decisions are made. democracy in real-time. this is your government work. this is c-span, giving you your democracy, unfiltered. coming up this morning on c-span's washington journal, we will take your calls and comments live. and then dr. a mesh adalja -- amesh adalja discusses president trump withdrawing from the world health organization. and brady dale talks about the digital currency industry. c-span's washington journal starts now. join the conversation. >> on this vote, the yeas are 50 and the nay are 50. the -- is confirmed.

host: last night, the senate confirmed pete hegseth as secretary of defense with jd vance casting the tie-breaking vote. the former fox news host and military veteran has faced questions about his qualifications to leave the pentagon and a number of allegations including sexual assault and heavy drinking. for the first hour of today's program, we want to hear your thoughts on the senate confirming pete hegseth as secretary of defense. here are the lines. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you are current or former military, there is a separate line for you. (202) 748-8003. you can text your comments to (202) 748-8003 as well.

include your name and state. you can post a question or comment at facebook.com/c-span or on x at c-span wj. good morning and thank you for being with us today. vice president jd vance broke the tie to confirm secretary -- the new secretary of defense pete hegseth. this, from the fox news website. it says the final vote came down to the wire. three republicans opposed, making for a 50-50 vote. vice president jd vance was needed to break the tie in the upper chamber, breaking the tie at 51-50. the senate's two moderate women, lisa murkowski and susan collins voted no. as did mitch mcconnell of kentucky, the former gop leader.

north carolina senator thom tillis said support was not a given and he did not reveal his stance until the vote was already underway. he said he would back trumps picked, giving him enough support to be confirmed with vance's tie-breaking vote. that was the second time in history that a vice president was needed to confirm a member of the cabinet. this tweet from c-span in february of 2017 talks about the first time. vice president pence breaks 50-50 tie on betsy devos secretary of education vote. the first tie-breaking vote on a cabinet nominee. vance who served in the senate until just earlier this year also tweeted after the vote, saying i thought i was done voting in the senate.

several hours of debate led up to last night's vote with members speaking in favor and in opposition of pete hegseth. one of the members speaking in his favor was republican roger wicker, chair of the armed services committee. here are some of his remarks. >> the president has made his choice and he's putting his team together to strengthen our military. the person he has chosen to lead the defense department is pete hegseth. the more i have seen of this young man over the time that we've had a chance to visit and over the time that he's been questioned and actually been put through a number of trials, the more impressed i am with his character. and with his ability to withstand the slings and arrows that we see in politics and in government today.

pete hegseth is ready to put forward the program of president donald trump. and he has satisfied me that he will be a change agent in the department of defense and that he is the person we need. he's the president's choice and we over to this commander-in-chief to put him in this position unless he's not qualified for the office. he's a major -- mr. hegseth is a retired major of the army national guard. he has had multiple combat tours of duty. and then he has come back and he has had some struggles. he's had some ptsd. there are thousands and thousands of his comrades who

have had -- who have experienced the same thing. experienced problems after they came back but he has overcome those. and those thousands of young officers, people who have been in combat for the united states are watching the united states senate tonight. even so. and they are watching to see if we have listened to the dreams and to the plans and to the hopes of this young man as the next secretary of defense. host: for this first hour, we are hearing your thoughts on the senate confirming pete hegseth as the new secretary of defense. we will start with patricia in fort washington, maryland, a former member of the military. good morning, patricia. caller: good morning. i am calling in. i was a sergeant in the national

guard as well as the army reserve. i am calling to say that i am very disappointed this morning in the selection. when i went through the in co, the non-commissioner officer training, i learned we are to be respectful, kind and leaders. unfortunately, this leader that was selected yesterday has made a lot of disparaging remarks against women and disparaging remarks against minorities. he has had a known history of drinking and alcohol abuse. they say sometimes in life you line up and make a list of good

things about a person and bad things about a person. if the bad things outweigh the good things, whether it is a job or anything, that's the direction you go. he has too many bad things in his column. and it is very tragic to see that this is the selection out of all of the individuals that are in the military who have served honorably, that this is the candidate of choice that was selected is very disheartening to me. it's not a great day for me as someone who was in the military for 13 years. we, the soldiers, we like to have someone we can look up to that has great values. and that has empathy toward others. unfortunately, this man doesn't. he wears a symbol on his arm

that is very demeaning toward minorities. so again, i'm not happy with the selection but it's been done. i just hope and pray that he be a good leader since he has been selected and i hope and pray that going forward everything will be ok. but he really has no experience at all. i'm disheartened and i'm a first-time caller ever. i listen to c-span all the time. i'm surprised i was able to get through today and be the first caller. i've been trying to get through to c-span for two to three years. i was shocked when i called and was able to get through. host: we love first-time callers, patricia. glad you are able to get through. we will go to betty in swamp

scott, massachusetts, line for democrats. good morning, betty. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say i watched last night out of disgust. the only one who had any courage to vote against him were two women and a man who will not run again. the republican party have betrayed the country and themselves. pete hegseth is a litmus test. donald trump put the worst people possible out there just to test his power over the republican party. just to see, guaranteed you will fire pete hegseth in a month. he knows he's not qualified. he knows it. this is a test to see how far he can push the republican party and he pushed them. host: that was betty in massachusetts. theodore in florida, line for republicans. good morning, theodore. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i hope as far as the good thing is, the major, i pray for him. i'm talking as a u.s. citizen. secondly, with the new nomination, i was told he was a public servant in lower realms. i pray he puts people around him who do the right thing because i think we might have a wartime president and defense secretary and hopefully we don't go to war and hopefully we are still here because i wasn't happy with the nomination but it is what it is. thank you for your call and being out there for your service. thank you. host: let's hear from edward in maine. he's on the line for former

military. good morning, edward. caller: good morning. i am completely dismayed but not shocked. donald trump wants people in who will do whatever he wants and praise him whenever he's in the room. the point is to find someone who is qualified. he paid a large solvent -- settlement to the woman accusing him of rape. he has abused his wife. his mother wrote him a letter accusing him of abuse. if he couldn't run an organization of 20 people, how in the heavens is he supposed to run the largest organization on the planet? he's been accused of rape as has donald trump, as was his former

ag nominee. it's like donald looks for people who are not good. there are so many smart, brilliant people out there that could do the job. why on earth to someone like this? it's like trump is trolling the country. there are a million good republicans. i don't like their policies but they are good people who could run for president. but republicans chose him to be our president. and then susan collins votes against the party when it didn't matter at all because she knew it would pass, which is what she always does. shame on america, shame on the country and shame on the people who voted for this maniacal idiot. host: that was edward in maine on the line for former military. yesterday, after the vote, it was pete hegseth, the new

secretary of defense, tweeting his thanks. he tweeted out thank you for your confidence, mr. president. thank you for the tiebreaker, mr. vice president. thank you, senators, for 50 votes. this is for the troops. for the warriors. for our country. america first, every day. we will never back down. the tweet came after president trump reacted last night to the vote, the confirmation vote while visiting california, to talk about the wildfires. here's part of his remarks. pres. trump: i think he's going to be a great secretary of pete hegseth. and we are honored to have him. >> i apologize. i couldn't hear you. did you say you were speaking to him on the phone? pres. trump: no. i think pete is going to be a great secretary. >> are you disappointed that mcconnell voted no? pres. trump: i didn't even know

that. i just heard that we won. winning is what matters, right? host: trump spoke to reporters before leaving for that trip. trump worried allowed to reporters on friday that hegseth might not have the votes to get confirmed amid speculation that mcconnell and thom tillis might vote against his nomination. thom tillis, who said he was doing his own research said he met with pete hegseth and concluded he would support him. mitch mcconnell against the confirmation. -- mcconnell voted against the confirmation. in a statement he put out, he said the most consequential cabinet official in any administration is the secretary of defense. in the face of the greatest threatso the u.s. national security interests since world

war ii, this position is even more important today. effective management of nearly 3 million military and civilian personnel and a military budget of nearly $1 trillion and alliances and partnerships around the world is a daily test with staggering consequences for the curity of the american pele and our global interests. mr. hegseth has failed as yet to demonstrate that he willass this test, as he assumes office, the consequences of failure are as high as they ever have been. as the 29th secretary of dense, mr. hegth will be immediately tested by ongoing nflicts caused by russian aggression in europe and iranian backed terror in the middle east. he will have to grapple with an unfinished fiscal year 2025 appropriation process that, without his intervention, risks fuher harming the readiness of our forces. i wish secretary hegseth rate success and look forward to working closely with him to

restore american hard power. every member of services will be looking to him for decisive, principled and nonpartisan leadership. let's hear from russ in michigan. line for the former military, good morning. caller: good morning. i am retired military. i was in the -- i'm happy they got a combat soldier into office. there is no room for the woke and all the other stuff they've been doing. the army doesn't need anything but training on how to do its job. it doesn't need -- my father retired for 35 years. i've seen the army evolve my whole life. i retired in 1995.

and i think he will do a good job. i honestly do. host: russ, as a retired member of the military, what would you like to see him work on first? caller: getting the woke soldiers and officers in line. they literally need to go in line and clear the other external -- it's not an experiment. they need to train as they would do in combat. and as farce females in the army, i don't have a -- as far as females in the army, i don't have a problem with females in the army. as far as the infilltry, my gear weighed 180 seven pounds.

