♪ host: good morning. it's friday, january 24. as promised during the campaign, trump has signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship, revoking the right

of children born in the united states to be a citizen regardless of the legal status of the parents. however, yesterday a judge in washington state ordered a temporary stop, calling the executive order blatantly unconstitutional. give us a call this morning to share your opinion on that. if you support ending birthright citizenship, call (202) 748-8000 . if you oppose the ban, it's (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. you can send a text to (202) 748-8003. include your first name, city, and state. and you can post your comments on social media. facebook.com/c-span and x @cspanwj. welcome to today's "washington journal." starting with a portion from monday, the oval office were trump assigning the

executive order and gave a few comments to the press. [video clip] >> the next order relates to the birthright citizenship. >> that's a good one. birthright. big one. >> tell us about that one. [indiscernible] >> could be. we think we have good grounds. but you could be right. we will find out. it's ridiculous. we are the only country in the world that does this with birthright, as you know. it's absolutely ridiculous. we will see. we think we have good grounds. people have wanted to do this for decades. host: here is what "the washington post" says -- which countries have birthright citizenship and what is it? trump has claimed that the u.s. is alone in offering citizenship as a birthright.

more than 30 countries do, but some have rolled it back." this is from "the washington examiner," "federal judge halts trump birthright citizenship order nationwide." this is a federal judge in seattle, a reagan appointee who called the order blatantly unconstitutional . "frankly, i have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order." here is the washington state attorney general, nick brown, yesterday, on why he joined other attorneys in filing this lawsuit. >> i'm thrilled that the judge issued a restraining order directing the united states government to take no further action in initiating this un-american executive order attempting to eliminate birthright citizenship in america.

this is step one, but to hear the judge saved from the bench that he has never seen something so blatantly unconstitutional sets the tone for the seriousness of the effort. host: the judge has ordered a two week halt until this plays out in court. this is "usa today," reporting that donald trump has said "obviously we will appeal it on the birthright citizenship restraining order." he said this yesterday. "they put it before a judge in seattle, right, so no surprises with that." taking your calls this morning, question is about birthright citizenship, the attempt to ban it. if you supporthe presidential action on that, it's (202) 748-8000. ifou are against it, it's (202) 748-01

if you are not sure, we had that line, (202) 748-8002. we will start with harold in melbourne, florida, on the line for opposing. hello, harold. caller: good morning. the reason i oppose it is that this is obviously in the constitution of the united states under the 14th amendment. the president of the united states is supposed to uphold and defend the constitution. here he is placing himself above the constitution, stating that as the president, he can change the rules himself with an executive order. it's obviously unconstitutional. he doesn't seem to care about the constitution. i find this abhorrent as an american citizen. somebody that is supposed to defend and uphold the constitution would ignore it and blatantly go against it. host: would you be in favor of

changing the constitution? caller: i have no problem with the american citizens or legislature amending the constitution. but when the constitution says we are a country of law and order, i think we have to go with the laws as they are until we work to change the laws in a lawful manner, not through executive order. which it is just -- it blows my mind that people watching this shrugged their shoulders to this autocratic dictatorial tendency of trump to just say -- whatever i say is the right way and to hell with the constitution. host: got it. let's take a look at the 14th amendment, section one, "all

persons born and naturalized the united states are citizens of the united states and state within which the rid. no state shall abridge or make any law that eliminates or deprives any person of life, liberty, or propithout due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ." here is joe in ellijay, georgia, support. go ahead, joe. caller: i've been watching and calling in for 30 years, y'all do a fantastic job. i want to say i totally support the ban. i support everything trump is doing. he's the best leader in world history. we will have the best stock market and economy in the history of the world, i'm so fired up, i'm having a hard time sleeping, happy days are here again. that's my theme song. host: rory, rancho margarita,

california on the line for oppose. caller: i oppose mainly for practical reasons. if it becomes illegal, that's one thing, but if things stay that way, i believe trump is going to make american born babies stay here and force their parents back to their home countries. i also believe that if the parents choose to take their babies with them, there's going to have to be something set up for when they are a team to america. in other words, the whole thing really rests on chain migration. they don't want their babies here because then other relatives, all the way down along the road with it. so you might have a bunch of orphanages where the mother have to -- might have to determine if the baby's left ear is an american or tries to come back 20 years later, that's what i'm

stating. host: all right, rory. this is glenn in lakeland, florida, also opposed. hello, glenn. caller: how you doing? host: caller: good. i oppose the situation, you know what it's about, it's trying to rid the country of hispanics and he's trying to tighten the cord and do it through the courts and everything else with republican judges in place, no idea what he wants to do. here's the situation, talking about getting rid of people from this country, legal or illegal, including what we are trying to do here, but what i never hear anybody talk about is the amount of white european, canadian people living in this country that are legally here and are not citizens.

there are a lot of those people here, but you never hear about them, you don't ever hear about what the numbers are. it's all about brown people and white people. when are we going to talk about -- talk about the illegal europeans in this country, they are not being targeted to be sent back to their homeland the way that hispanics, blacks are. when of these numbers going to come up? they are trying to make sure that everybody that is illegal here, this birthright citizenship, whether they came in a planned community, or from canada across the border, why aren't they being targeted? if you talk about following the rules, they need to leave, too. i don't like that is trying to do this, but if you're going to do it, do it the right way, everybody has to be gone. host: taking a look at a portion of that executiv order, it says "the privilege of u.s.

citizenship does not automatically extend to s born in the united states when that person's mother unlawfully present in the united states and the father was not a u.s. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth or when that person's mother's presence in u.s. at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary, such as but not limited to visiting tted states under the auspices of the visa waiver program o visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa and the father was not a u.s. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth." you can read the entire thing at whitehouse.gov if you want to read that. helen is next, long beach, california. caller: i support it. there was a person who called earlier who talked about how trump was not upholding the

constitution, this was written in here and we have to follow it , but the reason trump was elected was because he doesn't follow the constitution. he's an autocrat. people knew that. we know he is an autocrat. we know he doesn't represent the constitution, he's representing the will of the people. to clarify, our country under the biden administration with the open borders and the preoccupation with ukraine and so forth, lost its legitimacy. the constitution lost legitimacy . people don't care that much about the constitution as they care about their quality of life and the future of their country. trump was elected because he's not going to respect the constitution as we expect him to do, as prior experience has taught us, but because he is going to take action on what we

see is a gross wrongdoing done to us by the constitution, which flagrant -- frequently disregarded the will of the people. we are a republic. politicians are servants who represent the will of us host:. i have a question for you about that. would you be ok with the next president, let's say, after four years, democrat or republican, the next president also disregarding the constitution and just following what he or she thinks is the will of the people. what do you think of that? or is this just specific to president trump? >> it will never be specific again because the precedent has been set. we have had autocrats in the past. they have always claimed national emergencies in the interest of, you know, health,

safety, welfare of the public. we have had governments and presidential administrations who have disregarded the constitution. so, it's not that it popped up out of nowhere. this has been in motion for a while. but what i'm saying is we don't, the constitution doesn't hold weight like it did before. it doesn't matter as much. we need to take action. this is a man who promised to take action and he was elected, that's what the people want. this is a dangerous road that we are going to be going down as far as the constitution, it stands but it doesn't stand well and doesn't have legitimacy anymore. we are going down the road of autocracy and of a dictatorship, evolving into an empire, emperor dictatorship. caller: it sounds -- host: it

sounds to me that you welcome that path, welcome the path towards autocracy? caller: i welcome it. i voted for it. host: but then you said we have to be careful. careful of what? caller: when the crisis has resolved, which is what trump is dealing with as an autocrat, when the crisis resolves, they may restore the constitution. that's our help. that's our hope. host: is it president trump who decides when the crisis is -- because i think anybody can say, well, i still think the crisis is high, my quality of life is not as good as it could be. caller: that's slippery slope logic. what i'm saying is, it will be restored when the people want it restored, and that's the difference in america. host: here's randy in michigan on the line for a pose. hello, randy.

