverage of the house,ut you can go to c-span3 to watch the hearing. you can watch it on c-span now and our website at c-span.org if you're interested in seeing what questions will be asked of mr. hegseth today. in south carolina, we hear from

todd in spartanburg on the independent line. you are on, go ahead. caller: hello. hello. when trump won, the thing that came to my mind was, get ready for the chaos. well, that is exactly what is going to happen. i won't be surprised of all of the republicans who went into office, we will see what happens. i won't be able to watch any news for the next four years every time trump opens his mouth. host: how does that relate to the special counsel report or confirmation hearing? caller: well, geez, we are not supposed to delve into the man's background? of course we are. anyone that trump wants should be given the key to washington? anyway, good luck. it's going to be chaos. host: rick in missouri on the democrats line, hello. caller: i just wanted to say, as

the new administration comes in, congress comes in, l.a., the fires, the devastation, it reminded me of -- they reminded me of all of the citizens in gaza, people in ukraine. you see devastation. politicians talking about regular humans and the world it is just really -- host: again, -- ok, rick. let's go to the republican line. caller: i grew up a democrat. i voted republican this time because of all of the chaos right now going on in the world. trump, i didn't like him, but he is a strong man. you can see it. i don't understand why these

people are just like -- don't really realize what the people voted for trump. we voted for him. and pete hegseth is one of trump's picks. as much as i don't care for trump, i think we need to go with trump's cabinet, his own picks. host: if you don't care for the president-elect, why not care for the people that he points to positions? caller: because i do care about the president-elect. i don't like the way that he is so hard on things, but we need that. pete hegseth is a very good pick, i believe, for his position. host: why is that? caller: i guess it would be because i've seen the weaponization of the doj and all of that, what they did to trump. that is what turned me from the

democratic party to the republican party. host: ok, heather in michigan. one of the people interested in the special counsel report is highlighted in the washington times. the attorney general of arizona. a story by tom howell saying, her name is chris mays, she told the justice department on monday that she wants the special counsel report to support her prosecution of president trump's allies for trying to overturn the 2020 election. in a letter to the u.s. attorney general merrick garland said that while mr. smith's case is against mr. trump and were dismissed, the special counsel resigned from his post, she is moving. my with an election subversion case against 11 so-called fake electors. today, my office is one of the only remaining cases that includes charges against national actors, she wrote.

i have held steadfast of prosecuting the grand jury's indictment, because those who try to subvert democracy in 2020 must be held accountable. those are the comments from the attorney general of arizona concerning the special counsel's report. when it comes to pete hegseth, this is a guy texting us in lahoma. pete is a great pic, twice decorated warrior.iis known that most generals and high-ranking officers are ambitious and war hawks. and to the viewer who said he is not an elder statesman, that is why he should get the job. if you want to do that, (202) 748-8003. let's go to bernie in nevada on the democrats line. -- earnie in nevada on the democrats line. caller: thank you for your job and your service. i would like to say thank you to all vets. i can see people in politics,

most of them, cannot tell the truth to save their --. i voted straight republican. i'm tired of what the democrats have done to this country. i can't take it anymore. i've been here 59 years. i came from cuba. host: to clarify, you are a democrat? caller: i am a democrat. i voted straight republican because i'm tired of being lied to. host: how does that apply to either the hegseth confirmation or special counsel report? caller: special counsel, because they can't tell the truth. pete hegseth will help because i can see what trump is doing is trying to help this country. host: ok, earnie giving us his thoughts. one story that we are not talking about this morning could have some impact on the next

24-48 hours. reuters reporting that negotiators were meeting in cutter today -- in qatar today finalizing plans to end the war in gaza after president biden indicated a cease-fire and hostage deal was imminent. the qatar foreign emissary spokesperson said final details were underway. this is the closest point to a deal reached over the past he highlighted, the president highlighted the speech as he talked about his foreign policy accomplishments during his term in office, talking about efforts in the middle east as well. here's a portion of the speech from yesterday. [video clip] pres. biden: the united states should take full advantage of our diplomatic and geopolitical opportunities we created and keep bringing countries together to deal with challenges posed by china, to make sure that putin's war ends and a just and lasting peace for ukraine. to capitalize on a new moment

for a more stable, integrated middle east. to do that, the next administration must make sure the fall of assad does not lead to the resurgence of isis in syria across the region. must carry for the commitment that america will never, never allow iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. the war between israel and hamas, from the brink of a proposal that i laid out in detail month ago finally coming to fruition. i have learned from many years of public service to never, never, never ever give up. i spoke to the prime minister of israel yesterday, i spoke to the mayor of qatar today, and i look forward to speaking with president the cc soon. pressing hard to close this.

the deal to free the hostages, halt the fighting, provide security to israel, and allow us to significantly surge humanitarian assistance to the palestinians, who suffered terribly in this war hamas started. . the president spoke about other foreign policy highlights during his four years in office. you can see that speech on c-span. caller: yes, thank you for c-span. following up on an earlier caller talking about how, you know, c-span kind of reveals it is leaning to the left, i hear him. here is a topic you could cover in the last week of the president's term. david weiss released his report, i believe yesterday. that is a blockbuster. i think we ought to devote an

hour to that report. host: brian in florida on the republican line. hi. go ahead. caller: ok, i just wanted to say a few things about the history of our country. we didn't get to where we got with the ideas that are being generated these past four years. this is a country that was founded on conservative principles that god and country are primary, and all this other liberal stuff is fine, but don't put it in the military, because the military is becoming weak. they are infested with dei and wokeism. the military has to stay tough to protect our country. if the special forces are on

pete hegseth's side, that is all i need to know. we need a strong military. we don't need people, you know, that are not ready for war, because these are tough times, and that's all i have to say. host: walter next in california on the democrats line. caller: thank you for my call. i just want to say about trump, all of his people for confirmation, these are all good old boy, good old girl white appointees. no minority in this country with those backgrounds would have any chance of being -- being confirmed. it doesn't make any sense at all. for the people to call in and excuse it like it is ok, this is the way -- no, it's not.

this is not how america is supposed to be operating now. \ you can put people who are in charge or knowledgeable, know what they are talking about, and have the country and the flag at the forefront. all of this good old boy, good old stuff is obvious and it won't help this country at all. people should wake up to that and acknowledge that. everybody needs to be involved. host: one more call, john also in california, on the independent line, go ahead. caller: good morning. the united states constitution stakes out three branches of government. trump is the executive, not the supreme ruler. he is a manager, an executive. for trump or americans to think that senators who have a job, advise and consent, have to do exactly what the supreme ruler, that is what trump thinks he is, is wrong. it is not designed like that.

it is designed to each of the branches of government have their own discrete function. trump is supposed to function as a manager, not a supreme ruler. his choices are ludicrous, absurd. trump thinks like a third grader. that is all i need to say. host: john in california finishing this our of calls. for those of you who participated, at 9:30 is when we start our coverage. leaving a little early to show you the room as it fills outcome of the senate armed services committee. at 10:00 when the hearing starts you will pete hegseth is the center of attention for today. during this next to talk about what he faces in the confirmation hearing is leo shane with military times. people talk about them of the questions asked by senators and a little bit of the background as well.

later on in the program the house such a debate legislation focusing on transgender athletes. we will talk about that with lori trahan. all of those coming up. i, franklin delano roosevelt. >> i, harry s truman do solemnly swear. >> that i will faithfully execute the office of president of the united states. >> the office of president of the united states. and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. >> the constitution of the united states. >> congratulations, mr. president. >> watch called inauguration coverage on monday, january 20

including the historic swearing-in as donald trump takes office as the 47th president of the united states. ceased -- c-span, democracy unfiltered. democracy is always an unfinished creation. >> democracy is worth dying for. democracy belongs to us all. we are here in the sanctuary of democracy. >> great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies. >> american democracy is bigger than any one person. >> freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected. >> we are still at al khor a democracy. >> this is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.