if a woman can put on 187 pounds and the other stuff which adds up to 240 pounds and she can walk, our first march was 7.5 miles in the desert. if she can do that, she can get in the foxhole right next to me. if she can't, she don't need to be there. that's the whole story. if you can put it on and go, no problem. if you can't put it on and go, you need to find a new job. host: that was russ, former member of the military. let's hear from alan on the line for independent. good morning. caller: thank you. give me a little bit of time. this really bothers me, to listen to these individuals. however, this is just how america is. somebody needs to say elections, they have issues, if you make a

bad decision, it will hurt you. this german, this is the reason why -- kept visiting here. -- this gentleman, this is the reason why -- kept visiting here. a dictatorship. he knows this man is not qualified. he got rid of dei. isn't this a dei candidate? when it comes to people of color and women, they always want to go back because white men always want to have power. trump don't believe people of color -- it's all about putting people in positions loyal to him. not the constitution. and yes, elections have consequences. that's the word i wanted to use. due to all of the things that he's doing, the people who have voted for him, they are going to

see this country just go down. everything that martin luther king did, we celebrated his birthday on monday. this man is going to come take it away. even civil rights. the supreme court is going to help him. the country is going back. white women and women in general are going to go back. because of this man. people of color -- a lot of people of color will not be able to get in the military because of this man. it's going to be all about white men. that's all that's going to be about because they think they are better. they think they are superior. this is a racist country. and it really bothers me when people say america is great again. when has it in great due to segregation and slavery and what this country has been through? going back to the 1950's? that's what this man wants to

do. he wants to bring this country to the 1950's were white men had control. and it's going to suffer, just like they are going to get rid of all of the hispanics. black people as well as hispanic people, you are going to get what you deserve because this man does not care about nothing but white supremacy and money. host: got your point, alan. we will go to wanita in west virginia. line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. it makes me sick to hear people like the one who just spoke. trump is not about white supremacy. -- he is about making the whole country better again. they are trying to do to hegseth what they tried to do to trump. smear campaign and it's not going to work and you will see. look what we went through the last four years, it can get worse. give hegseth a chance. as far as trump appointing him because he knows he will do what

he wants him to do, well, yeah. we don't want to be here in a deadlock. we have to move forward. i believe we will. i disagree with several of our callers in. i think hegseth will do good. he may need a little guidance. but you hear he has backing from our military people that know what it takes out there in the field. i'm giving him a heads up. host: that was wanita in west virginia. steve in texas on the line for former military. good morning, steve. caller: hello? host: i'm sorry. i punched the wrong line. let's go to steve in texas. good morning, steve. caller: good morning. i am in texas, next to the

former fort hood, which many people in texas are proud of. herein central texas or in this particular area, we all get along. people talking about racism and pete hegseth being a racist, he's former military. in the military, you have to be colorblind. when you are in combat with other soldiers. that's the attitude, the feeling i get in this area, that everybody gets along and that is primarily because of military retirees. i think pete hegseth will do a good job so far as the military. yes, he's inexperienced. that could be his downfall but i hope not. i hope he gets the right people to assist him and he can make it through the swamp. to be quite honest, he has

people screaming, yelling and pointing fingers and he has not gotten through his first day yet. i wish him luck. i think he will do great. i can tell you that the military people, former military people around me in this area, which is mainly what we are, are very much supportive of pete hegseth. i think it was a great choice by donald trump, who i don't believe is racist. and will do a great job for our country. so, thank you for letting me talk. host: that was stephen texas on the line for former military. let's hear from will in baltimore, maryland on the line for democrats. good morning, will. caller: good morning, c-span. here we are, shutting down dei offices, saying government hires will be -- pete hegseth has disqualified accusations. most of the trump nominees are questionable to say the least.

and this is the very reason we need dei. qualified people of color have been overlooked in this country for centuries. it's thrown into the fabric. trump's first week in the office has been filled with feeding red meat to his ravenous, extremist supporters. border closures, dei. i'm sorry, america. you've made a huge mistake. thank you for taking my call. host: john in texas for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, i listen to many people. this country is not just for america, but mostly for the world. so we have to see how we elect these people.

many people despise president trump -- criticize president trump but they don't realize there are many people who criticize -- but nobody say anything about them. media is supposed to work for the nation and the people. but media has great money. media wants to make money. this time in history, this nation [indiscernible] he has money, he can do everything. he can do away with this world. he loves his country and his people. that's why he's willing to

sacrifice himself to be president. how many dare do a thing like this? i feel very sad to see american people don't see that. they don't see that in this nation, we have free country. anybody can come in here, propaganda and that kind of thing and people will believe them. host: got your point, john. we will go to cindy in tennessee, on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. my name is cindy, as he said. and i am absolutely disgusted. this man, hegseth, he has no business in this office.

as a woman, and i have been raped. this is horrible. i can't even believe that donald trump would try to appoint someone in this position. but, of course, donald trump was convicted of quite a few things. and should be in jail right now. but he's our president. i don't understand that. as a woman, hegseth is an absolute disgrace to all women in the united states of america and all over the world. and i just think -- i am just appalled. and that's really all i have to say as a woman. iq for taking my call. -- thank you for taking my call. host: that was cindy in tennessee. bobby in washington on the line for former military. good morning. caller: good morning.

i would like to thank senator mcconnell for showing his true colors. he knew this was going to pass but he had to fly his no-trumper flag to make sure everybody understands where he stands. the new secretary of defense will not have any cross-dressers. will not have any of the woke standing in front line infantry units. let type of criteria absolutely destroys unity, cohesiveness and the ability to conduct a mission. everybody knows that. thanks and have a great day. host: that's bobby in washington, d.c. let's go to elizabeth in dayton,

ohio. on the line for democrats. good morning, elizabeth. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well, elizabeth. caller: i'm -- let me say this. i am an 80-year-old woman. i live in dayton ohio -- dayton, ohio. i've voted in every single election since i was 18. that's a lot of years. i must say, members of my family are former members of the military. there is certain criteria to be an officer and a gentleman. pete hegseth does not have those qualities. i am really scared to death of what he's going to do to our defense department. i'm appalled at what has happened. we now have a president who does not care about anybody. and it is really disgusting. i am thinking very seriously of leaving the country. i am a jewish woman. i can't bear the thought of elon musk and what he did the other

night. it's really disgusting. i don't know what else to say. i am totally and completely opposed to hegseth being confirmed as defense secretary. he will ruin our military. he will ruin us. host: that was elizabeth in ohio, yesterday during senate debate on the floor leading up to the boat, it was -- vote, it was jack who spoke against hegseth and the vote to confirm him as secretary of defense. here are some of his remarks. >> in his writings and comments, mr. hegseth has not proven that he is qualified to be secretary of defense. he has been questioned about allegations of significant personal misconduct, including

alcohol abuse, infidelity, sexual harassment abuse, and toxic work environments. he refused to really address or take ownership of these allegations. as a result, he leaves himself open to having his personal history subject to exploitation by adversaries. which is the last thing we need for the leader of the most powerful military in the world. if confirmed, mr. hegseth would be giving orders to men and women of every race, religion and sexual orientation. his orders may result in these men and women risking and perhaps losing their lives. these men and women must trust that the secretary of those orders respects and supports them. instead, mr. hegseth has disparaged military personnel with racist and sexist comments. he has derided adversity in the

ranks and he has openly opposed women in combat roles. how can we expect our military to overcome recruiting challenges and maintain retention and remain the most ready and lethal fighting force in the world if they do not have respect for their leader. -- their leader? who would want to follow the orders of someone who belittles them? host: last night, after the bow, the senate reached a deal on additional pending cabinet nominations. this tweet from craig caplan, our capitol hill producer. it says the senate will be back tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. they are going to vote at 11:30 a.m. to confirm kristi noem to be dhs secretary. that was supposed to happen around 4:15 a.m. tomorrow. they will also vote to confirm

scott bessent. around 25 minutes left in this first hour of washington journal. let's hear from rick in iowa, line for former military. good morning, rick. caller: hey, good morning. my comments stem from -- i want to make my comment through the eyes of a career air force guy, not me. and this guy was the best supervisor i ever had. when i met up with him, he was master sergeant. not surprisingly, he went on to become a command chief of a large fighter wing out west. a few things he mentioned. this was some 20 years ago. he went up to headquarters there and one thing he mentioned to me right off is i'm telling you,

rick, we have way too many general officers appear who are fumbling over each other. when i went to his retirement, i remember him telling me, they were wanting him to go up to headquarters. his comment was you know, rick, when i get so far away from it that i can't see the lights in their eyes, i don't want to do the job anymore. he got away from the service and went on to do other great things. what i see with pete is he can still see the lights in their eyes. and he's going to be surrounded by the very best in our military. he's going to ask the right questions. he's going to ask questions that probe into how is the war fighter doing, in the air force, the navy, all of them. he will be surrounded by folks who can help them answer questions. i go to a site every now and

then. there is active duty and retired folks on there. there was a comment that i just can't believe it. you will do iraq and stack if you want to do -- a rack and stack if you want to do promotions. this fella said it got kicked back to him and said not enough variety. let me tell you something, i told you the fella i was telling you about was the best supervisor, bar none. his thing was here's the standard, meet it or you just won't get the mark that you want. this guy, he was black. let me tell you something, when i first came into the unit, they were talking about -- they said everything about this guy, he's mean and will rock your world, blah blah blah. yeah, he just wanted you to meet the standard.