caller: i would like to start by thanking you along with all the men and women it takes to bring this program to us. you are doing a great nation, the nation a great service. i oppose it. because you start with this one part of the constitution and eliminate it. when the next president comes in , maybe he decides we can finally put an end to the shootings in the schools by eliminating the right to have guns. you can't just open up the constitution and say, well, i'm just going to pull out this part of the constitution. the person before me, wanted to throw it out. there's no reviving the constitution once you burn it. you've got 300 million people and you only have 70 million of them, 70 some odd million voting for this criminal that we have now is the president. it shows you that when you put a criminal in charge of a country,

criminal activity just seems to flourish in the nation. you talk about one bad moon rising, we've got it rising right now in the white house. thank you for my time and you have a great day. host: chris in milford, michigan , support, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say i agree with the last caller, who said that we have a criminal in the white house. was he charged? he wasn't charged with those 34 counts, found guilty of those charges, first of all? i believe in the van. because people come to this country, they need to come here illegally. they come here legally, than they are able to, then that baby will have citizenship. if they are breaking the law, they are illegal, therefore they don't deserve, that child does not deserve status as being here

, as being a citizen of this country. that's what i believe. host: chris, i have a question for you. i understand what you set about breaking the law and coming illegally. this applies to people who are here legally but temporarily. let's say that you are on a student visa, studying at a university. you get married to another student who was here temporarily and you have a child. do you think that child should have citizenship or no? caller: no, they are not a citizen of this country. their parents are not citizens of this country. that's what i believe. host: it should only be citizens and not green card holders? caller: only the people that are living here full-time that are here legally. it should be anything else to me in my opinion, doesn't matter if you are a student were not. it matters if you are living.

you come here legally and have a child, yes, your kid will have citizenship. host: all right. let's hear from anne in middletown, connecticut. what do you think? caller: i want to say that this birthright citizenship, 14th amendment, i'm up retired american history teacher and it was made after the civil war. 13th amendment got rid of slavery in the 14th amendment said that if you are born here, you are a citizen. this was made because in the dred scott decision, one of the causes of the civil war, they try to say that even if a slave was born here, he wasn't a citizen. so, that's the situation. now, i think that trump is trying to get rid of this birthright citizenship because i think it is being abused. i think that people are coming here from other countries just in time to deliver babies so

that they will be american citizens and the american taxpayers are footing the bill for the rest of their lives. so, this birthright citizenship the way it is being used now is not what the forefathers intended. forefathers are turning over in their graves over the way it's being abused. during the last trump term, if i remember correctly, they rated the chinese, chinese were coming here and having birthing houses, chinese were coming here and having babies just to have citizens, to have citizenship. the bottom line is, i think something has to be done. the only reason why trump is putting this forth, you are right, it's not what the constitution says, but i think the reason why he has put it forth is i think it has really been abused.

people are coming here just to have babies, have citizenship. i agree with that other guy, if you are here legally, you should have a citizenship. or maybe, you know, if they are there, like here for a year, living here for a year or something, but this has got to be determined by the supreme court in the end. whatever the supreme court decides, that has got to be the final answer. host: representative randy weber of texas, a republican who agrees with you, says the truth is that the 14th amendment was never intended to serve as a blank check for illegal immigration, never intended to grant citizenship to the children of people who bro o laws to enter the country. and birthrht citizenship." representati petta, checks and balances are t cornerstone of the democracy, aedal judge has rightly blocked the constitutional executive oer attempting to undermine birthright citizenship.

i strongly oppose this executive order and will continue to defend the constitution." terrell, california, good morning. caller: i've been watching you for years. i li the look. fortunately, i'm from altadena. host: where are you now? caller: fortunately, i have insurance and had to run with my wife on my back out of my house, we had a half-hour notice to get out as the fire was coming down on us, where i live in altadena. my wife was unconscious, semicomatose. we barely made it out. i was able to get to the hospital and ended up in cerritos with my sister-in-law

and my wife expired three days later. host: i'm so sorry to hear that, darrell. caller: i just want to say, i really, i like the way you look now and you look more palatable to me. like the lady before me, the 14th amendment was to make slaves citizens. it was not for these people. i'm retired from the county, well i went to another job after that, but people coming from everywhere, mostly from mexico, just to have their babies so that they could have a kid that was born in america. like the previous caller, chinese birthing centers, people

are abusing the system. there needs to be a constitutional amendment to amend that not to be used like it's being used now, for people to come in here illegally that have no right to be here to start off with. they are taking all of our, everything that is -- that as american citizens i fought for in the army in 1966 two, to use that have no right to use it. that's just not right. people think that trump is a crook. look at the biden crime family. you have got to be kidding me. why would we pardon all of those people if he thinks that biden was such a good person for the other caller? i'm embarrassed about it. i'm embarrassed about veterans and people of color that want to

support people using all of our assets that have no right. it's just not right. host: all right. have you heard -- were you living in a house or an apartment? have you heard what's happened? >> if you have seen -- it's amazing, the national guard is still up here. my homes are up -- home survived, but everything around me is gone. it's amazing how the fire went. host: we wish you the best, darrell. sorry you are going through that. jim, florida, good morning, what do you think about birthright citizenship? caller: the last two collars are exactly right, it was 1918. i have been binging on the c-span the last couple of days. you had one of your, just like you have that picture of the chinese guy, the chinese. the irony, parents came here, had a child and went back to

china, came back in the supreme court found that yes he was an american citizen. now things change. china has been sending their citizens here to have an american baby as you get one. who knows what they are setting up for national security. that may be the case. i can't believe that any american can stand for this. they have hospitals. we lived in san diego for a while. hospitals on the southern border, they come in, hours before they have a baby to have an american child. a woman farmworker in this country who had eight kids, came through, did the work, eight

kids, how could she be a farm worker with seven or eight kids, she was surviving on what her kids got from the american government for all of the stuff that we hand out to these people . this has got to stop. any american should be for this. i'm a veteran. it's ridiculous that as veterans we wouldn't just go after these people. the american people have got to get out more and learn about this, birthright tourism. think about it, the border, overrun, they had to shut down that a emergency room where people were showing up to have babies just to get american citizenship and come across the border every month to collect a check and go back to mexico. host: the supreme court upheld the right of birthright citizenship, 1898, a man born in san francisco but denied reentry after a trip abroad because of his chinese dissent, was a u.s.

citizen. this is no chris, southbridge. chris? caller: there's been controlled by the democratic party for the last four years to go and one direction. now he's opening up this issue that never has been truly solved and it needs to be revisited. like so many things in the constitution. hello host:? we are listening. is that what you wanted to say? caller: it has to do with awareness. the senate might have brought it up. not a million years. now they have to. host: brian babbitt of texas has

legislation that would codify birthright citizenship into law. here's a portion from yesterday. [video clip] >> president trump has made it clear that defending the true attempt of the 14th amendment is central to his vision of making america great again. this historic executive order and with the birthright citizenship act of 2025, we can solidify these reforms into lasting law. codifying it. let me share with you the criteria for automatic citizenship. citizenship will be granted only to children born in the united states with at least one parent who is a u.s. citizen or national a lawful permanent

resident and, number three, a lawful resident who is serving in the military. this is about ensuring citizenship, cornerstone of the national identity, protected and lined with principles on which this country was built. host: back to the phones now, birthright citizenship. do you oppose the ban on birthright citizenship? do you support it? here is anita in fort payne, alabama. hello. it's caller: good morning. i have a solution to this. all the people that oppose what donald trump is trying to do, they need to take all these people home with them, they need to feed them, need to pay their doctor bills and all this stuff, if they are so against what

donald trump is trying to do. let me tell you something. i was raised in a cotton patch, working like a man. i have worked like a man all of my life. now it's my time to set and reap the benefits of all the work i done. i can go across the street to walmart and there will be a mexican lady there. she will have five or six kids and 2, 2 shopping carts full of food. let me tell you something else. my food benefits have been taken away from me. i was getting a lot with my insurance every month. they have been taken away. i have a hernia. i have stomach issues. i can eat the stuff that you eat. so, now i'm having to reap the benefits for them.