>> the c-span for shelf podcast feed makes it easy for you to listen to all of cease and podcast that feature nonfiction books in one place so you can discover new authors and ideas. each week we are making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biographies, current events and culture. from their signature programs, listen to c-span bookshelf podcast feed today. you can find the podcast feed and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now mobile video app, or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. it's washington journal continues. host: this is leo shane, deputy editor at military time to talk about the confirmation hearing for pete hegseth today. guest: going to be a busy day. host: what do you think senators are going to be most interested in today?

guest: one is going to be the democrats really attacking pete hegseth, trumpet ministration to a certain extent, but we've heard from democrats in the last few days saying that he is woefully unqualified, they think he doesn't have a leadership experience, so i think when the democrats are questioning we are going to see a real concerted effort to attack his resume, attack his background, to question why he was nominated in the first place. the republican side is more of a wildcard. most republicans have come out and said that they support the hegseth pick and that they like him as a candidate here, as a nominee here. i'm not sure how much they are going to get into his background, probably more just general questions related to president trump's plans. a lot of the anti-woke and anti- ddi conversations there. i don't know how specific they will get with those policies, or

if it will just be the sort of general approach we see. in the real wildcard is senator hurts. she seems to be the swing vote in all of this. if you had except can't get her support, it seems like his nomination is sunk. all eyes are going to be on her, what are her concerns? she's met within a few times does she start to bring up questions about women in combat, questions about his ability to lead an organization? we will see in a few hours. host: you covered the pentagon. when it comes to this management question, if he gets the position, what does he face management-wise and what does his experience bring to the table? guest: this is a huge organization, eight hundred thousand plus employees on top of the 2 million service members he will be overseeing. $850 billion organization. he just doesn't have anything in his background like this. he has run a few veterans nonprofits, he's managed small units within the national guard.

he's not completely without any leadership experience but in the past we see individuals nominated for this who have run a major organization, who have run part of the department of defense. maybe secretary of the army or some sort of background in that way. this is what we are going to hear from democrats. this is an overwhelming job for someone who hasn't managed more than a few dozen people and really doesn't have any of that large-scale federal background. host: one of the highlights from the ranking member of the committee, he said the mting did not relieve my concerns abou his lack of qualifications and raised more questions an answers. as with any nominee for this credit position, he must undergo the same high level of scrutiny as prior secretary of defense nominees. to that end, how does he compare to some of those other nominees when it comes to experience and background? guest: president trump has said

that he wants outsiders, a different kind of nominee for all of these positions. so you are not going to find folks, a lot of his nominees don't compare the same way as we see in traditional folks who would serve any presidential cabinet. this is someone who is best known for his role as a fox news commentator, has written several books that talk about the importance of refocusing the military, getting it back to lethality, getting away from these social issues in the social side of things. that appeals to trump and a lot of his supporters who said that washington is broken and needs to be shaken up. but what you are going to hear from democrats today and what you are hearing from critics is just a level of basic management understanding how to get out there with policies, how to develop some of these long-term ideas. go overseas and have meetings with the leader of ukraine, the leader of the chinese military

forces, and have some interactions with them. so it really is a completely different resume. depending on where you're coming from that is either a plus or a minus. host: here to talk about this hearing and he headset at -- pete hegseth epicenter. if you want to ask him questions, (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8002 independent. if you want to text us your questions you can do that at (202) 748-8003. saying i will continue to be supportive of the president-elect nominees. mr. hegseth and i also discussed how deterring the access of aggressors may require making important improvements at the pentagon. specifically we talked about the need to increase our investments and simultaneously change the bureaucracy amongst many other policies. it seemed like a total different attack of interest. guest: he mentions a couple things there that really hegseth

does not have any experience with. the pentagon acquisition process. how much fraud and abuse is in there. something completely foreign to any other background that he has. president trump and some of his allies have said we need someone to come in and shake things up. we need to make the pentagon more efficient. at least from a rhetoric site it makes sense for him to be saying if he's talking about looking at our adversaries and making for the military is stronger, that is exactly what i want. and frankly a lot of this is president trump looking for someone who is going to enact his policies, who's going to be his surrogate, not just somebody who can be the manager, but really just echo exactly what he wants. someday coming in with a blank slate from this perspective is more appealing because he's going to have to follow what president trump says, he's going to have to execute his policies and his plans.

host: what we know about the people who will be nominated alongside him who may be helping quite a bit in this role? >> it's a lot of folks who don't have much experience with the pentagon, with the defense department. if you folks who have done defense contracting jobs but a lot of folks were coming in with business experience rather than military experience. so again, we'd be looking at some level a shakeup in terms of what they are going to be focused on, are they going to understand the traditions and norms the military has run, or is it going to be this idea of running the pentagon more like a business which is always interesting when you talk about issues of national security and the scope and scale of what happens. host: i forget to mention active and former military. if you want to give your comments, (202) 748-8003 is the number you can cultivate those comments known. with different match on this hearing today. matt is in virginia, democrats line. caller: so i guess my question for the guest is looking back in

the previous administration of donald trump, what was the secretary of defense doing to protect us from donald trump's excesses? he stopped them from using the military to go into cities. he stopped him from firing on protesters. he stopped him from pulling out of afghanistan randomly. are we looking at loyalists who will do what he says without thinking, or are we looking at people who actually will stop the president from making really horrible decisions and unconstitutional ones, at that? guest: i don't think that pete hegseth is going to be that independent of an operator here. we saw that with general manus when he was secretary of defense. trump churned through his defense secretary's during the first term here in part because they weren't following exactly what he wanted. i think that is part of the

appeal. i wouldn't expect them to be as much of a check. we will hear today, i'm sure some of these issues are going to be brought up. that this means that he is going to blindly obey everything that donald trump says? that remains to be seen exactly how he executes this, but we are looking at someone who is much more of a loyalist been someone who is an independent voice coming in to bring new ideas to the trump administration. host: maryland, line for republicans. caller: hello. i was wondering, i think pete would be a good pick. look at lloyd austin. he disappeared for three days, no one knew where he was at. what did he do to get that job? did they fed him? guest: so secretary austin, who