in all of that conversation, i never heard the word black because it didn't matter, it doesn't matter and it hasn't mattered. so all of those folks that are saying the military is racist and whatnot, almost 25 years i can tell you, i did not see that. one last thing, we used to call, it wasn't mentored, it was tormentored. i saw this great guy, he was my mentor and whatnot, he was black. i'm telling you, i think that is a nonstarter with me. i wish pete the very best. i think he's going to make -- he's doing things for the working man in the military. that's all i've got to say. host: that was rick in iowa. let's go to shirley in lake city, florida, line from

republicans. good morning, shirley. caller: good morning. host: hi, shirley. caller: hello. can you hear me? host: yes, i can. caller: i want to say i come from a military family. my dad, he's gone now. he spent 20 years in the navy. he was in world war ii and korea. he taught submarine mechanics at the charleston naval base in charleston, south carolina. two brothers in the air force and another brother in the army. a nephew who retired from the air force a few years ago. another nephew in the navy, went into the navy reserves after that. that nephew was on the ship that went to new york that helped the people with covid. i was just disgusted when i

heard the governor wouldn't let the people on the ship to get help when our president sent help. and the discover nation against our president, i never, ever can recall my father, any of my brothers, ever talking about a different race. everybody was just people. and when my father retired and moved to florida, he bought a barn. i stood a red wagon at eight years old, handing tobacco to my grandmother for her to strain it. the whole family knows nothing but work. we don't look at people as colored, we look at them as people and neighbors. i don't understand why democrats

want to cut republicans down for being discriminatory when we can get along if they would just stop so much confusion and division. i see more on their side than the republican side. host: what are your thoughts on pete hegseth being confirmed? caller: i think we ought to give him a chance. according to president trump, if you don't do your job, he will get rid of you. and that means do the job correctly and get in there and listen to -- he will have people telling him and guiding him and giving him responses and information that he needs. and we don't need 10 supervisors over five people. get the people in there that we need and get rid of the ones we don't need. and overpaying on the budget and

everything. i just think we should give them a shot at it. host: that is surely in florida. rick in new jersey, line for former military. good morning, rick. caller: good morning. i was in the military in the mid-1970's. it was very unspectacular -- a very unspectacular four years. it was the end of the vietnam war. and then there are the guys in the barracks that didn't experience combat, either. we just weren't at war at the time. part of it was the carter administration.

a lot of the guys in the barracks were doing drugs and drinking and popping pills. this was run-of-the-mill stuff. this was dime a dozen stuff. as it refers to pete hegseth, that's not who you want. you want the exception to the rule. you don't want the everyday man. you want a leader. you want somebody who didn't do those things and have the emotional strain to not do those things and shows the maturity. am i right? did he actually ad ty?

host: we will go to cheryl in ohio, line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. the hypocrisy, the absolute hypocrisy of the democrats to bring up accusations of rape and sexual assault on pete hegseth is appalling because the democrats elected a president accused of rape and sexual assault and evidence was hidden. and that is in donald trump. that was joe biden. and remember the name tara reade. thank you.

host: that was cheryl in ohio, cheryl talking about some of the allegations against pete hegseth . concerned veterans for america, the nonprofit advocacy group, at the center of many of the ike cassation's brought up during his confirmation hearing. the new yorker reported hegseth was forced out of the cva over allegations of financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety and personal misconduct. after the vote, the concerned veterans for america tweeted out this statement. it says the confirmation of pete hegseth as secretary of defense presents a real opportunity to prioritize the security and prosperity of our citizens and our champion prudence and our effectiveness and defense strategy.

and focus our department of defense on our most vital interests. it's a statement you see on the screen. it says veterans and military families have borne the burden of our countries defense policies. the cva is committed to ensuring the future use of our armed forces is focused, principled and aligned with the values that have kept americans secure and free for almost 250 years. for the future of our country and the prosperity of the american people, we must modernize our military. we are excited to partner with pete hegseth to achieve those goals. just under 15 minutes left in the first hour, we will go to cindy in new jersey on the line for democrats. caller: this is a sad day in america. first of all, we have a president who is a convicted felon. now we have a defense secretary who is abusive to women. donald trump has come into this

office and went back as far as 1965 to the civil rights. it wasn't just for black people, it was also for white women as far as the civil rights go. the people that he is choosing in his cabinet are unqualified. if you look at his cabinet, there's not one person of color. right now, this is not to make america great again. as far as i'm concerned, it's to make america white again. this is a calling. i am scared as an african-american woman as to what's going to happen to this country when it comes to people of color. have a nice day. host: that was cindy in new jersey. tony in buffalo, new york on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: yes, i just like to

mention, during the hearing, the democrats brought up he had a personal background thing regarding adultery. one senator responded and said to the democrat senator, when senators come in at night and vote on a bill and they've been drinking, they never ask them to step down. when there are senators who have committed adultery and politicians who have committed adultery, they never step down. we are not all perfect. if they are looking for mr. perfect for the department of defense, to me, that's his personal life. now, in a professional life, there are things going on. you know what? i believe in donald trump's decision. i believe that president trump knows that hey, if he doesn't do

the job, he's not afraid to fire any individual who does not do their job. so, i feel safe with his decision. i'm a veteran. i'm going to tell you right now, i would want nothing but a veteran leading me who has been into battle, who smelled the smoke or gunfire and bullets going over their head. that's the type of leader i would want leading me. in the past, we have had the department of defense be civilians. you know what, they couldn't even spell military let alone be in the department of defense. now we finally have a true hero and they are trying to pick up every little thing in his background to try to disqualify him. i think it is appalling and disturbing. i wish him the best of luck. i believe in president donald trump's pick. if he doesn't do the job, he's going to fire him. host: that was tony in new york.

i wanted to follow-up a question rick in new jersey had about pete hegseth's back ground. he was valedictorian at lake forest school in minnesota and attended princeton university where he played basket will. from there, he joined the minnesota national guard and the army national guard. he was sent abroad three times as part of a security platoon at guantanamo bay, and infantryma n in iraq and counterinsurgency instructor in afghanistan. he does not have senior military or national security experience. between his deployments in iraq and afghanistan, he served in a 110 thousand dollar a year role as executive director for vets for freedom, a political advocacy group that then advocated for president george

w. bush's iraq surge. romney on the line for former military, good morning. -- ronnie on the line for former military, good morning. caller: i was so upset i couldn't sleep. that office is one of the highest of all offices. the secretary for the departed of defense. a week ago, we watched the funeral of the 39th president. we see the military personnel, marine one and air force one at the white house and at the embassy overseas. if any of them would have had alcohol problems, they would never have taken that post. not counting the military personnel at the tomb of the unknown soldier. for 20 years, i served in the military and i would do it again.

the president and the department of defense have to be above the rest of the people. and this guy, our national defense is in harm's way. because at any time, we have our in ami's out there knowing he has a drinking problem -- enemies out there, knowing he has a drinking problem. they can use that. this guy is not the person that we need serving as secretary of defense. my god, they could have found someone better. i was saying to our commission officer, this guy did what he had to do. there are people saying there is no racism in the military -- i went into the military in 1974.

we couldn't do our job. we had to do something different because the people they wanted in there were white soldiers. they took over our job because it was easier. it was a sad day. i will say this and i will get off the phone. it is a sad day for the united states of america that trump did not find anyone better to put in that position. it is a slap in the face to all military personnel that are on their post now and doing their job now that can't have any blemishes on their record. especially those doing special details like air force one, marine one, the tomb of the unknown soldier, at the white house, they can't have any blemishes or they go back to their unit to be discharged from the military. the guy who's going to be over these individuals is an

alcoholic, and adulterer and we will put him in charge of our military? maybe i should get some sleep tonight. but right now, it's a sad day. thank you. host: that was ronnie in georgia. karen in pennsylvania on the line for democrats, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my reaction to this is i am literally afraid. the first lady or second lady talked about he will have a job for a week and then get fired. if he doesn't, i'm afraid of what will happen. if he makes a mistake, there's going to be war probably on our soil. and i just can't imagine the things jesus talked about in matthew 24 and 25 are going to happen in my lifetime. it just scares me. the other thing is i don't think

he was testing republicans by putting him in there. i think he was testing the constitution. he was trying to test the constitution, changing the birthrights. he wants to be king. another thing, trump started out with the slogan of make america great again and he stuck with that. but i believe he changed. i believe his new slogan, the one he's not saying, and the fact that he's surrounded by three very rich influential south africans, i think he wants to take this country to minority rule. i think that's what he's up to. host: that is karen in pennsylvania.

i wanted to show some of the reaction after the vote from members of the senate. they were putting out statements on x. markwayne mullin said we did it, america. it was an honor to be in the fight with my friend and your secretary of pete hegseth. the hegseth family is the best. this from tammy duckworth of illinois, who is a veteran herself. tonight, despite claiming they want to bring media -- meritocracy back to our military, nearly every republican chose to confirm someone who so obviously lacks the merits to serve as our secretary of defense. shame on those who put their feeding to trump ahead of our national security. dr. roger marshall, a senator of kansas, said congratulations to

pete hegseth, our new secretary of defense. pete will bring transformative change, refocusing our military and recruiting efforts. i can't wait to see what a great job he does. one more from senator chris coons of delaware. he said the departed of defense is the largest and most important agency. pete hegseth has limited management experience and what experience he has has been unsuccessful. i respect his service but i do not think he has the skills, service or character to be defense secretary. pete hegseth is the second member of trump's cabinet to be confirmed. you can find all of the confirmation hearings, including pete hegseth's on our website, c-span.org. and you can follow us for more confirmation hearings as they come up. just a few minutes left. byron in north carolina, line for independents. good morning morning, byron. caller: good morning, c-span.

you know, this is party. it's a real, real sad day. what i'm really disgusted with is the democrats. i've seen the way they are crushing the sky. and the -- the way they are crushing this guy. and the way republicans are questioning. they just drilled him and they talked to this guy like normal. i heard no one ask him if he had been to any kind of treatment for alcohol. more than likely, this guy is an alcoholic. when you are passing out and stuff like that, you have a real, real problem with alcohol. they didn't address none of that. he's more likely to get that call at 2:00 or 3:00 in the

morning. his position is the more likely position to get it. and if he gets this call drunk, and the democrats didn't ask him if he had been in any kind of treatment. he said i will stop drinking if i get appointed. it don't work like that. if you have an alcohol problem, it's a disease. and you know, i really see the democratic party as having to be resented. they are super week. i can see all of the departments getting through. you have cory booker. they won't put them up there. they put all of these old people who halfway can't think and they let the republicans outthink

them on their feet and this kind of thing happens. but, this is trump. this is trump and i hope that, you know, maybe this is the best thing for america to wake the people up. i noticed that as far as the democrats, i had -- i am an independent but i had sense enough not to vote for trump. a lot of people made that mistake to stay home. not that they voted for trump, but they made the mistake for staying home because they were disgusted and i do not blame them, with the democrats. and especially, ma'am? host: i am here. caller: i am looking at the democrats now. they are saying you cannot deport anyone and these are the people who voted for trump. the hispanics. i know it is wrong to deport all of these.