they have to be taken care of. all the people that were raised here, born here and work here, all of our lives, now they are taken away from us. so, if anybody opposes what donald trump is doing, you take them home with you and you take care of them. the united states of america is fixing to kick you in the rear end. host: all right. cliff, oklahoma, you are not sure. why? caller: because it first didn't know what was in the 14th amendment. that the ban might be contrary to 14th amendment. but when you put that on their and it said the mother had to be a resident, that means she has to have, to me it appears that she would have to be a legal resident.

host: hold on, that's from the trump executive order. not from the constitution. not the 14th amendment. the 14th amendment says all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states. what the trump executive order said was that you are only a citizen if the mother is, if one of the parents is either an american citizen or is lawfully in the united states, a permanent resident. does that clarify that? caller: ok, that's the reason i wasn't sure. that kind of clears things up for me. thank you. host: here is gordon in kansas city, kansas, on the line for support. good morning. caller: morning, happy new year.

i think the 14th amendment was meant for black people who have been freed. the black people ought to be calling and raising hell about this. all the people coming into the country are taking benefits away from the minorities in this country. my gosh. as for c-span, people call, i love c-span, i love c-span, c-span is writhing with democrats just like npr is and that's what we are going to get out of you guys. thank you. host: this is betty in texas, on the line proposed. hello, betty. caller: the reason why i oppose this, trump only won by 1.2%. in the constitution, section five, it says that if you want to change in amendment, you need

two thirds of the house and the senate and 75% of the states to ratify a change. so, leave it up to the people. trump did not win all of the country over. i think it is wrong, what he is doing. that's all i've got to say. i'm sorry, i'm nervous. host: that's all right, betty. we got your point. this is steve in martin, texas. hello, steve. caller: i think that donald trump is doing the right thing, very much so. my cousin had a 14-year-old daughter here seven months or eight months ago. she broke her leg. they had to take her to the emergency room down there, right

there, they live right there cross the border. it was covered up with illegals. the thing about it is, they pay taxes there for 50 years. you know? to build a hospital. and then the one time that they tried to take my granddaughter there and needed it, it was filled up with illegals that hadn't paid not one tax. not one tax. i'm a loving wonderful person. i love hispanic people. i think they are wonderful people. i'm a christian. but the ones i know come across legally. they come across legally. they pay taxes. these people hadn't paid one tax. they had to go 50 miles to

another city to get my granddaughter's leg fixed and she could have bled to death, i think it had cut an artery. so that right there tells you why. if you don't pay taxes, that means you are not paying taxes for the roads, hospitals, the schools. you come over here and cover up the hospitals that we pay, that my cousin, that they paid for 50 years on taxes, the entire family paying taxes down there, and the one time that they needed it, they couldn't get in and my granddaughter almost died from it. you know? it was filled up with illegals. host: got it. i think we lost them. this is congressman john rose of

tennessee, a republican. he says the whole idea of birthright citizenship is based on a gross misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, the luck of being born on u.s. soil should not alone make someone a citizen. trump calls it common sense i call it tennessee. representative andy biggs of arizona said the framers of the 14th amendment would be appalled at how abused the notion of birthright citizenship is today, the privilege of u.s. citizenship is a priceless and profound gift that should n b granted to those who abuse the laws. senator ed markey said that a federal judge cfied what we know, the trump plano end birthright citizensh is unconstitutional. trump might be t president, but he's not about the constitution and he doesn't get to decide who is an american. becky, oshkosh, wisconsin, good morning.

caller: morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm opposed to this, but i have a completely different question than anybody has. -- has had. my father would be 100 and one and, he was born to an immigrant who acquired citizenship later on. if my father were alive, would he be deported? is there some statute of limitation on this? i would appreciate somebody answering that. there have got to be a lot of elderly people who are the children of illegal immigrants. thank you. host: you mean would it be retroactive? caller: well, sure. people that came yesterday. host: i don't think so. i think it would just start applying to any baby born after the order. caller: from now on? that was never clear to me. thank you. host: all right. here is robert in waldorf, maryland.

what do you think? caller: how is this global workmen -- global warming working out for you? it's messing up my golf game. i agree with mr. trump. i agree with everything he has done. the politicians have sold out the american worker, bringing people in. if you take the logic of birthright citizenship, john mccain was a panamanian, on and on we can go. to watch trump forced the federal government to have to go back to work is a beautiful thing. to find out that affirmative action was done in 1965 on an executive order by lyndon johnson? the amount of discrimination the federal government has levied against the white man by doing this, no president had the balls to ever get rid of that. here comes donald trump.

he can blow up everything. make that place go to hell. federal government, get your butt back in there, freeze your tails off and go back to work. host: got it. representative garcia was at a congressional caucus news conference this week talking about this issue. [video clip] >> in illinois, two out of seven u.s. citizen children have an immigrant parent, mixed status of families that deserve to stay together. instead, donald trump is abusing the power by trying to take away birthright citizenship. this is blatantly unconstitutional, evident by actions taken now by 22 attorneys general in cities across the country. simply put, it's un-american to attempt to invalidate our immigrant contributions and

histories. but let me be clear, immigrants make america great again and immigrants help keep america's economy moving. host: going back to the phones, now, mark is in little river on the line for support. hello, mark. caller: hello, mimi. i'm first generation irish, my parents came here in 65 and came here legally. when you had to come in legally, there were laws you had to do. you had to be sponsored by someone that said they would support, wouldn't get public assistance from this country by just coming here. the people that sponsor you are responsible for you. they would have to take care of you. the other law was you had to have vaccinations according to the united states. my parents had to take a two

hour ride over to dublin to be examined by american doctors to make sure that they were up-to-date on the vaccines that met united states things. now, the way i look at immigration these days is it's like if you are waiting on mind to go to the movies. great movie, big long line, and you see somebody walking ahead of anybody and not even paying and getting in. would someone tolerate that in a movie line today? i don't think so. but that's exactly what's happening, you know? in order to keep this country from spending money that they are not even getting, the rules gotta be strict. no other country in the world, no other country in the world makes you a citizen of their country if you are born over there unless your parents are citizens of their country. host: no, that's not true, mark. there are 30 countries, about,

that allow that. i take your point. this is david in sacramento, california. caller: i kind of think it's a catch 22, you know? it's been written, if you are born here you are a citizen until you become of the age of, i guess it's 18? then if you don't want to be a citizen, you can revoke that. but i think that if you came here on the catch 22, my child was born in your country and i'm obligated to be able to stay here, i think they ought to be able to become a citizen because that is what they came here to do for their children. i think it's really controversial. i don't think one person should have this sole decision of

making that decision. i think the law needs to be amended. it's an old law and everybody seems to think it applies to everyone born here at a particular time. it's a deal. i'm thinking if you came here and wanted your child to become an american citizen, well, yeah, then he is, he's born here, the law states that. but if you are going to stay here and raise your child here, then i think you ought to apply for citizenship and, you know, uphold the constitution and, you know, swear allegiance to the country, you know? i don't think that you should, you know, if you did it it it happened here, it doesn't grant

you the right as a parent to stay in this country legally just because your child is born here. it's you made that decision and did it lawfully. if you were born in this country , you are a part of that country, you know? until you turn the age of 18. if you want to, you know, denounce your citizenship, that is your prerogative. host: all right, davi this is what chris said. by text. "trump does care about the constitution at all and they are fine with allowing him to literally become a dictator, with no regard to the rule of law othrights enshrined in our nation fouatnalocument