with the defense secretary for the full four years here of the biden administration, he has extensive military background, a very traditional resume that you would expect in all of that, but he has been a target of republicans here. the caller mentioned the three days, this was a health issue that he had, didn't inform folks which raised issues. it really is a pretty stark contrast between what you would expect from a nominee, someone who's served in a high-level pentagon position, someone who has a lot of knowledge of the institution, someone who worked their way up, as opposed to hegseth who did serve in the national guard, don't want to denigrate his military service, but it is just not the same level of defense department bureaucracy and ministration and not the same level of high level of management of large groups that we've seen from those other nominees and secretaries in the past. host: mr. hegseth has spoken quite a bit about wokeness in

the military. what does he mean by that? guest: he said the military has lost its way in terms of not focusing just on lethality and focusing on shooting guns and getting rid of bad guys. there's a lot of controversy not just with him but between conservatives and democrats on capitol hill on this. but specifically he has criticized the repeal of the don't ask don't tell law, the decision to allow women in combat roles. a lot of these diversity programs put in place in the last four years and beyond that. and said that all of these are making the military weaker. military leaders have come out and set all these have made us stronger, they help with recruiting, a more diverse group of people who are working, better perspective, better ideas. mr. hegseth has walked back some of his comments in recent days. if you go back and read his books it's very inflammatory language. he suggested to some senators that he's not looking to repeal the ability for women to serve

in combat roles, he's not looking to kick people out of the military initially, but he's going to get questions on that today. what do you mean by woke is a great question for some of the democrats because they are going to say you're talking about getting rid of half of our recruiting policies, you're talking about ways that we are more of a white, male, traditional stereotypical military that maybe isn't appealing any more in a world where there is a lot of different security and challenges out there. host: when there's a transition, do key people usually leave for the exit doors just because they disagree with the person in charge and that is the case, could that happen this time? guest: there's a certain number of political positions that those folks will all leave, especially from the last time the president trump came in. it's just not typical for a lot of those traditions to stay in place. on the secretary of defense has stayed in place from time to time. i think in the transition from bush to obama with secretary gates.

but i think your question points more to those career staff, those folks who are required to be sending their resignations to be considered. we don't typically see a lot of turnover there. there's normal turnover. sometimes people will review and say maybe it is time for me, maybe i don't like this person as much. trump has really redefined this. this time there's all these rumors about what you require civil servants to sign loyalty pledges, what will it mean to be part of this? will there be checks and balances? last time people felt a lot of confidence serving under defense secretary mattis. i don't know if they would have that same confidence serving under a defense secretary pete hegseth because he doesn't have the same gravitas, and by design isn't supposed to have that same resume. he was designed to shake things up.

that could scare some folks away and say hey, do i want four more years of this or is it time for me to take my retirement and go figure out something else? host: this is leo shane joining us to talk about the hearing will see later today on c-span. 10:00 is when it is set to start. our coverage starting at 9:30. john is in connecticut, independent line. caller: good morning. did you ever wear the uniform? guest: i did not. caller: so how are you so critical of pete and others when you never wore the uniform like i did? give the man a chance. host: finisher thought. caller: my thought is give pete hegseth a chance like they gave lloyd austin. when you say loyalty, everybody that was under trump, biden administration was a loyalist. what is wrong with that happening for trump?

you want people who are going to defend your country, sir. host: john in connecticut. guest: i don't think hegseth i'm being overly critical of pete hegseth here, i'm trying to lay out that he is a very different kind of nominee than will be seen in the past but obviously there are a lot of values, a lot of things that he brings that president trump values here. that ability to be a strong face, strong voice. we've seen this with other trump nominees. he definitely liked the tv performance of that side of this. i don't mean that in a denigrating way. he sees that as an important way to get his message out and get that communicated. and to the loyalist points, that was the caller's word, i believe i'm trying to say here i don't think he's going to be independent from president trump here. we have seen some level of independence. for whatever criticisms you have of secretary austin, we know that there were some business

between him and president biden when he didn't report his health issues and when he had some conflict there. i don't think you will see that sort of thing with pete hegseth but i also don't think you're going to see if he pushed back the president trump comes in and says should be talk about invading mexico, should we talk about invading greenland after mark i think you're going to find a secretary who is trying to find solutions for that rather than offering counterbalanced arguments against it. host: we will hear next from cynthia in cleveland, ohio. morning. caller: yes, i would like to ask the guest one question. if you disagree strongly with trump on any issue, would you be comfortable saying that right now? would you be comfortable disagreeing with him on a public forum? guest: you mean as a candidate or as a reporter? caller: i mean in your position that you hold right now. guest: so i would say that as a

reporter i'm trying to call it down the middle either way. it's not really my opinion i'm trying to let folks know, just what is going on here and what is happening. there have been plenty of time that we pointed out where president trump has violated, has gone against the norms of what happened here. but look, i think in this case with this candidate it's a very unusual candidate but this is the kind of thing where reporters, you and i should be saying he is good or he is bad, we are just pointing out the differences in what we traditionally seen. we know that president trump is a nontraditional candidate. he's someone who been convicted of a felony, he's got a very different background than most presidents coming in here. we know that part of the appeal to the american public is that he is shaking things up, he is looking at things in a completely different way. so if not pete hegseth, i would

not expect them to go back and pick a very traditional candidate. he may go with a senator, he may go with someone, you heard ron desantis name. that would be a nontraditional picked, somebody with a little bit more experience, is managed entire state but still a very different pic than what we've seen from other past administrations. host: walk us to the process of what we will see today when it comes to actual hearings. guest: typically these can be a little sleepy for folks who cover them. this one is going to be a pretty high-profile and pretty crowded hearing from over there. but we usually get our opening statement from the chairman, from the ranking member's. and that a statement from the candidate, usually an introduction from someone who gives a brief overview of his resume, and then that nominee statement is a chance for him to sort of go through what he wants to be talking about, what he thinks the priorities are going to be. and then each member of the committee look at seven minutes to question him on whatever they

would like. it could be on relevant topics. we further democratic trying to coordinate their questions because there are so many things they want to bring up, they want to make sure they are not getting started on too many issues. the republicans could be bringing up, especially cases that are this high-profile, we had supporters of the candidate just say look i think you are great, congratulations, you've got my vote and that is pretty much it. since this is so high-profile, and since there are so many issues with the defense department and national security i would expect everyone to be using their full seven minutes. whether or not we will get a second round, i don't know. i would assume the chairman wicker is going to limit how much time democrats have to grill of pete hegseth, so we will see. then it is sort of up in the air when the committee will vote for that. we pray that there median vote scheduled for inauguration day in terms of seeing if he can

advance out of the committee. president trump has been pushing for quick action on this to see how quickly they can get him in place. i think we should have an idea by the end of the week whether or not who survive this nomination. it really may hinge on just a couple of republicans. host: if it goes to the full senate, the numbers work in his favor automatically? guest: you would think so if joni ernst has gone in favor of him. there may be as many as six or seven republican senators have concerns, but if they start see folks like joni ernst or susan collins fall in line and say no, my concerns have been called, i feel better about this, i have a feeling others will also go. by the same token, it would not surprise me if there are some republicans who say i don't have those questions answered. there's also the third possibility here that this just drags on for a little bit.