you have a lot of good people that will get caught up in it. but sometimes you have to let the people suffer. somebody has to be sacrificed. host: we will need to leave it there because we are out of time for this first hour. next on washington journal, amesh adalja, the senior scholar at the jobs hopkins center for health security at the bloomberg school of public health will join us to discuss president trump withdrawing from the world health organization. and later the axios crypto reporter, brady dale, will discuss the crypto industry including potential regulation under the trump administration. we will be back. ♪ >> american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. we will visit mount vernon to tour recent renovation and

president -- preservation efforts at the property. and in lectures in history, cecilio marquez discusses latino migration patterns in the 20th and early 21st centuries and how they shaped the culture and economics of the american house. on the presidency a historian speaks about massachusetts' favorite son, john adams. his presidency unfolded against the backdrop of the politics and personalities of the new nation. exploring the american story, watch americans is -- american history tv on c-span2. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch on c-span.org/history. >> next week on the c-span networks, the houses out as house republicans hold their annual retreat. the senate will be in session as they hold hearings for several of president trump's cabinet

nominees including robert f. kennedy, jr., his nominee for health and human services secretary. he will appear before the senate finance committee on wednesday and the senate health, education, labor and pensions committee. and then kash patel will testify as he seeks to become fbi director. and then tulsi gabbard will appear before the senate intelligence committee. watch next week, live on the c-span networks, or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. also head on over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live at any time. c-span, democracy unfiltered. >> democracy, it is not just an idea, a process. shaped by leaders elected to the higher this -- the highest offices and entrusted to a

select few with guarding basic principles. it is where debates unfold and decisions are made in the nation's course is started. democracy in real time. this is your government at work. this is c-span, giving you your democracy unfiltered. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now to discuss president trump withdrawing from the world health organization is dr. amesh adalja, a senior scholar at the john hopkins center for health security at the limburg school of public health. thank you so much for being back on the program. why don't we start by talking about the world health organization. remind our viewers what it is and who is involved? guest: the world health organization is a organization

that is a subsidiary of the united nations. it is a convening place for most of the countries talk about health issues that affect the globe and to respond to infectious disease outbreaks. and they have a very big footprint. the part that i focus on myself as an infectious disease physician is their role in communicable disease control. this is the way we learn about outbreaks and an organization that has regional offices for africa, asia and all over the globe where they have some region in all countries and have some relationships with the ministries of health, health departments and health care system in those areas and they do provide support. most importantly what they provide is situational awareness of what is going on in the world. host: and what does the u.s.'

current involvement in the world health organization look like? what is the give and take. what are we contributing and what are we getting out of it? guest: the u.s. is the largest single donor country to the budget. the world health organization is funded by donor countries having dues that they pay and other organizations can contribute. the bill and melinda gates is a major contributor. not only do they pay dues, the united states says collaborative grants giving the who grants with -- for projects that they might be engaged in, which does not just come from health and human services but also the department of defense that works with the who and then there are many employees that work with the cdc that are technically cdc employees that are seconded to the who or they are working at the who but they are technically

cdc employees. what the u.s. gets is a big seat at the table for where a lot of issues relating to communicable disease control arise. for example when there is an outbreak in the country on the others out of the globe, it is the who that gets notified and in the u.s. gets notified. for example, if there is a new organism discovered or a new virus discovered, the genetic sequence will be given to the who which will be given to the u.s. which will be given to pharmaceutical companies. there is a lot of benefit. the biggest one is that you want to know what is going on in the infectious disease world as close to real time as possible. being part of the who allows that to occur because there are many places where the cdc does not go where they do not have great relationships with the ministry of health but the who does. that is what i think is the

greatest value, having a place where we can learn about what is happening on the others to the world and we in the united states can be proactive about preparing for something or getting resources to stop something from spreading. that is what the who offers. host: he will be with us for about the next 35 minutes or so on this topic. if you have a question or comment you can start calling in. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. also i want to let you know that if you are a medical professional there is a line for you and that is 202-748-8003. and of course, you can also find us on x and you can text in your comments at that same number. doctor, this week president trump signed an executive order withdrawing the u.s. from the

world health organization. what can you tell us about that? guest: this is something he did during his first term as well that is not instantaneous. so when he signs that declaration saying that he has the intention to withdraw the united states that starts a year-long process where sort of those activities wind down. we are still in the who as of now and will be up until january 20 when the anniversary of that order was signed. what that signals is something that he has talked about. this is not surprising. he did it during his first term and since he was not reelected that never really came into action and president biden reversed it. what it does is it reflects and we can talk about some of his frustrations with the who and people's frustrations. on balance this is a drastic way to address concerns that are

legitimate. i think it will end up being the wrong thing to do if your goal is to increase the united states' resiliency to infections is -- infectious disease. host: you are saying we have a year left if we do end up ultimately withdrawing from the world health organization, what impact will that have on the u.s. when we are no longer part of that organization? guest: the biggest impact is what i alluded to earlier. we do not have the ability to know what is going on with infectious disease outbreaks all over the world immediately. there will be a lag and we will not be at the table when those types of outbreaks come to light and when people are making decisions about public health emergencies of international concern and what resources. the u.s. will be acting unilaterally instead of being part of the organization that is notified and crafts that response. i think that is what we are losing out on, our ability to

know immediately what is going on and coordinate a response. it is also the case that, and i am sure you will ask about this later, there are reforms needed to who. it is much less likely that those reforms occur if the u.s. is not at the table. there are real issues that need to be addressed. but, and the u.s. has been at the forefront of bringing these to light. if the u.s. is not part of the who, it will not be able to actually fix these issues. i think it is important to know that we need a world organization that deals with communicable diseases because this is different. it is not like heart attacks or hypertension. this is something, when it comes to infectious disease, they are a global phenomenon. because many of them are transmissible. they are communicable and get from person-to-person. and they do not recognize a

border. and with the speed of travel and the rise of megacities and how quickly you can get from one side of the globe to the other, every country in order to be resilient domestically has to be looking all over the globe for threats that might emanate. and that is why a communicable disease organization that covers the globe and covers the planet is something that is valuable to everybody. host: we have collars waiting to talk and we will start with mitch in louisiana, line for medical professionals. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: hey, i am just wondering if he has practiced at all. guest: do i practice or have i practiced medicine? i just worked the day before

yesterday. i do practice infectious disease, emergency care in the pittsburgh metropolitan area and i have done that since i started my residency. i am about 50% clinical and the other 50% is sent -- is spent with the center for health security at johns hopkins. host: you also have experience with types of infectious diseases. what can you tell us about your experience there? gov. noem: i focus -- guest: i focus a lot on emerges -- emerging infectious diseases. and i look at patients with an infection of the skin to bloodstream infections to covid and influenza and hiv to mpox. when you are in infectious disease physician you are in the hospital and other doctors consult you. that can sound pretty routine like an infection of a prosthetic hip, but it could be like a traveler coming back from

a different country that has a fever or someone who has cancer and an organ transplant and an unknown infection so you have to sort that out. it is a very challenging and intellectually stimulating job where anything can happen and any case can be very important. i certainly saw a lot of covid cases. i took care of covid cases before we were actually able to test people. i cannot count how many covid-19 cases i have taken care of. in the last couple weeks i have been seeing influenza cases, which is high in the united states which is translating to patients in the hospital with influenza. host: marine and pennsylvania -- in pennsylvania, line for republicans. are you there? caller: good morning. thank you for having me. thank you for coming on c-span. i have a question or two.

with the world health organization, america has paid $500 million towards this organization. we have donated or gave them that. why are we not only doing $39 billion like china and take that other $407 million and may be making flint, michigan water healthier for our american citizens and getting the appellation mountain people health care, better health care and electricity, and water. help us before -- you have to do not a handout but a hand up. and with the american people, we are suffering. i am lucky enough to live in philadelphia, pennsylvania. so, i will rattle on. go ahead. guest: i think those are real issues that need to be brought up.

how much do other countries contribute versus how much does the u.s.. and so, i think that is a legitimate issue that should be discussed. but i do not think withdrawing is the solution because there is still value to be had by being part of the who. when it comes to determining each -- how much each country should pay, that is an area that needs real reform. it should not be the united states shouldering the bulk of the burden. and that is something that president trump and his team needs to address. but i do not think by removing the ability of the u.s. to actually get disease alert outbreak updates from the who or being part of that is worth that. and there are priorities that the u.s. has to continue to fund. and that is our own health security and being part of the who is part of that. i think this is a legitimate

criticism and one that needs to be taken to the world health organization and addressed seriously. i do not think withdrawing is a solution or helps that matter. i think it ends up backfiring because if they do follow through with the withdrawal, we will be more vulnerable and any lag that we know about knowing about an infectious disease threat will cost lives. it will delay vaccine development and delay hospital preparedness. i think yes, this is important but i do not think withdrawing is the solution. host: you are talking about the impact to the u.s.. what about the impact on the rest of the world if the u.s. were to withdraw and the organization, the world health organization itself? guest: because the u.s. is a major contributor, the who is funded by donor countries. if the biggest contributor is no longer part of it and contributing that will cause a serious budget crunch.

whether that budget crunch can be filled by other countries, or other organizations remains to be seen. but, we need the who to be fully funded and operational and make sure they can do things that they need to do to keep the world face from infected -- say from infectious disease threats. so i think it the budget is such that they do not do the activities they need to do, then it also makes everybody less safe. the other side of that is that if the u.s. is not contributing, other countries may and one of the real issues with the who that people have addressed is the influence of countries like china, which is an authoritarian country which has been very nontransparent when it comes to the early days of covid. china's influence will only grow with the u.s. absents. and china has doing a lot unilaterally in places like

africa, increasing its sphere of influence. these have geopolitical importance, which i am not qualified to speak about. these are the issues that people have raised. they will only become more acute if the u.s. is not part of the who. host: let us hear from mark -- michael and gainesville, florida. line for democrats. morning. caller: in addition to the who, i believe that trump has also asked that the cdc not communicate with anybody in the public. when i reached out that if you detect the flu in an animal or human, you are supposed to report it and test it, i think to see if it is avian flu. if it is a pet, i have a concern that the vets are having people treat the animal instead of doing what is needed to protect