." th isichael, "banning birthrht citizenship is futile, the focus should be only on allowing people to enter legally, making birthright citizenship a moot point." mike in north carolina "support trump, democrats he let immigrants run over the country for years." teresa, "the executive order is clear, it addresses the abuse of the intent of the law." here is doug in cocoa, florida. caller: here's me. you got knocked out for a second. donald trump's florida uphold the constitution. now he wants to change it?

i got a better idea, take his citizenship away and sent his family the hell out of this country. have a good day. host: amber, georgia, good morning. caller: everyone is so energetic this morning. folks like to talk about how not import the constitution is when they are not getting their way, but we have seen abuse of immigration. i think what's sad is that people have never seen what it actually looks like to watch someone become a united states citizen, how beautiful it is. how the majority of the people who come to this country and do it legally know more about our constitution than most americans who live on the soil. not only that, but when we watch someone legally become a citizen , they are emotional. there's a celebration. there's a party. there is an intrinsic

appreciation of how they have become a part of the country that now they have sworn and allegiance to. i think the problem is that there are people who come across the border and who if we don't know their status, we can't protect them from abusers. we can't protect them from slave labor. we can't protect them from their rights and other issues being abused. so, when i look at it, it's not in order to castigate or to hate . it's to protect. as we have seen over and over again, most american industry was ripped out and taken overseas so that larger corporations could make a lot of money. and then they took the money and put it in an offshore account and now the tariffs will be presented? that means they want to replace that by not being hindered by

those tariffs, bringing the business is back, but still have the slave labor where they don't have to pay a wage that is affordable. this is, to bring industry back, to keep those large corporations on us so that everyone gets a fair wage. not a declarative this is what the wage should be, a declared wage where we can make sure that every employee is being treated decent and that they are not being abused. so, this is something that has to take place so that we can protect those who came over the border, which is what is so important, more emphasis on legal entry to make sure that we are able to take care of the needs of the citizens who are here that we can protect under the constitution. host: got it, amber.

james? caller: i believe i'm for it. did trump say that anybody that was born here would not be, you know, american citizens? or just has to be one person? host: as long as one parent is a citizen or a legal permanent resident, then that child would be -- that's with the executive order says. the constitution says all persons born. it does not stipulate the legal it says that all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the iction of the u.s. and the state in which they reside? caller: right, subject to the united states. i wouldmagine that means alce to the united states in you would have to be in the green card process or something

like that. other than that, this is, this is not a dictator move. regardless of what people say. it's going through the courts. he's not opposing but the court says, he's going to the courts. but we should have, we shouldn't have people having kids that have an allegiance to say mexico, meaning they are citizens of mexico and have an allegiance to them. they have to have some kind of allegiance to us other than i'm standing here in your backyard. does that make sense? host: here's don in california on the line for support. hello, don. caller: trump is not trying to ban birthright citizenship, i wish people would quit saying that. what he is saying is that there are limits, ok? for some reason, the liberal mind cannot fathom that there are limits on this amendment.

they certainly limit our first a limit -- amendment. they will certainly limit the second amendment. on this amendment there are no limits and you can abuse it all you want? someone in china can pay $20,000 to go to a hotel and have a baby and it's an american citizen and everybody claps? are you kidding me? how about some common sense put in here? if you are criminally coming here and conspiring to make an american citizen to anchor yourself here, you are a criminal. do we want criminals in this country? i mean please, people. all of this stuff that trump is a dictator and trump is doing that, no, trump is bringing common sense, common sense into this. anyone who says anyone born here is an american, result of a

current -- no matter being a result of a criminal conspiracy, my god. get some sense in your head. that's all i'm asking. there are limits to the 14th amendment, ok? there are limits to all of our amendments. quit pretending like the 14th amendment has no limits and that if you say there are limits, all of a sudden you are some kind of a racist and fascist. i mean, this is ridiculous. host: let's go to pennsylvania on the line for a pose. michelle, good morning. caller: i've been listening to c-span for 10 years. i have heard a lot of things that i didn't agree with. i called for the first time. the prior caller talked about how the constitution doesn't have as much weight anymore and that was what they voted for, i was horrified. absolutely horrified that anyone in this country would think that the constitution is just a

document without any importance. that's the whole purpose of the country and how the country runs and what the president swore an oath to. that was the most un-american thing i've ever heard in my life and it really upset me that there are people in this country that think that, other than donald trump. obviously, i oppose this because it's constitutional. want to change the constitution? great. to hear people say the constitution doesn't matter anymore? that's just disgusting to me. host: this is jerry in crane, texas, on the line for support. good morning. caller: i hope the lady gets control of herself, there. it's going to be ok. i don't think trump is going to succeed at this. there is precedent.

the 1898 case. the man from china. however, i think, i think they are just trying to litigate it, trying to adjudicate it, bring it through the courts. it hasn't been brought to the courts, to the best of my knowledge, since 1898. just to bring attention to it. it's being abused. the left-wing mind is just not being honest about this. you played to the clip from mr. chili. that's intellectually dishonest. he didn't delineate between illegal and legal immigrants at all. that's dishonest. immigrants are good for our economy? of course they are. we are talking about illegal immigration. a lot of the people on the left, they just can't, i don't know, they don't grasp that.

that's the issue here. that's all i wanted to say, thanks. host: larchmont, new york, on the line for a pose. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm a recently retired high school history teacher and in our high school we had a paralegal program. i had been tasked to teach classes in constitutional law. the first thing i want to point out is that the last time i called into the show, i pointed out the level of ignorance in this country. when i say that, i'm speaking as a retired educator, not a retired firefighter like my father. it's frightening. the constitution is what it is. the judge said yesterday that this effort is blatantly unconstitutional. let me get to my point.

that's just. , it's unconstitutional. but the other point, the callers who are calling in who would like to see birthright citizenship ended, they seemed to arguing always from an economic point of view. taking our jobs, the money, the costs. i'm curious, any of those colors combining about the money ever called in or wrote to their congressman or senator during the eight years that we were in iraq, where we spent, quoting actual numbers, facts, $10 billion a month, congressional budget office numbers, continuing office resolutions, $10 billion per month, 12 months a year, not just for one or two years, there for eight years. that's over $2 trillion. plus the veterans who come home with one leg, one foot, and all the veterans services that were continues to costs us. i don't want to hear anyone say

it's 20 years ago, that was added to the national debt. those people who cry about the illegal aliens putting us into the red, stop and think about how much money we spent in a rack and not a word was said. i haven't heard anybody complain about the money that we spent there. let's also just point out that we were bamboozled going into that war in the first place with those weapons of mass destruction nonsense, which was all proven at the end. there was nothing there. iraq was not a threat. that was a war of choice and we spent that money like a drunken sailor and that's just a fact. any of these callers want to complain about the costs of illegal aliens, i asked them -- look at those federal taxes you are paying and how much of that comes out of the iraq war for eight long years? host: got it, timothy. gop moves like shutting down, " miation offices and

shing sanctuary cities are all just visible elements of the real proposal, take away the rights, dignity, and humanity of "those people." the phrase "party of lincoln" is a sad joke. coming up next, conversation with republican congressman bruce westerman, chairman of the natural resources committee, talking about the house gop environmental agenda. later, max stier joins us to talk about the trump administration plans to overhaul the federal workforce. we'll be right back. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. this weekend at 6:45 p.m. eastern we will visit mount version -- mount vernon to tour

the recent renovation and preservation efforts. and then on lectures in history, duke university professor cecelia marques discusses latino migration trends in the 20th and early 20th centuries and how it shapes the cultural development and economics of the american south. and on presidency, lindsay speaks about the second u.s. president in massachusetts's favorite son, john adams. his presidency unfolded against the politics and personalities of the new nation. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2, and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. booktv every sunday on c-span2