we sort of thought that because president-elect trump is pushing for a quick vote because everyone has been focused on this, we will see a quick vote. it's quite possible that the chairman and ranking member come back and say actually we need to have more conversations, we need to talk about some of these fbi reports that everyone has reviewed. we need a few more weeks here to talk about this, and we don't get any clear decision before inauguration day, maybe even the middle of next week. host: can you elaborate on the fbi report? guest: as of just now it is just those two, i believe. in past tradition, based in the ones to review these fbi reports. democrats have argued because of some of the high-profile nature of some of the controversies he or, because of the importance of the position he is nominated for, that it should be in the wider distributed. that there are at least some others to the quest parts.

there is precedent for seeing part of it or it being shared on some level, of the trump transition team has really pushed back saying let's follow the norms here, the norms are the chairman and the ranking member with this to make sure there is no gigantic red flag and then we move on, we don't have to share every bit of background detail and every little scandal with everybody who wants it. host: otis is in south carolina on the line for independence. good morning. >> good morning to you. i would just like to know how many secretaries of defense did trump have in his first administration. and i would like to know did they resign or were they fired by trump? because trump wants nothing but yes-men, and i think that is what is going to happen with hegseth or whatever his last

name is. could you tell me how many secretaries of defense trump had in his first administration? guest: i'm trying to remember. it is a little harder to keep count, so i believe it was four confirmed and then he had a couple acting in there as well. secretary mattis was his first one, probably the highest profile of the group, and he didn't resign over conflicts he had with the trump administration, with president trump himself and just feeling that he wasn't acting properly, wasn't listening to the advice here. and that is going to be one of democrats the concerns, can he be the one who says hey, there are certain ways that u.s. troops can be used, they are not -- this was one of the high-profile issues of general milley, that he was a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the idea of using u.s. military folks against protesters on domestic soil. that is a big no-no, that is

against military rules, but trump is pushing for it and there were folks were pushing back against it will those folks pushing back against him a b in the room this time or will pete hegseth be as the caller said, not me, a yes-man, someone who is a loyalist. and that also what part of the country wants? there was a lot of turmoil in the first trump administration over this because it felt like he was taking some traditional pix and general james mattis, very highly respected, long military career, at first people loved him but then when he was pushing back on from you had a lot of folks who turned on him and said he is not executing what the president has asked for. we voted for the president, we didn't vote for the secretary of defense. a large portion of the country says yeah, maybe somebody was going to tell trump i'm going to what you want to do, that is what i want from the president's cabinet picks. the other side critic's are

saying there has got to be somebody in the room who has got to be a counterbalance. you got to understand the ramifications that might happen if you go against these norms. host: from catherine in vermont, democrats line, last call. caller: good morning. thank you for your time this morning. john from connecticut called in and made a comment about giving hegseth a chance like we did lloyd austin. there is a thing called acumen that lloyd austin possesses more in his pinky fingernail then pete had staff. and that is something that i want in the secretary of defense. so giving him a chance and making that comparison to lloyd austin, who has more gravitas, who has more military experience

and particularly acumen in the military is who i or someone like him as someone who i would prefer. and i don't see that. so yes, john in connecticut, understand that there is a stark distance year and thank you for making that stark difference explicit here. thank you and have a great day. guest: i think that summarizes where we are at with this. this is a nontraditional picked, somebody does not have the pentagon resume that you would expect in here, but to the earlier colors point, it's also somebody who may be comes in with fresh ideas and shake things up. that can be good, that can be scary. if you want to renovate your house you can paint it or you can burn it down. both of those have a very different house at the end.

we were going to get someone who comes in with new ideas and can help with the transition process and can help with recruiting issues that the military has dealt with, or you could get somebody who comes in and has rhetoric that scares people away and actually makes the military weaker because we've got a smaller force, it is hard to recruit and hard to have that public. i think that is the core of what we are going to hear today, those two levels of questions. assuming that we get the policy side and we don't just get waylaid into some of the controversies and his past indiscretions. host: we were supposed to have another hearing today featuring doug collins to become had veterans affairs. guest: that is going to be held next tuesday thankfully so i don't have to be in two places at once. it's expected to be much less controversial hearing than today, but the cumbersome delays in fbi paperwork, they could not have been hearing today. senator jerry moran, the chairman of the committee made it clear that this is not any sort of indictment or attack on doug collins, this is all a problem with the fbi.

and we fritter us with several of the nominees now. paperwork is not in, they don't want to move ahead without it. doug collins next tuesday, a nice big hearing talking about his past experience with the veterans committee. host: you can see our guest's work at militarytimes.com. we will come up next in here from massachusetts democrat lori trahan and who is going to talk about legislation that is expected on the war, taking a look at the topic of transgendered athletes. later on in the program, ryan walker on their efforts to ensure that president trump's nominees for the cabinet get approved. their efforts coming up on "washington journal." ♪ start out with a presidential inauguration severed january 20,

watch the conclusion of the american history tv stories historic inaugural speeches. this into inaugural speeches from franklin roosevelt through barack obama. saturday, here inaugural speeches by president bill clinton in 1993. >> there is nothing wrong with america that cannot be cured by what is right with america. >> president george w. bush in 2001. >> and this is my solemn pledge. i will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. >> and president barack obama in 2009. >> the challenges we face are real. they are serious and they are many. they will not be met easily or in a short span of time, but know this, america, they will be met. >> watch historic inaugural speeches on american three tv, on c-span 2. >> attention middle and high school students across america,

it's time to make your voice heard. they can inspire change, raise awareness and make an impact. your documentaries and enter this years question your message to the president, what issues 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 one hundred thousand dollars 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 creativity and hard work. enter your submissions today. scan the code or visit studentcam.org for all the details on how to enter. the deadline is january 20, 2025. be up-to-date in the latest in

publishing with book tv's podcast about books. industry news and trends their insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, the free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. washington journal continues. host: representative lori trahan joining us, democrat from massachusetts, cochair of the democratic policy and communications committee and also a member of the energy and commerce committee. thanks for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: legislation later today specific we looking at an aspect of the athlete world. what is that legislation? guest: it's titled protecting girls and women in sports, but i wish what we were talking about were the issues that some the

folks in my district want me to work on, which is reducing their out-of-pocket cost, making sure that they can afford to buy a home. this is an issue that republicans have really latched onto and put real money behind in order to make an issue. in the instances of transgender athletes playing sports is just so rare, so the fact that in their second week of power, house republicans are choosing to prioritize this issue i think is something that i can't really explain to folks at home. is there a credible concern of transgender athletes playing in some elite sports or competitive sports? yes, but we have sports governing agencies who govern fairness and safety and ensure that. we saw that this past summer in the paris olympic games, where sport organizations that updated their roles in swimming and

boxing and track and field and so many other sports. i think what i'm really concerned about the consequences of this legislation because it is essentially a federal takeover of all sports at all levels. and the consequences are dangerous for my young daughters who play sports because it any creep wanted to question if they were a female my daughters would be subject to an invasive line of questioning or worse, inspection by a stranger, and adults. this is alarming. we will have a debate this afternoon on the legislation which i intend to be a part of. i am the only woman who played division i sports in college so i think that it was important that we don't overreach as a

federal government. i don't think washington politicians should be deciding who gets to play sports and who doesn't. host: the act if it were to go into law would amend title ix. it would prohibit schools from allowing transgender female athletes to participate in athletic programs or activities " that is designated for women or girls" in but also defined sex as being solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth. what is wrong with those specifically? guest: in large part there is no distinction between any level of support. basically what they are doing is they are treating college athlete, which mind you, there are a handful of transgender college athletes in the hundreds of thousands of participate today. this is just a very narrow issue to focus on in your second week of congress. but it would treat those athletes the same as it would a