-- prevent it devolving into a severe and -- severe outbreak. we put down tens of thousands of animals because of human workers might be exposed. we should also euthanize pets and when i called florida vets to see what they are told to do. i was given $100 walmart things when i went to the website. it shows it is active apparently if you call in, even if you are a vet they give you a $100 walmart card. and there is no actual reporting recurring. so if you have a pet that is sick, should you euthanize it. if you bring it home to your family and your family and friends, you are exposed and increasing that exposure to humans dramatically. if it spreads within pets, we are risking a world outbreak by not euthanizing the pets if they come down with bird flu. is that the correct thing to do?

should we euthanize our pets? guest: there is a lot there. yes right now we are in the midst of a bird flu outbreak that is primarily spreading among dairy cows, poultry and wild birds. we have had about 60 plus confirmed cases in humans but we have seen animals including pets like cats be infected by this. the caller asked about euthanizing animals. i do not think that is standard practice. it is on a case-by-case basis considering how ill the person is. veterinarians have protocols they can put in place in terms of testing a pet for bird flu. the cdc does not have much to do with animal health and that is the usda that has the veterinarians. unfortunately, their ability to communicate -- fortunately, their ability to mitigate has not been constrained. you can get that information. these are important questions. and that is kind of the bad aspect of what is happening with

these medications hauled from the cdc. people have legitimate questions and they have to know if the questions are being answered. while there are pauses like this with a change in the administration, the scope is large and there needs to be a carveout for things like avian influenza because there are real questions and this is a dynamic and involving outbreak that not just the general public but clinicians and general health practitioners need to know that the cdc is telling them if something is porton -- important is happening. in the last week of the administration there was a guidance change that went out through the health alert network. these things not -- do not need to be a part of everyday washington politics. unfortunately the cdc is a captured organization that answers to the west wing and is not answering to infectious disease physicians or health practitioners and that is not what we want. i sympathize with the caller's

frustration over this issue. host: scott in oregon. line for independents, good morning. caller: hello from the beaver state. i am a science guy, i studied neuroscience in the 80's. i have been a fan of molecular biology ever since. i have a theory on why the u.s. pulled out of the world health organization and i would like to get your take on it. it has to do with covid backlash. the excessive restrictions, the lockdowns, do you have a quick opinion on that and i would like to give you a brief story. guest: the restrictions did not necessarily come from the world health organization. those actually came from the u.s. government, primarily state governments. and i do not think, in different countries different things.

if you look at taiwan and south korea which were some of the best countries when it came to covid-19 they did not do overly aggressive lockdowns. i do not think that is part of it. i think there are issues with the early days of covid and transparency that came from china over the first cases and how officially -- quickly china knew that these -- this was an efficiently transmitted virus. those are some of the issues. but i think this is a political action. i think that president trump has supporters that voted him into office that do not like the who and do not like the issue of international organizations and this was something that he did in 2020 and in some of the rhetoric similar to those regarding the nato -- u.s.' involvement in nato with other countries paying more of the budget. i do not think it has anything specific to do with covid policy other than the lack of

transparency from china and the who initially not being aggressive about that lack of transparency. host: let's go to kelly in north carolina. line for republicans. in morning. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. isn't it true, and i have two things to talk about and i will make them trip -- make them quick. isn't it true that if we signed up with the who, which we are no longer with them as of the executive order, that we give up our sovereignty if there is a pandemic? and this is for the whole world that signed up with the who.

so, that was the first problem. and we would be told what to do with our bodies and everything else the whole time that we are under that pandemic. and another thing is that i was wondering, where you a part of the project -- i cannot remember exactly what the name of it was. i believe it was project something that happened a couple of years before covid where i do know that the hospital that you are connected with there, johnson i'm forgetting the name of it. john hopkins, that is a. that it would be that whole project was everyone sitting

down at the table and -- like bill gates and john hopkins and other hospitals and other people like the cdc and such and you did an exercise. i watch the whole thing online. you did an exercise. i should not say you let a hospital and all of them. and it was exactly what turned out to happen to all of us with covid. host: doctor. guest: the first part, the who and sovereignty, that is a -- that is completely misinformation. there is no sovereignty given up. the who does not have any enforcement power or an army or anything like that. the u.s. has been part of the who since the 1940's and 1950's and we have had a pandemic in

1950 7, 1968, 1977, 2009, and covid. and nowhere was u.s. sovereignty breached. that is complete misinformation and it is used to really make political points. there is no actual reality to that with respect to the who. and we are still part of the who for the year. again, it is not as if we instantly removed ourselves. regarding exercises. yes, the johns hopkins center for health security and predecessor organizations have done exercises for pandemics where we done -- where we do table talk at some sizes where we come up with a scenario of what we think might happen and see what this patient -- where decision-makers will act to see where the problems are. and this is a very valuable type of thing that we do. we have done once where we thought about coronavirus causing a pandemic because we

saw what happened with sars and middle east respiratory syndrome. coronavirus was used for a tabletop exercise. we did predict a lot of the things that would happen and that is not because we have some kind of hand in it. if you are a subject matter expert and you understand how policymakers work you can figure out where the mistakes would be and you can understand the characteristics and how it will trwe know what happens during respiratory virus pandemics and where governments get tripped up and where there are issues. that made people think that we are nostradamus but it is not. it is more about making sure that people understand the gaps. unfortunately, policymakers will come to these tabletops and they have these great ideas that they leave with but they do not implement them. these types of exercises are important for understanding where the constraints are, but

they are only good if people actually implement those policies. what we saw was a really lack of proactivity in terms of the u.s. government when it came to covid. we basically allowed the virus to spread unchecked for january, february and half of march for doing something and no ability to test for several months after that. when you do all of that you will get the full force of the virus. it did not have to be that way and we could have been like taiwan and south korea if people would have watched our exercises and taken the lessons and made them part of policy. host: a lot of public health experts will say that it is not if but when we come to another pandemic. a viewer on x asked the question "do are pandemic preparedness plans rely on our membership in the who?" the plan -- guest: the plans do not rely

on membership, however the who is part of our plans. meaning that our first notification would probably come from the who because it is less likely to occur domestically. it is more likely to occur in other parts of the world than the united states. in that sense, the who would be the important first signal that something is amiss. it would not start as a pandemic that it would start with covid, a spreading respiratory disease and somewhere in the world and then you take that information and prepare for it. are pandemic plans would greatly enhance by participation in the who and having access that information or any kind of samples that might be given to the who first or even sequencing data. and then the coordination because we live on a continent with other countries. that is very important in terms of coordinating what is going on

in canada, mexico and the caribbean islands. all of that will be important to our area of the globe during a pandemic. pandemic plans are only enhanced, but we do pandemic planning for the domestic aspects of the problem that are independent of the who. everything is integrated with the who. host: let us hear from margaret in indiana. line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a daughter in medical research and she loves it. very interesting and engaged. and without it, well, that would be the extinction event, and people do not really realize the reason that they are existing and they are continuing to thrive is because of science minds. so i do not get the fact of anyone being a science denier. i would like to say that i

predict that there will be pandemics occurring here in 2025 due to the evolution of the covid that many people have not gotten vaccinated and that is why they will have the continuum of people trying to research and keep people alive and when you have somebody denying on the others it is difficult to do so. hopefully we will proceed and progress with research and try to make cures for cancer and all of those other things. thank you and have a blessed day. guest: so, i agree with the sentiments that science and medicine are very responsible for human flourishing. the fact that we have lifespans reaching up to 80 years, these are all of the results of science and medicine improving human lives, individual human lives. host: let us hear from shelby,

tennessee. line for independents. caller: thank you. my question is on rsv. has researched advanced how to figure out how to help people that come down with rsv. i had a friend that died from it. they gave her antibiotics and everything. she passed away. so, i would like for you to be able to speak on the research and, hopefully continue in what you think maybe really causes rsv. thank you. guest: so, she is asking about rsv which stands for respiratory society will virus, which is affecting humans for hundreds of years. most people get affected -- infected by the age of two. it is the most common cause of infant hospitalization. what people do not also notice

that it is an adult dealt -- adults disease. as you get older your immunity wanes and sometimes those cases could be severe. it has a comparable burden with influenza in terms of possible is asian and death. it is underappreciated as a disease of older adults. we do have vaccines. there are three vaccines that have been approved for rsv prevention that are targeted towards the elderly individuals and older people or without relying -- underlying conditions and then one for pregnant women. and we also have an antibody that we can give to newborns to protect them. there is not any really great treatments once somebody gets it. so if you get rsv you are usually treated with supportive care in the hospital which might mean iv fluids, oxygen and sometimes in the icu.

we have one thing that we can give for people and there are clinical trials to make antivirals. they are progressing so we do not have a treatments for rsv. it is certainly a major problem, and it has been a problem for a long time. i think the vaccines available for older individuals are the best tool that we have to reduce the burden in the older population. we just need more people to take them. host: something that you brought up earlier are reforms needed at the world health organization and in a statement response to the executive order announcement, the who put out a statement. they said "over the past seven years they have been prevented the largest set of reforms in its history to transform our accountability, cost effectiveness and impact in countries." what do they need to focus on now moving forward?