features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. here is what is coming up. at 4:00 p.m. eastern, gary marcus looks at the potential and risks of artificial intelligence and the regulation in his book "taming silicon valley." at 5:15 p.m. eastern, chris benner and manuel pastore discuss the lithium and the role of the many mineral in the electric vehicle industry. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, gabe kerr argues that robert e. lee has been unfairly canceled including at washingtoand lee university where he served as president from 1865 until 19 -- 1870. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwds, senator ron wyden shares his thoughts on having the tenacity to pursue progressive goals through strong alliances, hardware, and focus. watch booktv every sunday on

c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch any time at booktv.org. >> the c-span bookshelf podcast feed makes it easy to listen to all of c-span's podcast that feature nonfiction books in one place to discover new authors and ideas. each week we are making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with authors discussing history, biographies, current events and culture from our signature programs, about books, afterwards, booknotes+ and q&a. listen to the bookshelf podcast feed today. you can find all of that on the free c-span now mobile video app or wherever yoget your podcasts and on c-span.org/podcasts. >> democracy, it is not just an

idea, that a process, shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles. it is where debates unfold, decisions are made in the nation's course is charted. democracy in real time, this is your government at work. this is c-span, giving you your democracy unfiltered. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are joined by representative bruce westerman, a republican of arkansas and chair of the natural resources committee. welcome to the program. guest: good morning. host: you are the chair of the national resources committee, can you talk about your priorities and your goals. guest: we have a lot of work to do and if you look at the jurisdiction of the committee, a

lot of that is energy and minerals so energy production and mining, we are going to be a huge part of the work of -- that we do. but we have jurisdiction over federal lands, forestry, and fisheries and indian and insular affairs. we have a full work load not to mention california water, wildlife and fisheries. lots of things will be on our plate. but we had a good run last congress and we got a lot of bills passed and signed into law. we had the explore act which is the first outdoor recreation bill and this was a large bipartisan bill that was so popular that it passed out of committee unanimously. it passed out of the house unanimously and then the senate unanimously and president biden signed it into law. we are excited about outdoor recreation and access to public lands and meeting the growing

needs of our country. host: you are the only licensed four-star in congress. i want to ask you about the wildfires in california, but what does licensed forester mean? guest: i studied forestry and graduating school and there is a license and continuing education. i also did engineering for my undergraduate work and i am a professional engineer. i have been able to keep those licenses up to speed while i am in congress. last congress i was the only licensed professional engineer or forestry. i do not know why they say licensed forestry that i am the only one who studied it. host: can you talk about your views of the california wildfires and noting that president trump will be surveying damage later today?

guest: these are obviously devastating if anybody has paid attention to the news. over 15,000 homes destroyed and 28,000 lives lost and $250 billion of estimated damage. it is very tough conditions. i have spent time in southern california. i was out there in october flying over the airport fire. it did not make near as much news because it did not burn near as many homes. you have steep canyons with what are called forests but it is just chaparral and scrubby oak trees and brush. it gets dry and you get the strong wind coming through. and when the fires start they are almost impossible to put out. fire traveling uphill is when it burns the hottest.

if you think of a match and if you strike it and hold it straight up the flames are not big. if you point it when it is running up the matchstick it will burn your finger quickly. that is what happens when the fires go upslope. when you look at the whole situation, there are things that we can do. we know what happens when you get the dry fuel, wind, and fires. we have a lot of people living in the wildland-urban interface where the forest meets the neighborhoods. those are the areas we need to focus on to prevent the loss of life and property. and the fix our forest act has provisions where we create defensible zones between the forests and the neighborhoods. host: congressman, i want to ask you about that bill, but going back to the wildfires, the mayor of los angeles and governor of

california have come under criticism to their response. do you think that is appropriate? guest: there will always be criticism when you have disasters like this. some is appropriate and some is probably not. when you look at the type of fire that they had. it started in the canyon and there are things that could have been done to mitigate the situation so the fires did not get as bad. but once they got into the neighborhoods, and we think of it as a wildfire but it is more of a multiple house fires and they are trying to fight it with conventional firefighting equipment. and they simply did not have enough water equipment or people. and where does that blame fall? it has to come back on public officials because it is there job to provide pub -- fire protection services and make

sure that the systems are up to speed and can handle whatever comes at them. when we think of a forest on fire you think of tankers dropping water and dropping fire retardant and people parachuting out and fighting the fires. you have a combination of that going on. and i think instead of blaming everyone we need to look at it and figure out what to do better to prevent the disasters going forward. host: do you believe that climate change is increasing the frequency of wildfires and intensity? guest: that is a question that gets asked a lot. and we certainly see times where we have drier conditions and hotter conditions. we also see that there are different places across the country experiencing the same conditions and the intensity and number of fires are not increasing in these places. so, regardless of if it is

climate change causing it or the weather conditions were poor management we have to ask a question what will we do about it? and we know that the climate is warming and these conditions will get worse, the science of forestry tells us how to manage the lands. so we have the proper amount of vegetation on the land. and the big problem is we are getting these overstocked fuel loads and when the fires happen they are just catastrophic. and you cannot put them out. they are so hot that they burn the organic matter out of the soil and you cannot get trees to grow back. and it is an environmental travesty because we know that forest fires put more carbon in the atmosphere. but when you denude the land ,and the rains come along we will see soil erosion, mudslides and water quality issues.

by keeping the forest healthy and intact it -- it adds all kinds of public safety features and environmental benefits. host: if you would like to join our conversation you can do so by party. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. congressman, you were talking to us about the fix the forest act that passed to the house and i ut that on the screen. give us more information a what that does and what you expect to happen in the senate? guest: this is a very bipartisan bill and i worked on this with scott peters and san diego. scott was an environmental lawyer and we have been talking about forest health for several years and we first wrote a bill called the save our sequoias act

because we have lost 20% of the giant sequoias on the planet due to wildfire. when you look at the science of what happened is because we have mismanaged those groves. scott and i worked together we got a lot of democrat cosponsors and passed the bill out of the house but we could not get movement in the senate. in light of these fires we decided that we cannot stop and we got the bill back up and passed it out of the house with more democrat cosponsors and votes. i think that the house has spoken and we need the senate to take the bill up and pass it as soon as possible so president trump can sign it. so we can start doing the work. it will take decades to get these areas back where they need to be. we have seen the loss of 15,000 homes. if you look across the country there are 44 million homes in the same condition in the

wildland-urban interface where catastrophic wildfires could break out. we should have been doing this work decades ago but we need to get the bill passed so it can happen sooner. host: switching over to energy president trump has declared a national energy emergency. he is expected to rollback regulations, promote more leasing on federal lands for drilling. what do you think is the practical impact of those actions? guest: we need more energy is a practical impact and we need reliable and affordable energy and the cleanest energy possible. the u.s. is good at producing clean, affordable, and reliable energy. if you just look at the numbers we are seeing a growth in electrical consumption by about three times per year. it used to be half a percent per year growth and now it is at 1.5% and is projected to grow even more.