10-year-old girl who wants to play soccer on the weekends with her friends. surely we can do better. i don't think that this is a place were washington politicians, some of whom have never played competitive sports, and they are really using it for attention grabbing headlines and creating fear vs. the sports governing agencies which we have on the state level, which we have on a national level, certainly international governance as well. this is just one of those issues where congress should not interfere with these agencies, these governing agencies, which by the way, are comprised of experts. some of these rules that have been updated have been done by people who play the sports themselves, who conjunction scientists, athletic federations, and human rights organizations because they have to get it right.

and so i think that is the path we want to continue down, not this one where cause more damage and more harm to all girls. our guest with us until 9:00 and if you want to ask her questions, (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us you can do that at (202) 748-8003. you mentioned your background in college athlete, elaborate on that. guest: i played division i volleyball at georgetown. i was so fortunate to have that opportunity to play, it changed the trajectory of my life. i grew up in a family that lived paycheck-to-paycheck in college was always a tense conversation, but i loved sports, i worked hard. i grew in my haskell years which also helped, and i was able to play the sport that i loved.

for four years and highly competitive levels, and i talk about sports a lot because we know the benefits of sports. people learn teamwork, you build confidence, you learn resilience. he developed lifelong friendships. so it is such an important aspect of our culture, and it is one that i think really long and hard about especially when it comes to fairness and safety. i would much prefer congress to be talking about title ix and how we closed some of the loopholes that prevent women from participating in college athletics. i'd love for us to be talking about how women's sports has really taken off in the last 10 years, and we seen women starting to get compensated through their name, image and

likeness, and have really nurtured an incredible following and a fan base. that is something that has changed dramatically over my lifetime if something that my daughters get great pleasure in watching women play sports on their tv. so i think that of the exciting part of women's sports and that is what we should be celebrating. post: in the background how does it inform the arguments he probably heard that a female should not be playing in a male sport? guest: i am not going to invalidate the concerns of the few and the rare instances where a transgender athletes playing in college maybe transitioned after puberty, maggie hassan physical advantages. that is a debate that we can have, that is something that i know the sports governing agencies are looking at.

and they are really mindful of how to update their rules and regulations to ensure safety and fairness above all else. what is being swept up with all of that is that this would ban all transgender athletes at all ages, and so it is treating that college athlete the same as it would a 10-year-old who wants to play soccer with her friends on the weekends. and i will just tell you, the more dangerous aspect of this is how they are going to implement it. i have to leave my family every week and come to washington to talk to them on facetime, talk to them on the phone. sometimes they are describing to me their fears around doing these drills in school in case there is a mass shooting. i can't imagine also now having to talk to my daughter about somebody who needs to check to make sure they are in fact a girl.

think about what we are opening ourselves up to. for all parents, for all young girls to have to prove if anybody can lodge a complaint, allegation, any creek could say i don't believe you and now my cane-year-old has to endure an invasive letter questioning or worse. this just doesn't make sense which is like congress shouldn't be making decisions on this. host: good start in massachusetts. janet on the line for democrats. janet, good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. yes, i would like to point out a couple of things. number one is that when someone transgenders, it is the sexual component. of course there is the hormonal, all of that, but they still have the bones of a man and a woman,

they still have the muscle mass. i would love to see, this may be the solution, transgender leagues. let them play amongst themselves. it's not fair for the women, it's not fair for the men. that's my take. guest: thank you, janet. look, i think the reason why we don't hear more about this and people come up to me in the grocery store about acting on this issue with urgency is because it is so rare and most people don't even have an interaction or inexperience with this. one thing that we did see just this past summer was so many of these international sports agencies update their rules and regulations to ensure safety, or to ensure fairness.

he saw that with the paris olympic games. so i do think that the work is already being done my argument is with trust those decisions with governing bodies that are set up an comprised of experts to continue that work, not put it in the hands of politicians. host: there is a viewer off of x who asks laws already exist to protect athletes, do any of these different between public-school and other private organizations? guest: exactly, there are governing sports agencies that run from your stately into your scholastic sports agencies. i know in massachusetts we have the nia. there's the ncaa, and then there's the international organizations that govern specific sports like swimming and bicycling in track and field, and they have updated their laws, their rules, as many others are continuing and in the process of doing.

so certainly at every level there is a sports governing agency that will make those decisions based on the level of sport. host: new jersey, republican line, you are next up. caller: good morning pedro, good morning representative freehand. my question is i'm a republican and is the republican party overreacting when they say that boys are competing in women's sports for that a boy could end up defeating a biological male in sports? that happened with riley gained and it might happen with other women, but as you said, it minuscule. it is not that high. and so my question is are they pursuing a not that popular

thing, and what is the agenda, or excuse me, what is the alternative, because if you don't have an alternative, it's really hard to come back strong and come off as more popular. guest: so thank you for the question, comment and i think you are right, i go to my local supermarket every weekend, i do my grocery shopping, and the things that i get stopped in the aisle to talk about is the increased price of the grocery bill and the fact that one of my constituents children can afford to rent or buy a home. these are the issues that the american public wants us to work on and prioritize. you are right, this is definitely an overreach, and overreaction.

there are 10 transgender athletes playing college sports today out of 510,000. surely the ncaa and the sports governing agencies that already exist are equipped with the people and the expertise to make these decisions and to update these laws. should this has been pre-much fabricated by house republicans to instill fear in parents and communities and i'm not going to sit here and say that there isn't a credible concern for some competitive teams and athletes. i get it, i played division i volleyball. there is validity in arguing that a transgender woman

post-puberty who transitions may have an advantage. but those laws and those rules are already being updated to deal with fairness and safety in all of the sports that we watch. so i think to make it so broad to just have an all-out ban is really, is really going to not just hurt communities and divide them in a place where sports instills joy and participation in friendships, but is also going to set up really dangerous consequences for all young girls who just want to play sports and now are faced with having to prove that they are, in fact, a girl. host: south carolina representative nancy mace mention last year about legislation that would restrict where transgender people can go as far as using facilities.