guest: it is about increasing the pressure to have transparency when it comes to disease outbreaks. a lot of countries do not want to say they have an outbreak and i am not just talking about china and covid-19 or sars but saudi arabia and the middle east respiratory syndrome. we sought with tanzania where they initially denied that there was a marburg outdate outbreak. they have to make it the norm that countries do not hide disease outbreaks and they are forthcoming with the information. another thing is right now we are in the middle of an mpox outbreak in parts of africa and one of the best tools to stanch that is a vaccine. there are multiple vaccines out there and there was a major delay at getting them into place in countries like the drc because the who on it to put these through a prequalification process. that was already after the fda and european medicines association and the u.k. equivalent of the fda and canada

equivalent of the fda approved the vaccine. the who did a separate approval process which delayed the vaccine. those types of inefficiencies need to be rooted out when you are desponding to an outbreak. that might be hard with a large bureaucratic agonizing nation. we want this to be nimble. we saw problems after the ebola outbreaks in 2013 and 2014 with the who not really being able to coordinate well with its africa office which led to delays and issues. it is really those types of things that need to be done. also, just to not leave out, there is a question of undue influence of china in the early days of covid and how much information was withheld and how the who reacted. they have been much more aggressive now with pursuing these questions with china and asking for more transparency but they were not so at the beginning of the outbreak.

and some of the visits to china were not very informative and the who basically served as a useful role for china to say that they were complying and being transparent when they really were not. and we still do not understand what was going on in 2019 in november through december with covid-19 and those first cases. host: richard in maryland. line for democrats. caller: good morning and thank you for having me. my question is the sharing of particularly neuroscience between countries. it is, i am aware, they do share, correct? guest: yes. that is not really a who issue. but all kinds of scientific exchanges are occurring in all different fields through the standard medical and scientific researchers in their journals and conferences.

science is generally shared between countries including neuroscience. host: darrell in washington state. line for republicans. in morning. caller: hello. my question is, throughout all of covid i never saw an expert on aerosols and how they spread through the air and transmitted. and we have all of these experts on the disease itself. but, rarely do i ever see an expert on how the virus that is transmitted by aerosols, how aerosols actually move in the air and how they dissipate quickly. i mean extremely quickly under certain conditions. and under other conditions they will stay mobile in the air for quite a while. and i cannot understand why the

who or anybody has not consulted experts in aerosols when we have a disease that is transmitted through the air. guest: that is a good question and an important issue. and i think this was something that was overlooked in the early days where the aerosol scientists were saying that covid was not just spreading through large droplets also spreading through aerosols going short distances and sometimes long distances inquires where we sought -- in choirs. they did get involved later on and that was part of the mask guidance changes. they have been more at the table. all of the stuff that you see about clean buildings initiatives like if you google joseph allen, he has a major aerosol scienctist.

he has been talking about increasing filtration levels in building. that is in the wake of covid-19. certainly in the early days the aerosol aspect was not well incorporated and only later on became incorporated. it is a robust part of how we keep resilience to infectious diseases and thinking about the air we breathe indoors. host: one last call going to tomas in maryland, line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you. i have a couple of questions for the doctor. and i would like to say good morning to him. my questions are with -- two questions. was the u.s. paying $500 million or whatever it is, then we should already be up? we should be five or 10 years already paid up. my next question is, with the

immigration problem. these immigrants are coming from countries where there is not the health system that we have here, but nobody is telling us about what kind of diseases that they are gay -- bringing into the country and they act like they are not sick. these people are sick because they do not have the health care systems or policies to treat them. so we know that they are coming in with illnesses that can affect the american population. i have never heard you say anything. and one of the words on your title is security. so, why hasn't there been alerts to the public about people coming from guatemala, nicaragua , honduras, and venezuela. these people are coming in untreated and untested, but nobody from your organization is giving american people the heads up. guest: a couple of things. first of all, i have already said that the who and the

funding formula is something that needs to be addressed and rectified. this is a real issue that the u.s. can bring to the who to change how it is done. i have answered that question. the second question is about diseases and immigration. and i think this is also a lot of misinformation. yes there are countries with higher prevalences of certain infectious diseases. that has never been shown to be a major threat to the u.s.. we have had some measles outbreaks and the need for quarantine and isolation at the southern border. that is not the predominant way we get infections. when you look at the measles outbreaks in 2024, most of those were u.s. travelers and they themselves were not vaccinated. most of the infectious diseases that we worry about are not from people crossing a border undocumented, but more from people who are traveling for vacation.

that is where those types of cases come from. we had major mutual -- measles outbreaks at disneyland. remember, our vaccination rates are not that great. the best way to protect ourselves is with high vaccination protection rates. some of the countries in central and south america have higher vaccination rates than the u.s.. i think that people have this idea that it is all of these diseases coming across the southern border, but that is not necessarily the case. they are coming on airplanes from people who are traveling from countries like israel, europe and other places where there might be higher levels of measles in europe for instance. and where there are lower vaccination rates. i think this is just something that people think about and use without looking at the numbers. we saw this during covid-19 where the trump and biden administration put in place title 42 to protect us from covid. it did not.

it was used to keep people from protest from crossing the border and covid was an excuse. we are seeing that they are trying to re-invoke title 42 or some concern that they will do that trying to pick an infectious disease. that is not how you protect the country. it is by building up a public health surveillance system and making sure that the hospitals are assured up -- are shored up. infectious diseases will get through eddie border, and they always do. host: dr. amesh adalja is a senior scholar at the johns hopkins center for health security at the bloomberg school you can find his work and more about the organization at centerforhealthsecurity.org. next on washington journal, the axios crypto's reporter joins us to talk about the cryptocurrency industry including potential regulation under the trump

administration. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. we will visit george washington's home to tour recent renovation and preservation efforts at the historic property. on lectures in history, a duke university professor discusses latino migration trends in the 20th and early 21st centuries and how they shape 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 unfolded against the backdrop of the personalities and politics of the new nation. watch american history tv every weekend on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or any time 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 this weekend. 4:00 p.m. eastern gary marcus looks at the potential risks of artificial intelligence and the perspective regulation of the tech industry in "taming silicon valley." at 5:15 em chris bednar and manwell pastore discuss m --anuel pastor discuss lithium in "charging forward." and then gib kerr argues that robert e. lee has been unfairly canceled in u.s. history. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on

afterwards, the democratic oregon senator ron wyden author of "it takes chutzpah" talks about tenacity through hard work and for -- and focus. watch booktv every day on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch any time at booktv.org. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now to discuss the trump administration and cryptocurrency industry including potential regulation is brady dale, a crypto reporter of the axios crypto's newsletter. thank you for joining us. let us start by just talking about and clarifying for those who might be unclear or not sure what it is, explain what cryptocurrency is. guest: sure.

it is a lot of things. the technology has been around for 15 years. it started with bitcoin and it was the first way that people could control and own value themselves on the internet without recourse to a third party. right now, if you want to store dollars electronically in some way, there is no way for you to do that yourself and on your own. you have to have a bank. that means you have to trust them that they will record your transactions correctly and they will not take them from you. and we might feel confident about that sort of thing in the united states and other parts of the world that is not as reliable. bitcoin created a ledger that exists everywhere and nowhere that people can hold value on. and, really the responsibility to keep it and keep it safe is entirely up to them and they can

transact with anyone that they want. there is this decentralized ledger controlled by thousands of people that allows people to transact. from they all kinds of things have been bid up -- built up. not to go into any details but to add one more level, another really important block chain was a theory him --etherum, which took the idea of anyone can access this sort of way and added a new layer which is the idea of smart contracts which is just a block chain that you can put computer programs on which opens up use cases which allows you to run automated systems that can do different things like having someone to trade with different kinds of loans. it is in a lot of folks say it is re-creating finance as we know it. that is true, but it is re-creating it out in the open with more transparency then we have seen so far. that is a good place to start on

what it is. host: something you mentioned is storing it. how does someone acquire it before they store it? once they have it, where does it go? what can it be used for? guest: it is on whatever block chain that it is on. it is on the internet. that is where cryptocurrency is. it is native to the internet and it does not exist any other way. it is abstract on that level. how do you get it? the way most people get it is by it with dollars or whatever their local currency is. there is another way to get it most of the time, you can earn it in some way. the big way with bitcoin is mining. it is pretty hard for a normal person to get involved on their own. you can but it takes more doing. there are other networks that are simpler that you can mine or do other kinds of work that is useful to the network and you

will learn cryptocurrency. the reason why all of these networks have some kind of coin that provides value is because no one controls them and they exist all over the place, they need a way to create an incentive for folks to keep the networks up and secure. they have this money that is on there. bitcoin minors earn fresh bitcoin by logging the transactions. they get it directly by the network. most people just buy it. host: what does the current crypto regulation look like in the u.s.? is it regulated? guest: this is a hotly debated point. i would argue that by in large it is not really regulated, in that. what i mean specifically is that as i said, cryptocurrency is this network of money that

exists on the internet. there is not a company and control of these networks. it is a new thing in the world. we could not do this before the internet. we could not have an organization that people were not running. that was something that was enabled by the idea of the block chain. it is just a new thing and our existing regulations just have not dealt with that. they have not taught about how they deal with regulating a thing that does not have humans and control. in that way it has not been regulated because new rules have not been written for it to take into consideration the way it really works. there are some aspects of the industry regulated, the ftc keep an eye on some of the markets. there have been certain financial products that have been approved, most famously the bitcoin etf's and also for

etherium. they are aspects that are regulated but most of what we have seen in the last few years and this has been the complaint from the industry and as a person covering it, i think the characterization is accurate is we have had a situation where it is regulation by enforcement. the sec cracked down on companies trying to live within the law even though the law has not quite kept up to how the industry works. the trump administration has said they are going to start the process of rolling out rules so i think we will start to see rules that are made to suit this new industry coming out and it will be sort of regulated in a way that acknowledges that the world has changed somewhat. host: the crypto reporter for axios will be our guest for the next 35 minutes. if you have a question or comment can start calling in. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002.