and that electricity has to come from somewhere. and there has been a lot of wind and solar built but there is no way that that could meet the growing demands of our country. i think the president is looking at and all of the above energy approach. and i am all for that. we have a whole other issue with ai and data centers and the race on getting to asi, the super intelligence. we are in a race with china on that and china is not holding back on energy development. they built 40 gigawatts of coal power plants last year. they are not eating turning -- even turning some of them on. they are building the plants so they can have energy available when they get to the next iteration of ai. host: you mentioned we need more energy and i want to read you a quote from the natural resources defense counsel's attorney who

says "there is a bit of a hypocrisy in declari domestic energy emerghile wi fossil fuels.tional markets we areorl'sber e exporter of oil and gas, and we have an energy emergency? what is this based on?" what is your reaction to that? guest: it is a shortsighted comment that is put out there to give click bait. that is not looking at the whole energy picture. i talked about the growing demand for electricity. we are shutting coal plants down and we need to be creating more baseload energy. i am all for clean energy, but we cannot build nuclear power plants year. we cannot -- it takes forever to get permits to build facilities. and we need to be exporting more energy because our allies around the world want it. and when we are not exporting energy that demand is being filled by countries like russia

and iran and others that are not our friends. and if you look at the two wars going on in ukraine and with hamas and israel, russia is funding their side in the -- of the war in ukraine off of energy receipts and iran is funding these terrorists organizations off of energy receipts. it is not just energy security and dominance but national security when you look at the global energy picture. and the demand for energy globally is going up exponentially. host: you mentioned competition with china and i want to ask about electric vehicles. the you support the proposal to end the eeev mandate and the tax rebate for those that buy ev's manufactured in this country? guest: absolutely. and if you look at the science on that. if we could convert every

internal combustion engine to an ev overnight it would have less than a 1% impact on greenhouse gas emissions. and i like ev's they are fun to drive and it is great technology and it should stand on its own. we should not pick winners and lunar -- losers and putting a false idea that it will save the world if everybody drives an ev when the numbers do not add up. the u.s. produces 13% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions but only 27 percent of that comes from transportation and then 57% comes from light duty trucks and passenger vehicles. you do the math and you are down to 2% of mobile greenhouse gas emissions are coming from green hat -- from passenger vehicles and then 30% of our electricity comes from non-greenhouse gas emitting sources. again, if you could make every

car in ev overnight you've only decreased emissions less than 1%. and it is a huge cost and inconvenience being put on the american consumer, claiming to do these great climate benefits when it really does not. and that 1% does not include the embedded carbon that it takes to do all of the mining and build the components that go into an ev. i am all for the technology, just let it stand on its own and do not require government mandate or subsidies to make it work. host: we have a republican in canton, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you representative for your time. my heart goes out to the people in california, but here in western north carolina, we are still suffering. i would like to thank president trump for the promises kept.

this is hard for me, give me a second. my town -- it is totally devastated by what happened. they still have cadaver dogs looking for bodies. my main question is, is there going to be an investigation into the biden administration. was there engineering and cloud seeding to intensify the storm? we know for a fact that fema went into clark county tennessee trying to buy up land. i know they want the lithium deposits. people are suffering. california yes, but they are the richest of the rich.

there are some poor people out there. but malibu and the palisades ought to pay the billionaires, they ought to pay for that. host: let us get an answer on north carolina. guest: first off, my heart goes out to you and everybody that has been affected by these natural disasters. i think you have reminded us that there is a real side to these disasters. people are suffering and hurting. and, when we move from one disaster to the next and sometimes it seems like we forget the previous disaster. i have had the opportunity to travel to places after these disasters and see the utter devastation. and i know that when that is happening, people who are affected do not care about the politics. they are trying to figure out from one day to the next day and what the future will hold.

as far as investigations into the biden administration on the response to the hurricanes, i do not know if that will happen. that is not my committee of jurisdiction. i know that with republicans in control we will do oversight on all of the areas where we have oversight of federal agencies. if there is credible evidence of things that need to be investigated, i am sure that the appropriate committees will have those investigations. host: mark in massachusetts. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, congressman. with regards to california, the insurance companies pulled out of their over the past few -- over there over the past few years. and in florida. obviously these insurance companies knew about the

impending danger and the liabilities and, is it worth going to the insurance companies and saying we have already done all the work and say wait, can you give us your stuff and then we can do management based on that? also, florida specifically. they must suck up about 50% of fema's budget. and then last year the caller from western north carolina, the hurricane helene, that showed that areas on the coast are not the only area susceptible. inland areas can be devastated too. thank you. guest: you bring up a great point on the insurance companies. a few years back when the camp fire happened in paradise, california, after the smoke cleared and people were assessing the damages, i started getting a lot of requests from insurance companies to talk

about forest management and health because they were seeing the handwriting on the wall. and, the fact that these devastating fires were causing their insurance rates to go up to the extent that people would not be able to afford to buy insurance. if you think an insurance company pulls out because they just do not want to be in a market, that is not true. they want to sell as much as i can, but when the actuaries look at the risk and say if you sell homeowners insurance here, the price will be this. they look at that and realize nobody can afford the insurance. they pull out as well. they are losing on top of homeowners not being able to ensure property. when i was out in california in october, i did a town hall with representative kim, and we were talking to her constituents

about this very issue. it is not just homeowners, realtors who are worried about real estate markets collapsing because if you cannot ensure these very expensive home --insure these very expensive homes you are taking risks that cause problems. the fires and losses are devastating. it has also created a huge problem with insurance. we are seeing that across the country where we are having these natural disasters. and, i think it will push us, markets will simply push us so that when we rebuild to rebuild things that are more resilient for the conditions. if you look at building codes in hurricane areas, a lot of times you have to do things for higher wind conditions. when we talk about building in the wildland-urban interface we should be looking at doing things like the fire watch program suggests. where you have nonflammable roof

material and vents with covers on them and where you manage vegetation around the homes. there are things we can do to be smarter about the way we build, when we rebuild. host: jim in kentucky. democrat. good morning. caller: i just want a yes or no answer. i completely myself agree with my -- with trump on -- host: i guess he is asking about the birthright citizenship ban. guest: not really a natural resources issue, but i believe this is one of the orders that president trump has made and he is fulfilling campaign promises to secure the border and to get our immigration system under control. host: as you know, president trump gave an interview to sean hannity yesterday and mentioned

fema. he said this, this is according to axios that he would rather see the states take i handed it. what do you think? guest: i think that fema could have a role and we can change it and we can do things smarter. fema goes back to the stafford act. i am a member of the house transportation committee where the jurisdiction over female lies. we have some -- over fema lies. we have some archaic agreements

like building something back exactly the way it was. that gets to what i was talking about earlier is how we have to be smarter about how we rebuild things. i do not see fema totally going away, but i can see with better partnerships with states and local communities where we can work on specific needs in specific areas and create flexibility and common sense so we are building a more resilient structure and not building back -- i was just yanking of an instance that i heard about of a home in houston. it had been wiped out three or four times by a flood and they keep rebuilding it in the same spot. you see instances of things like that across the country. we have to be smarter and we have to work more with the states on disaster relief. host: one more call on the republican line. joe in crofton, maryland.

caller: didn't we use to do controlled burns in california with the dry at -- grass and all of that. and then there was something about a rodent that was endangered and they stopped doing the controlled burns? when we did that we did not have so many wildfires. is that still going on or can we not do the controlled burns because of the endangered desert rat? guest: you are hitting right on the problem with forest management across our country on federal lands. and if you look at pre-europeans in the united states, the native americans used fire as a tool. they often did it because they wanted better hunting grounds. they knew that if they had fewer widely spaced trees and larger trees and they burned, they

would get the early habitat coming up the forest floor that makes a wildlife habitat. you would have low intensity fires all the time. and really, that is what forest management is. you are working with nature to create a resilient system. controlled burning plays a huge role. you cannot control burn in areas where you have excluded fire for a century and it needs to be thinned so you are not getting horrendous fires that are going to occur naturally or arson or whatever when the fire starts. it is just hard to put them out. the endangered species act is one of the tools that has been used to stop forest management. we have some very well-meaning laws that were put in place in the 1970's that people have figured out how to abuse to push

their political agendas. i like what scott peters who wrote the fix our forest act with me who said these were not written on tablets by moses. they were put in place at the time to serve a purpose, and we want to meet the objectives. but we need to modify them to deal with circumstances that we are dealing with today. host: representative bruce westerman, republican and chair of the national resources committee. coming up next, max stier joins us to talk about the trump administration plans to overhaul the federal woforce. later, we dig into that $500 billion federal investment into ai infrastructure announced earlier this week. that conversation with dean ball from the mercatus center. we will be right back. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people

and events that tell the american story. this weekend at 6:45 p.m. time we will visit george washington's home, mount vernon to tour the recent renovation efforts. and then on lectures in history. a duke university professor discusses latino migration trends in the 20th and early as 21st centuries and how they shape the quote -- the culture, development and economics of the american south. on the presidency, a historian speaks about the second u.s. president and massachusetts' favorite son, john adams. his presidency and folded against the politics and personalities of the new nation. exploring the american story, saturdays on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch any time at c-span.org/history.