what is the status of that and what of the expected pushback from democrats? guest: if i spend all my time reacting to representatives like nancy mace, i would lose complete site of the reason why the people of my district in massachusetts sent me to congress. i don't get distracted by the hateful rhetoric that is just used for headline grabbing and attention seeking. i am focused on making sure that the people of my district can afford to pay their bills, to get ahead, to give their children a better life than they have. i used sort of the example i grew up in a family that lived paycheck-to-paycheck, and we really did not take our heads up

to focus on that washington is maybe debating. we didn't have the luxury. we were working on making sure we could have a roof over our head and on the table. and that is the plight of most americans in our country. they do not want to hear a debate around hate and things that aren't really affecting them. they want us to focus on the issues that matter most to them, so i think it is going to be a challenge in this congress for sure, but i think democrats are really focused on what people care most about, and that is improving their economic situation. host: for representative lori trahan who joins us, the tear from valerie new york, democrats line. thanks for calling, you are on. caller: hi, representative. and asking because i was a college athlete and my daughter

is hoping to play in college as well, and i know that just with all of the controversies with the swimmer leah thomas, the runner from south africa, i have concerns about the differences, and i was in the military, i was a helicopter pilot in the military, i know what it's like to be a male vs. a female in the military and the differences and having to prove yourself as well. but what are your concerns with the fact that leah thomas when she transitioned was winning every single race just like --, and there's concerns. i wouldn't want my daughter to compete with women who transitioned because there is a difference in the mail body in the female body in the hormones, especially when you've gotten to that level, transitioning to high school. and i am very pro-trans, i know people the trans kids. i don't want that to be differentiation, but there is a

difference when it comes to competition. what are your feelings on that because i want to be inclusive but there are so many things we have to consider. guest: like you, i've talked to a lot of parent to approach this from a very rational standpoint. it doesn't come from a place of hate. they are not anti-trans, but there is a credible concern when there is a physical advantage that is presented in competitive sports. especially as you get older. so look, i think the international governing agencies that cover swimming already and track and field and the others that i've mentioned are updating their rules so that they can ensure safe and fair competition. there are athletes like your daughter, i'm sure, like you who

train really hard, and they want to be assured that on game day, the competition is going to be fair and safe. and i agree with you, and i've been a proponent of ensuring that that continues. that is a decision for an expert governing sports body, of which we have many. we have international organizations that have already started that process, and it was on full display with the paris limbic system at summer. they are going to update the laws as necessary. what i'm worried about is that if you have a blanket ban, you're basically telling 10-year-old girls, trans girls who want nothing but to play baby weekend soccer for their friends that they can't play, and that they can't have the same opportunities playing sports at a young age with all

of those attributes that you just described that our young girls have always had the ability to do. i don't think that this is the right call and i don't think washington politicians should take away the ability for sports governing bodies continue the worse. host: this is dan from michigan saying washington should be making rules about local sports, why is there a title ix at all? guest: title ix is such an important piece of legislation. if not for title ix i wouldn't have been able to get a scholarship and lay volleyball in college. title ix has opened the door for so many women to play the sport that they love and frankly, to really keep raising the standard

for sports across the board. if you just look at the last couple of years where women's softball tournament, the vast alternate, the volleyball tournament, they have really attracted enormous amounts of fans. in some cases, more than men's sports. and i think when you talk about college sports, women's sports is where we are going to see the growth. what paved the way for that is title ix. and so it is such an important aspect of making sure women have access to those same opportunities. and if anything, we need to be strengthening title ix to ensure that those opportunities exist for women. >> college athletes have always been the question if they should be paid for their services or not. where you stand on this? guest: i think that an il has been a really exciting development.

i've written legislation with senator chris murphy in the senate to ensure that as we perceive that players have that right to earn off their name, image and likeness. it has been very exciting for sports. some of the development that we've seen in the last couple of years for women, not really lucrative deals. it is great to see that i always use the example we've come such a long way, there's no such thing as amateur sports anymore in college. it will jeopardize my amateur status. for someone living paycheck-to-paycheck that would have been a nice way for me to have made money and also nurture a future generation of

volleyball players. so think of how far we've come now where not only are women attracting more young women to their sport, and just being in several role models, i think there is a great development. there are going to the issues that come up with the ncaa and the sports governing agencies are going to have to deal with in terms of how we may be rain in some of the things that we've seen in the last couple of years. but do i think sports is better off today than it was when i played or even yesterday? absolutely. host: do you think republicans can get on board with what you just said? guest: i hope so. all you have to do is talk for a few minutes to my colleagues and people are so passionate about this.

everybody watches college's their kids. they follow the tournament. so i think there was an opportunity and i'm always hopeful that we are going to find common ground. i tell you, the position i take it i just want that legislation to be pro player. they are the ones who work so hard, they give up so much in order to play the sport that they love, and they are the ones who should be at the center of that debate. host: one more call, bonnie is in iowa, republican line. caller: good morning. i'd like to address your position that allowing males in the female sports is what provides opportunity. there is already opportunity for everyone who wants to play sports, and that opportunity lies in two paths. if you are male, the male team. if you are female you participate on female teams. and that is the whole premise of

title ix. if there were title ix and the right women's teams, you know that very few if any women would have the opportunity to participate in athletics at the highest level. it is not fair to women to say your feelings don't matter, the feelings of this 6'4" biological male who is naked next to you in the female locker room, their feelings matter. women's feelings, women's experiences matter. when you said your daughters could be subject to invasive exams, all as a take -- all it takes is a person to forget or cheek swab to determine sex. sex is binary. host: i apologize. you made your point. guest: thank you, bonnie. what we want you to take away from the conversation is that this is not an area where

congress or politicians in washington should be deciding who gets to play sports, and -- because we have governing bodies to update. they are working diligently on this. these are folks who have dedicated their lives to their sport. they care deeply about fairness and safety and the integrity of the sport they oversee. i think the thing that gets missed in the debate is that those rules are being updated. this is an active conversation. internationally, nationally. i think those governing structures are the ones to make these calls, not politicians in washington. host: co-chair of the democratic policy and give indications --

communications committee. first, this program. we hope you come back. that pete hegseth hearing starts in half an hour before he moves over to c-span3. joining us next, brian walker on efforts to ensure president elect trump's nominees get approved. we have that conversation when washington journal continues. hope you had a good time. ♪ >> witness democracy unfiltered for the c-span. experience history as it and full with live coverage this month as republicans take control of both chambers of congress and a new chapter begins with the swearing in of the 47th president on monday,

january 20. tune in for coverage of the inauguration as donald trump takes the oath of office, becoming president of the united states. stay with c-span this month for comprehensive, live, unfiltered coverage of the 119th congress and presidential inauguration. c-span. democracy unfiltered. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, find it any time online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. the timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span'ss point of interest -- c-span's point of interest. >> c-spanshop.org.

browse products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. bliss in the best-selling nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the afterwards podcast. on q&a, wide-ranging conversations with nonfiction authors. episodes are weekly, hour-long conversations that feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. the about books podcast takes you behind-the-scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with insider interviews, industry updates and best sellers lists.

find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app, or wherever you get your podcasts and on her website, c-span.org -- our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: this is ryan walker with heritage action, their executive vice president. talking about the incoming trump administration and the nominees the president-elect has chosen. how does heritage action differ from heritage foundation? guest: heritage action is a c4 nonprofit organization. we recruit and activate folks around the country to advocate for conservative policy solutions in washington, d.c. that is different than the heritage foundation, a c3 educational nonprofit. host: the advocacy has turned to the nominees of president trump, making sure they get in. guest: it is a great question. we started in december talking

about the nominees and about the timing of the cabinet confirmation process and needing to get his cabinet officials into their offices as soon as possible. we have been advocating across the country in a number of states for the senate to quickly consider these folks and get them into the seats. we believe heritage action -- at heritage action president trump has 18 months to accomplish a significant portion of his agenda and he can get congress behind him and put forward the policy solutions he advocated for. it has to get done quickly. host: pete hegseth and the hotseat today with the senate armed services committee. what is your level of confidence of him being approved? guest: i think he will be approved. we will see the democrats raise points we have seen and heard in the media in the past six to eight weeks. ultimately he will get confirmed. he is a warrior, war fighter.