you have had a busy week as a cryptocurrency reporter, there has been a lot going on and one of the things that has happened is that president trump signed an executive order establishing a presidential working group on digital asset markets. it rolls right off the time. tell it -- tongue. tell us who is a part of that group? guest: all of the big guns so it is like the head of treasury, the head of the fcc, the attorney general. everyone who is touching financial markets is meant to come to the table. it will probably be their staff who come to the table. they are meant to come together and start figuring out whether or not we have existing rules that stymie the cryptocurrency industry and what we can do to change it. a couple of things that folks found notable is the preamble of

the executive order includes the words the right to transact which is a thing that people in the crypto world care about. it looks like somebody in trump's team has done their homework about it and come to understand the priorities of the industry and it is taking no seriously. within 180 days we should see some new rules proposed and the sec which has been enemy number one of the industry have already created their own crypto working group and that happened before the executive order because it is an independent agency. they started the day before. a lot of things are changing. host: we have some callers waiting to talk. we will start with north carolina on the line for independents. good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i am a victim of that coin theft. i had my account, they did a

whole lot. mike question it -- my question is what is backing the currency? who is going to back this money? what makes it not a ponzi scheme? could you explain that. because i got ripped off by bitcoin. guest: this is the downside of not having a third party involved. individuals who use these cryptocurrencies, it is possession is the entirety of the law. and these cryptocurrencies, it is your responsibility to keep it safe. there is a danger if that somebody steals it from you, which happens all the time, there is no way to get it back. that is the risk people are taking on. and it is not a risk that a lot of people want to take. in terms of what is backing it, this is a hotly debated topic. when you look at the history of money, all money is kind of a

belief and faith. united states dollar, the most powerful money in the world, the faith that people want to continue to transact with the united states. that is all it comes down to at the end of the day. bitcoin, it is this massive network of people who are involved securing the network. and so if you believe and you want to have some kind of money that does not have any -- the state does not have control over if that seems valuable, then you will buy into bitcoin. it seems like many people do believe that, but more people do not. where the value of any money comes from is something that has had philosophers scratching their head for a long time. the u.s. dollar is not backed by anything other than the faith and credit of the united states. it is much the same for bitcoin, which is backed by a bunch of

people who makes money off that it guarantees -- that it still functions you just have to believe in one system or another. host: diane in california. the line for democrats. caller: good morning. am i on? host: go ahead. caller: my concern for bradley dale and my question -- brady dale, my question comes from in california at least and as the country spreads this, i am wondering what the role crypto r country into becoming a cashless society. the largest destinations are disneyland. those parks do not take cash. for the majority of the entire park. it is a concern of mine.

i would like to know what role crypto may play in the eradication of cash. guest: yeah. wow. interesting question. i don't know how to answer that. i will say when bitcoin was created, the idea was that it was meant to be digital cash. what is nice about cash is you can just hand a bill to somebody and the transaction is settled right there. if you do a transaction with a credit card, probably what they are doing at disney world, there's a tenant things that happened behind the scenes. a lot of people get involved. it is not just you and the bank and the other person involved. it takes a long time before that is really settled. with bitcoin, settling happens

almost as fast as with cash. it is trying to emulate the same thing. i don't feel like i entered your question well but i will say people in the crypto world are as concerned about that issue as you are. at least the og's who have been around a long time love cash because they like the fact that they can have transactions. no one is really watching. instant settlement is appealing to them. the world is globalizing. cash does not work if you want to transact with other continent. you have to have a cash-like experience but is also on the internet. there are with cryptocurrency more similarities between cash and crypto and is immediately obvious. you might've heard about it is a developing trend, countries are trying to make cash versions of fiat currency. it is usually called central

bank digital currencies. china is way ahead than most of the world on this. that has been of great concern because when the state is running it, the state has more legibility in our lives. that is something a lot of people in the block chain world would want to get ahead of this, create a product everyone is using that is not quite so surveilled. the trump administration has said we will not work on this as long as i mine office. all work has shut down for the next four years. it is a complicated question. i am somewhat concerned that cash may go extinct as well. on the flipside, folks need to transact on the internet. there is that tension. i'm not sure which way that is heading to be honest. host: brady, the executive order president trump signed, i want

to show you and the audience some of the things it outlines. it includes evaluating the creation of a strategic national digital asset stockpile, prohibits agencies from establishing, issuing or promoting central bank digital currencies, and revokes the biden administration's digital asset executive order framework for international engagement on the industry. what sticks out to you from those? guest: the most notable in that list -- i just talked about the dbdc thing -- cbdc. the most notable thing is the digital stockpile. i was there when trump stood on stage and said the u.s. would establish a stockpile specifically of bitcoin. we would hold onto the bitcoin we have. it might be interesting to know when people hear that, the

conclusion they jump to is the u.s. government is going to start buying bitcoin. that is a possibility. what then the nominee meant was the was government already has $20 billion worth of bitcoin. not because it bought it because it seized it from different criminals. his idea was we could establish a stockpile by not selling that bitcoin. normally when we seize valuable property from criminal organizations, the u.s. marshals service sells it off over time and put that towards funding law enforcement, towards victim restoration. trump said what if we just held onto our bitcoin for a long time and if it goes up in value maybe you can pay down the debt or sit on it forever because he gives the u.s. a strategic advantage with bitcoin in some way. a lot of folks thought that trump was just going to do that on day one.

he would tell the u.s. marshals service to stop selling our bitcoin. he did not do that. it is a topic they will study. politically that was pretty disappointing to people in this bitcoin world. we have to wait and see what the group comes up with in terms of whether or not they think the stockpile is a good idea. that was the thing that jumped out from the executive order besides establishing that working group. host: dave in new york on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i'm a little concerned. i want to point out a few things. you had the dotcom bubble. everybody was pumping and pumping. has anybody questioned the pd ratio -- p/e ratio? the housing when screaming because of the bailouts. everybody pumped. that blew up. they had to print $5 trillion

out of thin air to bailout the degenerate scammers on wall street. now the covid thing blew up. they printed another $5 trillion. now the fed balance sheet is down to about $7 billion or whatever. bitcoin is another scam. it's another ignorant generate gambling scheme. there are thousands of crypto coins out there. wall street is pumping this bitcoin. it is pumping this ai ignorance. when this blows up, the more ron's are going to come -- morons will come rushing in and bail all the dinner it's out, print how many trillions of dollars. i will get crushed by the massive inflation that everybody is crying about for the last how many years. electing donald trump, because of the economy, because of the inflation, the total destructive disaster. we will have to pay the price

for the degenerate. -- degenerates. guest: i would be surprised if that were true in this case. there is no question. i'm not going to debate with you for one second that irrational exuberance does hit the cryptocurrency market. i would not be surprised if it hit again within the next year. however, we have already seen several big rounds of massive excitement and then gigantic drops in the cryptocurrency world are ready. it happened in 2013 and 2017 and 2021. there were no bailouts. this is not a community the broad world feels the need to save when they run into trouble. i would be wildly surprised if there were a bailout the next time it happens. you could be right and i could be wrong. that would blow my mind. i would not be surprised if we saw another gigantic way too excited run happen again. i don't think there will be

bailouts. the thing i'm watching -- i expect people will get over it and prices will go too high too fast again. what i'm interested to see however, every other times it's been a big run-up, prices have fallen between 80% to 90% from the peak. interestingly, they never fall below the prior peak, would suggest that our certain numbers of people who have bought and forget. they create a floor that for -- bought in for good. they created a floor. if it falls 40%, 60% but does not fall to 80% like it did before, that would suggest the whole market has become somewhat more stable and we will just have to see. that is what i'm watching. if it doesn't fall as far as it has every time before. there is a chance there would be some kind of bailout.

if it is too wild, but i put the odds at around 1%. i have been wrong before. host: you were talking about the -- we could see an increase in interest in people and building of the bubble. one of your recent headlines, trump's meme coin attracted a lot of new to crypto buyers. what can you tell us? guest: meme coins. two things were exciting and the crypto world over the last year. one was bitcoin. that was because the supply slows down. people get excited about that. then we had bitcoin etf's. that is a situation where people could now buy bitcoin in their brokerage accounts. for those reasons bitcoin went

up a lot all three 2024. -- all through 2020 for. on --2024. meme coin is a gigantic social gambling game people play around ideas. there are coins for everything you can think of. there was one for that little pygmy hippo everyone was talking about. it is silly stuff. people are basically making bets with each other about which one of these will become the most exciting. meme coins run on sunblock chain. -- run on some blockchain . you can use a blockchain to create little minor cryptocurrencies that are not as important. the big thing that happened in the last week -- this was a surprise to everyone. i know people who are deep, deep in the crypto world and know what's going on. just before the inauguration president trump released his own official trump meme coin.

there have been lots of trump coins before. many people a created trump coins that were inspired by the president. this was the first on the president released. it blew the world's mind. word spread very quickly. tons of people were like if the president is doing a meme coin, this makes the market legitimate so a lot of people bought. most people seemed to buy a little bit. much less than $1000. maybe more like $100 or so. tons of new people will like if the president will create a coin, i need to get into the cryptocurrency market now. at first the coin went up a ton in value. it has lost about half of that now. it is floating around half of that height it got to. a lot of people have not lost money. they mostly made a tiny bit. yeah. it is a mind blowing thing where the president has released a

token for his administration. notably, the thing people are commenting on, you can buy it from the trump organization. it is a way to funnel money indirectly to the president so there are concerns. it has generated a ton of interest in the cryptocurrency world and convinced new entrants that maybe this stuff will stick around. host: let's talk with mary in philadelphia on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, c-span. mr. dale. i want to let people know it is very difficult to retrieve money based on offshore accounts. this cryptocurrency industry. when you are dealing with other countries, when does it become taxable to the individual? we tried to get moneys back from

the panama papers that was in the united states. people need to be very careful when they are dealing with other countries, because i have worked with the government and we tried to retrieve money under the re-patriot act of president obama. now we are looking at cryptocurrency which we know nothing about. thank you. please let me know when does the money become taxable for the american people? have a good day. guest: yeah. thanks for that question. the first thing to say is thank you for reminding me it's always good when you're talking about cryptocurrency to put a note of caution out there. this is a new technology. he works differently than everything they are used to. it is highly volatile. anyone should exercise caution. specifically on the taxability, i would not be surprised if something's changed in the next

few years. right now the irs looks at cryptocurrency as property. you create a taxable event anytime you sell it. it is as simple as that. sales -- probably this is not what most people would do but for those who are deep into the cryptocurrency market, a prior caller said there are thousands out there and that is right. the main thing people do with cryptocurrency so far is they trade them, which means they move around, which means there are thousands of currencies trying to make a little bit of money. even if you trade doge coin for xrp, two alternative cryptocurrencies that are not as big as bitcoin, if you trade between those, in the eyes of the irs, even though it did not become dollars, that is still a sale. any time a sale is made, whether

there was profit or loss, that is a taxable event. everyone needs to add up all of their sales, all their trades and figure out if it was a net profit or net loss and report that to the irs. that is how the taxes work. it gets more complicated than that. you should consult an accountant. every time there is a sale of any kind, that is taxable in the eyes of the irs. host: clark in west virginia on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, mr. dale. yes. i'm a 73-year-old disabled coal miner. the currency i dug was about two miles underground. i heard you say that you -- the united state currency was not backed by anything. unless i forgot about it or did not see it, i thought gold.