democracy, it is not just an idea that a process, a process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles. it is where debates unfold, decisions are made and the nation's course is charted. democracy in real-time, this is your government network and this is c-span, giving you your democracy, unfiltered. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back at washington journal and we are joined by max stier, the president and ceo for the partnership for public services. we are talking about the overhaul of the federal workforce ida trump administration. welcome to the program. just remind us about the partnership for public service,

its mission and funding. guest: we are nonpartisan dedicated to a better government and a stronger democracy. anyone who operates a nonprofit always knows that funding is the hardest part. we get our money from philanthropy, fee for services and we start originally from a gentleman named sam who had an idea 25 years ago that we needed the nonprofit sector helping our government work better because you make your public institutions better and that raises all boats. explain why you think it is important to focus on the civil service. as opposed to political appointees why is that important to your organization? guest: we focus on both we originally started with civil-service because there was work that another service was doing on political appointees.

the reason why the emphasis is on civil services is that at the end of the day political appointees are setting the policy agenda for our government. but they come and go and it is part of the democratic process and they set the agenda and i would say they set more political employee -- political appointees before any other democracy. at the end of the day it is a career civil servants that are getting the work done day in and out. they are about 2 million of them, 85% or so work outside of the d.c. area and one third are veterans because they are mission oriented people and many folks who leave the military want to continue to serve the public and civil services the way to do it. for 140 years it has been a political and based on the idea that you need the most competent and merit driven people focused on getting the work done for the public. we had a spoils system before.

that led to corruption and incompetence and assassinated president called -- garfield and collapsed everything into one quick thing. but for republicans and democrats for 140 years, that notion of a career or professional civil service as been fundamental to the success of our country. host: president trump mandated that all federal workers back in the office in person. elon musk tweeted out -- or posted on his network saying " pretending to work while taking money from taxpayers is no longer acceptable. what is your response? guest: so, the response is start with the facts. about half the federal workforce was never able to work remotely, even during the worst of the pandemic, they were on the front lines and putting themselves at risk.

if you look at the numbers to date, and we have a fact sheet on this, the truth of the matter is that federal employees are pretty similar to the larger private sector workforce in terms of percentages that work remotely or telework. the real question is whether you are working in the office or other location but how good it is. and federal employees by in large do a strong job. there are ways that can be improved. the idea that the right thing to do is to drive everybody back into the office is not actually going to deliver better results for the american people. and i will give you a quick example of the patent and trademark office. we are the envy of the world in terms of the innovation climate. and it is the heart of the system that protects and grows our intellectual property that

supports innovation. and it has been virtually exclusively remote workforce and telework for i think over two decades, with incredible productivity. you follow through on that executive order and saying that they all have to come back into the office, there are no offices because they have been working for two decades not in the office. and you will throw into turmoil that engine of innovation for our country. i cannot imagine that elon musk actually wants that to happen. it would be disruptive to his world in profound ways and to the economic vitality of our country. that is an example. let us manage smartly, not by the edict that is across-the-board the same thing. there are different parts of the government that needs different parts of man -- different kinds of management and that is what good leaders do. they understand the context and

they make choices based on evidence and thoughtfully. this is not thoughtful. host: we will take your calls on the federal workforce. the numbers are democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002. if you are a federal worker we have a line for you and that is 202-748-8003. max, the trump administration has directed all federal diversity, equity, and inclusion staff to be put on leave and layoffs are expected. can you tell us what those dei offices were doing, and why they were there in the first place? guest: certainly. and again, not to take too long because there is a substantive issue and then a process issue, a little bit like the return to the office edict. you ask what they did, and it is

a wide range of activities. many of them were involved in trying to create workplace environments that maximized the engagement of the people in the federal workforce. and i say that it is a basic proposition of how do you create a workplace that enables workers to do their best in the work environment that they have. sometimes people focused just on the d, but when you look at equity, inclusion and accessibility, it is trying to make sure that federal environments are serving the public better re-creating environments that enable workers to do the best they can possibly. host: can't that be abused, because the criticism is that hiring is prioritizing less qualified people just because they are women or minorities and etc.? guest: can it be abused and the answer is absolutely and those

abuses should be addressed and addressed seriously. this is an example of trying to resolve this through an across-the-board rule without any understanding of the nuances which is generally not good. honestly the reality is that the trump administration has the right. president trump was elected president and he does get to set the policy of our government within certain legal constraints. and these are choices he can make. i want to focus on the how. and the fact that the how is actually wasteful of public assets and hurtful of real people. what i say that what i mean is the civil servants working in deia spaces were following the prior administration's priorities. president biden said this was a priority for himself and his administration. in the civil servants did what they are supposed to do, so

follow the lawful policy directions of duly elected leaders. they should not be punished for doing their job in the way they are supposed to do it. and you have president trump's administration arguing that civil servants are not following the policy views of the elected leaders. the reality is that they did. they should not be punished for it. it is again president trump's prerogative to choose a different direction. but immediately shutting down the offices and putting these people on administrative leave and saying they will be fired is cruel and a race to -- waste of public resources. many of those people are in those offices not only because they do dei stuff. they might bh are professionals that can apply -- they might be hr professionals that can apply their skills. the right thing to say is this is no longer a priority and move away and assess the talent to

think about is there another place they can really contribute to public outcomes that we do care about and to communicate in an open and embracing way of those people. these are real people and it has been unbelievably traumatic and unnecessarily traumatic to them. this is but one of many examples where the humanness of the federal workforce is being ignored. entirely appropriate to choose a different direction. the way it is being done is hurting people and the american public. they are losing out on great talent and our government is being disrupted in ways that are going to preclude the americans from frankly being safe. a quick example. 160 or so folks from the national security council, the best experts we have on counterterrorism were sent home in order for there to be a review of whether they are sufficiently loyal. not smart. points us -- puts us at risk.

host: let us talk to callers. joe in maryland. democrat. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: good. caller: i have one question with a couple of parts. people who work from their house, is it secure when you talk over the phone? second to that question, how come you have to wait 36 or 24 hours to talk to a person? and then when you talk to them you hear the dogs in the background and they talk about -- and in other words, there has to be some balance. host: just to clarify, when you say are the line secure. you are talking about when you call the federal government asking for help, let us say if you call the irs or social security, that kind of thing?