he's been deployed to afghanistan, iraq and gitmo. he has a bronze star. a combat infantry badge. his record is phenomenal and i think ultimately he will be confirmed. host: are the democrats not worthy of consideration when you hear about some of the issues mr. hegseth has faced? guest: he is a disruptor. when you come to washington, much like trump did in 2016, the knives come out for folks like that. we will hear questions to mr. hegseth and he will answer those questions for the american people and the senators who will consider him. host: some people you are focusing on. an ad campaign focusing on states such as south dakota where senator john thing is -- thune is.

guest: we looked at who had come out in support or opposition or not made statements related to these nominees as of december. we decided on those states to soft appeal to those republicans encouraging them and showing their support for their constituencies, their voters in those states. the campaign we started in december was a petition. we garnered signatures and got over 100,000 people to sign the petition. we will deliver that to the senate. a soft appeal. less so on the hard dollars and threats. it is just an appeal for them to do their job. host: senator thune, the majority leader. you are focused on senator mcconnell, the former minority leader. lisa murkowski of alaska. the soft appeals. why john thune? guest: we want him to be aware of our efficacy and desire for

the timeline to be truncated to the smallest amount of time possible to get these folks into their seats. historically, the timeline for nominees to get through this process has exploded. it has doubled since the reagan era. we are very pleased with john thune's schedule for the senate. 180 days this year, historically more than quite some time. he is threatening to work on fridays which the senate has historically not done. we are very encouraged but we want to remind him this is the top priority or should be the top priority. host: susan collins of maine is one of those. one focus today is doing ernst of iowa. -- joni ernst of iowa. guest: she had meetings with pete hegseth. in the second meeting she subsequently issued a statement of general support for mr. hegseth. we are continuing to remind her and other senators that time is

of the essence. host: are you concerned there will be pushback against the president's nominees? guest: i don't think so. the responses we have seen from senators on all the nominees across the board has been welcomed. we have been very pleased with the response. time is of the essence. we can't have nominees sitting in the senate for weeks or months on end waiting to be confirmed. we have to get the work started and we have have agency has in place. host: ryan walker joining us for this conversation. the phone lines are available. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans independents, (202) 748-8002. to text us your thoughts or questions, (202) 748-8003. in the first 100 days is there a wish list from your organization of what you want to see from the trump administration?

guest: there's a host of executive actions the president will take that we are highly encouraging, namely on the border and over terming some of the biden era rules or reinstituting some of the rules from the first trump administration. working on that question, first and foremost that is the top reality. to address the flow of illegal immigrants across the southern border. the economy needs to be addressed but i think that will come with reconciliation and continuation of the tax cups and jobs act -- tax cuts and jobs act, and a reduction in federal spending which is needed and sorely needed to do all that. those are the things that come to mind most immediately. there's a lot of regulatory activity that needs to be taken by the executive branch to reduce the size, scope and frequency of how corporate america, small businesses and entrepreneurs have to deal with the federal government and the regulations.

those are some things they can do immediately. congress will have to get its act together and start passing legislation. host: one piece of legislation, and i think you brought it up with the idea funding. they passed a cr in december and now again they are faced with one of march. what is the approach you would like to see from congress? guest: our efficacy is for a reduction in federal spending. we would like to see discretionary lines come down. that means cutting things like earmarks and that whole process within the congress. i don't know how that will inevitably play out in march. that is the funding deadline, the cr, the continuing resolution we are under expires in march. they come back to that question with another cr. depending on the gravity and the heft of the legislative activity that surrounds government funding. they may push that question to later in the year or may have a

series of what we call minibus es to direct agencies. host: we saw spending come up in december. that was dropped before the cr was passed. this congress have a will to reduce spending? guest: i think they do. members will be looking at multiple avenues to do that. reconciliation has been a big topic. there are multiple strategies that have been laid up by both the house and senate. one bill versus two bill strategy. government spending and cutting and reducing federal outlays is the topic of conversation within reconciliation. members are looking at government funding, and we have not been successful reducing through that venue, and reconciliation. host: this is ryan walker joining us from heritage action. jordan in florida, democrats line. go ahead. caller: thank you guys for letting me on here.

one of the first things i want to bring up is the fact that it has been years since pete hegseth was part of the military. is there anyway you can actually reassure the american people this pick for defense secretary is going to be the right pick considering it's been years since this man was in service. he's been on fox news for years. i'm not sure this will be the best course of action for the trump administration. is there a way to reassure the american people pete hegseth is a good take for defense secretary considering his history with sexual assault? guest: i think the warrior mentality pete hegseth will bring to the department of defense is sorely needed. the united states needs to reestablish deterrence, strategic deterrence, which is something pete will talk about in his opening statement in committee, which is coming up soon. he has been deployed to

afghanistan, iraq and guantanamo bay. he has a bronze star. he has been in the world of veterans affairs and war fighting since his time as an infantryman. i think he will bring that mentality back to the department of defense. something we believe heritage and heritage action that the department has gotten too far away from. i absolutely think he will bring that tally back. he will focus on the war fighter. he will focus on lethality. he will focus on weapons systems and procurement. the defense base needs to be bolstered. we need innovation and new actors coming into that space beyond the big three. he has all these great ideas and i think he's going to bring them to the department of defense. host: 15 minutes until that starts at the senate armed services committee. the room starting to fill up. you can see some of the action plan concerning pete hegseth later on today.

ron up next, republican line. he's in vermont. caller: good morning. i would like to say that there have been certainly more than a couple presidents. i can think of kennedy and bill clinton who had questionable discussions, sexually or whatever. i really liked what they did for the country. i don't believe anything like that should really enter into qualifications for the job. guest: i think he will be able to respond to those questions in committee today. the democrats will be asking those questions. they have made statements to the press talking about that issue. he will be able to address them for the american people and for the senators who will vote to either confirm or deny his post. host: there was an op-ed by greg

kelly, the concerns he had. he's a former military guy. "national secure deregulated -- regulations have made clear for decades that individuals susceptible to coercion cannot hold sensitive positions. hegseth's admission -- as secretary of defense, his response to bill this be infinitely more critical, and his adversaries exponentially more dangerous." what he think about that assessment? guest: we don't know we don't know. we don't know -- we don't know what we don't know. we don't know the details behind these claims. the person in question signed an nda. we don't know all those details. i assume democrats will get into these questions. i think they will bring of quotes exactly like that. they will ask him pointedly in committee what his response to those allegations are.

we will hear that today and we will hear his side of the story. when we in the media it's been a trial by media up to this point. pete has not been able to articulate his version of the story. we will hear that today and i'm encouraged to hear it. host: danny from south carolina, independent line. caller: howery? -- how are you? i have a couple of questions. i'm a service-connected disabled veteran. i'm also a woman. first i would like to know the difference between a soft touch that the heritage does compared to a hard touch. number two, you said you were pleased with the schedule. do you think 30 minutes is appropriate? number three, what you say to the women like myself who experienced military sexual trauma? it is one of the most significant things women in the military actually undergo. pete hegseth -- i had security

clearance. he will not get that clearance if he were in the military today. why do you think he deserves to come into .6 million employees -- a $2.6 million employees? guest: i will adjust the first couple of points. a soft appeal as efficacy the senate in particular republicans need to get working. they need to have these hearings, have the votes, discharge these nominees from committee and have them voted on on the floor in a timely manner. the timeline for confirmation of nominees has doubled since the ronald reagan era. we need to truncate the timeline back to 30 days or less. a heart appeal from heritage action would be spending money in those states to oppose or define a new candidate to run in those senate seats, which is not something we are doing now. we're trying to appeal to those sitting senators without

advocating for someone else to come in or an opponent to file. on the questions on pete, the committee structures the hearings the way they structure them. there have been significant amount of meetings between pete hegseth an individual senators. all these questions have been addressed. joni ernst in particular has asked pete hegseth pointedly questions run sexual assault in the military. she is going to make sure whomever the department of defense secretary is addresses this issue. it is one of the most -- top priorities for senator ernst. i have no doubt she will hold the secretary of dod to account on that issue. i think she will be working with pete hegseth and the team coming in to be able to do that. again, on the background checks

of the fbi and questions related to his background, i think he will answer those questions today. i think he has the capability to run the department of defense and focus again on the war fighter rather than the bureaucracy of the department. host: catherine in michigan. you are next up. caller: hello. i have not so much a question but a statement. i am, as a woman with three daughters, very excited about the nomination of pete hegseth. getting some of the bureaucracy out of our departments of defense is the only option we have with the war burning everywhere across this country. now statements saying we have chinese super cells in united states just tells you our government has not been operating in a defensive posture

of the people. we have been failed on every level. as far sexual assault claims, we have had a president for four years whose son was -- prostitution in human trafficking. god knows biden cannot stop sniffing little girls. guest: the department has gotten away from lethality and were fighting. we need to have innovation. there is conflict breaking up across the globe. the middle east. china threatening to invade taiwan. iran acting dangerously. there is a lot. ukraine and russia is a big concern for the department of defense. we have seen drawdown authority be given to the president of the united states who has sent munitions and arms over to conflict zones across the world without building up and

bolstering our own domestic industrial base. we don't have the ability or capacity to develop and build and make the artillery rounds being shipped over to ukraine. we need someone to come in and focus on the war fighting, the lethality, the ability of the department to respond to any and all situations that may arise. over the next four years and over the next couple of decades we need to be thinking far out into the future, more innovation, more small players in the industrial base. i think pete hegseth will bring all of that. host: not too long ago that house minority leader hakeem jeffries and democrats talked about the elections and the idea of republicans having a mandate with the election of the president-elect. i want to play his comments and get your reaction. [video] >> can this nero congress and despite the claims of some of my republican colleagues who have spent a lot of time in the last two weeks talking about some big

massive mandate, i'm looking forward. that does not mean we don't have to make adjustments to make sure we can get beyond fighting house republicans with a national wave on top of us to withdraw. the question about this notion of some mandate to make massive far right extreme policy changes, it doesn't exist. it doesn't exist. in the new congress, for anything to happen, particularly as it relates to an enlightened spending agreement or ensuring that america does not default on our debt and crash the economy and hurt everyday americans for the first time in our nations history, it is clear house republicans cannot do it on their own. host: that was back in november. your thoughts? guest: kamala harris and the democrats have the lowest

turnout they have had since 1988. republicans won a majority of the popular vote for the first time since 2004. this is a clear mandate from the people. we have seen the response from democrats. there is not a resistance movement against trump. i saw this morning that the metro here in d.c. will offer inaugural metro passes with donald trump's image on the to goers to the inaugural ceremonies. that is a stark change from years past. i think democrats, despite what they are saying at the podium, understand the american people are against their agenda and the left bend the democrats have taken the last 10 years. host: given the narrow numbers, what are your concerns about republicans reaching out to democrats? guest: there will be some of that. it will be a margin of one or two give or take depending on the timing of some of these departures from the house. listen.

congress get a lot done in a bipartisan manner. it will be a lot of that. in the house in particular there will be a lot like the senate has been for a number of years with each individual member of the house able to make their own decisions and claims and advocacy and appeals for what policies they want to see on the floor. it will be quite the time to watch the house. host: robert in san francisco, democrats line for ryan walker from heritage action. caller: good morning to both of you. i was calling to ask mr. walker since matt gaetz is the -- for all the nominees, i wonder whether he would have voted for matt gaetz? host: can you clarify that please? caller: matt gaetz is the -- in

terms of all the nominations. i'm wondering whether or not mr. walker would have voted for matt gaetz as attorney general. guest: i appreciate the sentiment. i'm not a duly elected senator. i don't have that authority. i think pam bondi is an excellent nominee to be attorney general. the question on that gaetz has sort of ended. he has taken himself out of the running. he's a news host on another -- on newsmax. i think that question has been solved by now. host: susan joins us from florida, republican line. caller: how are you? host: go ahead. caller: a couple of things. the people have spoken. they put in trump because we need to save our country. number two, pete hegseth is wonderful. i don't think they would bring

up the sexual content about what was going on, which was ridiculous, because then we will have to bring a bill clinton. we do want to do that. let's put him in. let him go and get rid of what is in there and get rid of the woke. i think you. guest: thank you for this comment. we are excited for the confirmation hearing to kick off today and hope to see quick confirmation the week of the inauguration for these national security nominees that need to get in place. conflict is breaking out across the globe. united states has been a leader across the international stage for decades. we need to reestablish our authority, our leadership for the international community and show these nations who are acting dangerously they need to get back in line. host: the hearing is set the start in a few minutes. you are seeing the room filled up. we will let you watch that and

play out until the hearing starts. at 10:00, the house of representatives comes in. switch over to toc3 -- switch over to c3 to continue the conversation hearing for pete hegseth. caller: if you are thinking we need pete hegseth to remove woke elements from the military, yc not able to come back on board as a consultant or have president trump enforce this culture from the top down? have someone qualified to manage the 3 million people at the dod and the billions of dollars of assets. why is pete hegseth supposed to be in charge that as a fox news host? guest: i will go back to his record as a war fighter. multiple deployments. these not just a fox news host. please run multiple nonprofit organizations and has quite the storied resume. i think he is the right person

to go into the department of defense. certainly donald trump will lead those efforts. he will be intimately involved in any change that comes to the department of defense. you need someone like pete to drive those changes will president trump is not able to do that because he's the president of the united states. his attention has to be diffused. host: ryan walker. you can find their work at heritageaction.com. he's executive vice president. guest: thanks for having me on. host: this hearing featuring pete hegseth just about to start. it will --we will let it play out as pete hegseth enters the armed services committee room. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]