joe? caller: in their house, that person in their house uses their laptop or whatever they using -- they are using, is that line secure from that house to you? aren't other people listening? host: and then you wanted to know why does it take so long for somebody to answer your call in the government? caller: in other words, if we can get rid of voicemail and a whole bunch of things that are stupid, in other words if i have a problem and you tell me call your back in 24 or 48 hours that is counterproductive. one more thing. people are people, why do you have all of these buildings and it is like countries in north korea where you have buildings with no people in them? host: ok. guest: number one, 100% agree that the public, including joe should expect high customer servants -- service from

government agencies. we really need and they are oftentimes critiques of the civil servants, we actually need leaders to make sure that is a priority and the investments needed to achieve that are being done. a good example of this is the irs, they had low response rates prior to the recent investments in the irs. they went up to the 90 plus percent category. and there was an intent to take them even better. so, we do need a government that is changed. so, i share the view that we should be able to expect good customer service, phone calls that are answered, good technology and responsiveness that you see in the private sector organizations that exist today and there are all kinds of ways in which better impossible. in order to have that happen, investments need to be made in the government and technology

infrastructure. frankly, those do not usually occur. in terms of security of the lines, it depends on the interaction. i do not think i can speak to that specifically. i will say that many federal employees that i mentioned earlier have never been able to work anywhere about the office because of that question. if they are dealing with classified information they have to work in an official government building. the last point was the empty federal buildings and a lot of agencies have been reducing their real estate footprint because they have moved to a situation where fewer employees are coming into the office. one of the real challenges is that if they are forced to have everyone to come back into the office after they reduce those footprints there is nowhere for those folks to work. the transition time has to be thought through otherwise you will have disruption to services

that joe and many other americans expect to have. host: gregory on the independent line in nashville, tennessee. good morning. caller: this is so funny. trump wants to hire people that he says are merit-based and yet, he is hiring people that are not qualified for the job. as a matter of fact, to be honest with you, he is not qualified to be president. the other thing is, why don't the democrats speak up and say something about the people that he is hiring and be really blunt with it. based on what he is saying about people being merit-based. one more thing. when i call a helpdesk, i always get somebody from india. i have nothing against indian people. the thing is, why don't the people who have these companies hire americans to beyond the

call centers -- be on the call centers to help americans. this is one thing that president trump can probably do. if he can just change that system and make the people sitting behind him because they are the ones who are hiring these people, these people who are you know running on these tech companies, they are the ones hiring this people -- these people in india to do the job. why doesn't he tell them to hire americans to do their job? ok. that is all i have to say. thank you. guest: ok. so, on the question of hiring for merit, the caller is -- has the same views that virtually all americans have in the polling we have done has demonstrated.

we have found in our polling that americans actually do want a merit based, apolitical civil service. it is great to see that that is the consensus across the country. the question is how do you best get that. there are real changes that should take place in the way that our civil service is managed and the way that it is hired and the way they are accountable. we have an aggressive plan about what we would like to see done. the reality is that the current plans of the trump administration would take us the opposite direction. i mentioned earlier that there are 4000 political appointees and if the caller noted we should have high standards for those folks as well and the focus should be on their competence and character. but the president has a lot of latitude in selecting who those folks are in the senate has its voice for some 1300 of them.

but the broader 2 million federal dollars -- federal workforce is a career workforce that is currently merit-based and needs to stay that way. the trump administration issued an executive order that would turn that -- overturn that. and then we will wind up with less good government in a very profound way if that is carried through. host: your organization put out a press release quoting u.s. saying that you were encouraged by some of the executive actions taken by the trump administration as it relates to federate in hiring -- federal hiring processes. guest: look, at the end of the day is -- we should be looking at places to come together and there is too much fighting and that is not how we make progress. it is interesting to see that the trump administration is trying to improve the hiring process and that is to move

towards skills based hiring and understanding the capabilities that people need as opposed to degrees. we believe that is actually again and i think that the emphasis is focusing on how to make the government better is how we think that is where the attention should be. we have the doge effort and we are interested to seeing where that goes. there are opportunities of very large measures to improve the technology infrastructure of our federal government, and that can deliver way better results. the way you do that is fundamental. our challenge is less the ideas they and executing effectively. honestly, the only way you do that is by engaging the workforce and creating environments that allow them to do their very best. and that is what we are trying to encourage. host: fred in pennsylvania, you

are next. caller: thank you for taking my call, and don't you think donald trump is using dei in reverse. pete hegseth is the poster boy as somebody who is white and as far as his merits he is deplorable. he works on the assembly line at general motors and then he gets peak to be the president and ceo of general motors. the whole issue is that it is it above his pay grade. and donald trump is just using dei in reverse. thank you. guest: look, this comes back to the point i was trying to raise earlier. just because someone is a political appointee does not mean you actually do not need somebody who has the confidence -- competence and character to do the job well.

really the political appointees give the president more latitude about the process in which they can select people, but the standards we ought to hold them to should be at least as high for the career civil service. a quick point on something you are raising which is every single career civil servant is supposed to have, and should have a performance plan outlining what they are supposed to do in their job and they should be held accountable for doing that. political appointees do not have that requirement despite the fact they are the leadership of our government. one of the areas we have advocated for is actually having transparent and clear and substantial performance plans for all of the political appointees. we would have a better government if we actually had that. we have 4000 political appointees, most pure democracies count them in tens or maybe 100. john mccain suggested cutting that number in half and

unfortunately that did not occur. i think at the end of the day, a president is responsible for running a complex and large organization that has a lot of responsibilities and most importantly keeping us safe. we need people in those senior jobs who have large organizational experience and especially who will take their experience and use it effectively in the government context. that has been a challenge, and if you look over time at why our government is not doing better, it has more to do with leadership gaps than anything else. and the short-term nature of the leaders and political jobs. they are not around long enough to incentivize a focus on the health of the organizations they are responsible for. that might take us beyond the brief of your question. host: the caller mentioned the vote for the hegseth nomination for secretary of defense.

that is scheduled for today, in the senate. you can watch that on c-span2, and that should be at 9:00 p.m. tonight. watch that if you are interested over on c-span2. lexington, mississippi. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes. go ahead. caller: i am a naturalized citizen. and i think the number one thing is that the naturalizing process should be organized so that the background is checked. number two, there are summer -- several parts of the system that i work for. these are complicated before, during and after covid that to get an appointment gets forever. to talk on the phone forever. and the people do not want to listen to the customer's problem. number two, there is bureaucracy

everywhere. there are people like me who have worked on the first line of covid-19. and we are let down by the decisions by people in the hierarchy. the third thing with the calls are sent outside, americans do not know the difference between jackson mississippi airport and jacksonville florida. yes, americans should be given the jobs even if it costs more than it sends -- more than the efforts. host: what do you think? guest: i think the caller is right that americans should be able to get great customer service from their government and it requires a real investment. i mentioned earlier that the investments in the rs were paying -- the irs were paying off and the call responses and satisfaction had gone up. this is a second time we have heard the issue about non-americans answering calls and call centers actually to

work in the federal government, you do need to be in a united states citizen. if you are abroad and there are foreign nationals that are hired and embassies. the general rule is you have to be an american citizen. private sector companies and contractors can higher non-americans. but that is not generally an option inside the government. host: daniel, great falls, virginia. federal worker. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think there are a number of issues with the way this is going. first of all the federal government is the largest employer of the country and i do not think it is close. we have to ask ourselves how did that happen? the federal government has largely become a jobs program. i worked for the federal government for a long time. but when the new administration came in, one of the first things that i saw in my department, the

state department was a document of the priorities of the new administration. it is a two page document. but the three big takeaways are, everything that we do in the department should be to make america stronger, safer and more prosperous. and i do not think anyone could argue with that. every dollar we spend an action we state -- we take should be in furtherance of those goals. and you know this dei thing and all of that in the government, it is a device and the ideological left waging their culture war within the federal government. it is not enough for them to wage it in the federal government but they do it overseas. in our embassies they are waging culture wars. flying the alphabet mafia flag and blm flag over our embassies overseas. host: let us get a quick response. guest: sure. 100% right, the u.s. government is the largest employer and i

think it is close in other places. walmart or amazon. what is interesting is that is in absolute numbers. the size of the federal workforce is the same as the 1960's and as a percentage it is way down. more broadly, 100% agree that we can do better and we should expect better from our government and we need leaders focusing on management capability. love your point about saying the new administration gets to set the priority and that is our democratic process. thank you to all the callers and letting me in for this conversation. host: thank you at the mark -- at the partnership for public service, you can find his reports at ourpublicservice.org. thank you very much. we will take you over to the house for a quick pro forma session. we will come back right after they gavel out. do not go anywhere. here is the house.