i know we printed more money than gold that we can mine. this crypto stuff, is this stuff tangible? can you handle it other than out there in the computer world? i don't understand that. tell me what this stuff is all about. do you trade it? what do you do with it? guest: do your first question, no, the u.s. dollar is not backed by gold. we have a ton of gold at fort knox but is not doing anything. it was under the knicks administration we let the dollar float and we have ever since then -- nixon administration. it used to be backed by gold. $35 could buy you announce of gold but that has not been true since the 1970's. it is a common misconception that gold backs the u.s. dollar. we have a giant pile of it. the main reason is because people who have invested in gold would flip out if the u.s. government started selling all

that gold that they have. it would dampen the value of their gold. that is why we hold onto it. it is not doing anything for us other than that. we are incurring an expense by keeping it secure. where does the value of bitcoin khan from? -- come from? this is the ongoing quandary of all money. it is not at all tangible. there's is no way to ever touch a bitcoin. it is really just a string of numbers on the internet that are secured by a bunch of people maintaining copies of this ledger. it has value because people believe it has value, because it has risen in value over time. i think the main thing philosophically people believe about bitcoin is it is a form of value that knowing can censor. no government can say this person can't transaction with that person. if you believe there is a chance somewhere in the world, anywhere in the world there might be some group of people who might have

their freedom restricted by a government who wants to control the way they can spend money because you don't have any freedom if you can't transact with other people, if that is happening anywhere, something like cryptocurrency is valuable. people believe in it because there are thousands of entities all over the world keeping the bitcoin ledger secure. that is the value proposition. in terms of anything in particular about backing it, there is not piles of gold backing bitcoin either. it's a free-floating asset that over the last 15 years more and more people have come to trust and buy into. because they want it, the price has gone up. yeah. this is the weirdness of money. it is always hard to figure out where the value comes from. host: kay in north carolina on the land for independents. caller: thank you. i have read many articles asking

what is -- trying to reclaim what is cryptocurrency. -- to explain to me what is cryptocurrency. you have tried to do that but using words like token, coin, string of numbers, all without definitions as to what they are. what is a coin? to me that's a penny or a dime. i'm open to a different kind of a coin for sure but what is it? from what you are saying it sounds a lot like barter. the kind of thing that the establishment of the central bank in the 1700s was designed to avoid, have different currencies for different people. here in raleigh you cannot buy something from richmond because of a different currency there. if you can light a person who just be explaining wish as to what it is. words other than token, coin,

earn. lots of people controlling. what is cryptocurrency in plain english? i will listen and thank you very much. guest: this is one of the things you kind of need to mess around with it before it starts to really click for folks. i recommend if you want to understand it, buy a little, make a few transactions. it will start to make more sense then. the simplest answer i can give you, and i don't know if this will satisfy you, it is money native to the internet. just like the internet does not have any tangible nature and the world, it is purely electronic, purely up in the sky or in everyone's computers, that is the same for cryptocurrency. it is money that exists purely on the internet. that is the best way i can put it.

it is a set of books. i said ledger before but it is a set -- a record of all the transactions anyone has ever made. whatever the different cryptocurrency is. all those transactions exist forever in public. everyone can look at the list of transactions. because every transaction that has ever been made is publicly viewable to everyone, people can know there have not been mistakes and no one has coins or assets they shouldn't have. yeah. i can't argue with you. it is all pretty abstract and takes a while to wrap your head around. i don't know if i can make it easier than that but that is my next attempt. i'm sorry if that doesn't quite cut it. host: we appreciate your time and expanding this to all of us, including myself. i wanted to ask about potential regulation.

one of the things the presidential working group on digital asset markets will be working on is legislative proposals. what do we know about what those may look like and how they -- how congress may approach those? the challenges they may have getting through the legislative bodies? guest: the main thing is that the two top priorities for congress are these two ideas of market structure as they call it and stable coins. market structure is just the question of which entities in the government will regulate which kind of crypto assets. i'm sorry. this gets kind of abstract too. there's a question of which cryptocurrencies are securities. that basically means financial assets that require a lot more scrutiny by the government. there has to be a lot more paperwork done. a lot more things kept an eye

on. that is a security to keep it simple. and then which ones are commodities. like coffee and gold, assets the government believes -- this is a trustworthy asset. no one is in control of it. it is hard to manipulate so we can let it freely trade. they are -- the government is trying to come up with rules where they can say these cryptocurrencies are big enough and widely enough traded and hard enough to control that we trust them so they go to the commodities side so they are not as heavily regulated. these cryptocurrencies we have to keep it much closer eye on them. that has been the hot topic in the crypto world as long as i have been covering this topic for over seven years now. we may see the government deal with that. the other topic already is around stable coins.

what are the rules for stable coins in the united states? who can issue them? how can they be managed? that's another kind of abstract thing but stable coins are just cryptocurrencies that represent u.s. dollars. someone sticks a dollar in a bank account somewhere, maybe they buy a treasury. some bank or some organization issues a token on a block chain that represents that dollar. that allows that dollar to move around at the speed of the internet with less controls on it then we have with the existing dollars moving around. most transactions you make with a dollar there are way more people involved with the transaction then you realize. a stable coin, it is not like that. it is a secure way to move money around that is faster and fewer hands and it. stable coins have turned out to be the killer app for cryptocurrency. it is the thing that has proven to be of enormous value in the world.

the trump administration sees stable coins as good for the united states and the dominance of the dollar. they have given people all over the world a way to access dollars they did not have before. lots of countries, it is against the rules for the banks to let you hold dollars and put it into a local bank. they will turn it into the local currency. people want dollars because they trust dollars. stable coins are given them a way access dollars. some people believe that is good for us. we want to create some kind of legislation that governs how stable coins are issued in dollars in the united states. a lot of lawmakers are excited about stable coins and some are skeptical. it is seen as a topper you're ready to deal with those -- top priority to deal with those. those of the two hot topics. host: we have time for a couple more calls. matthew in dearborn michigan on

the langford -- dearborn, michigan on the line for democrats. caller: who pays for all the power for the servers that keep the ledger? two, i don't care what kind of computer you got. they can crack -- somebody will come along and crack it. they cracked the government computers and corporate computers. last is gangsters. it's a free way to move around money without people knowing. guest: ok. we have power, gangsters, and security. on power, who pays for the power? the miners pay for the power. there are a few others but bitcoin is the main cryptocurrency that uses a lot of power. most use a different system with not much power. miners pay for it. this is the business of bitcoin mining. bitcoin minors look -- miners

set up servers and pay for the power to run the bitcoin mines and they already backed by generating bitcoin --earn it back by generating bitcoin. in texas, one of the problems we have is we are heading towards a greener grid as new power sources get set up and they are not enough customers to use the power sources immediately or it is not available at the right times. bitcoin miners become the first customer that allows them to bring new sources of power online. bitcoin miners pay for their power unquestionably. on the security, you are right. everything does get hacked. for whatever reason bitcoin, the bitcoin network in particular and the other cryptocurrency networks, the well-established ones have all been this giant

attack surface for hackers. bitcoin is 15 years old now. for a very long time now. as far as we know folks have not managed to hack them so far. this is something that is checkable. you can verify the ledger makes sense. all the transactions that have ever happened are out there. you can quickly verify there is no more bitcoin in existence then there should be. it should all match up. people are checking this constantly, 24 hours a day. no one has succeeded in hacking these networks yet. i think it's because the architecture is so very different than other computer systems. so far it has not been but you are right. it could happen anytime. the third question, crime. yeah. cryptocurrency is widely used for crime. i don't like to be dismissive of that. at the same time everything that

is useful is used by criminals. i like to say roads are used by criminals, the internet is used by criminals and duct tape is used by criminals. if it is useful, criminals will use it. if it is useful, other people use it as well. it is the job of police to stop crime. if it is useful for people outside the law, it will be useful for people inside the laws well. host: deborah in maryland on the line for democrats. caller: hello. i'm a retired tax lawyer. i don't get why it is even called currency. you cannot buy something with it without incurring attacks. if you wanted to buy a car with bitcoin and the iris looks at it as property, is equal to the base difference between bitcoin and the price of the car. until you can go to the grocery store and buy a gallon of milk

without paying a tax on it, i don't understand why it is called currency. i don't pay attacks when i buy something with a dollar no matter what the dollar is trading for -- pay a tax. it's an entirely different thing. guest: you are getting into all kinds of interesting points. most people would acknowledge that the use case of something like bitcoin for most people is not to use here in america. it is not to use it as a currency. it turns out that what it is more valuable for folks for is an alternative way to store value. a way to make a hedge against inflation. there are certain people in the will to do make transactions with it. if you have had a bunch of appreciated bitcoin for buying a car, people have done it. they pay taxes on it.

if you spent $1000 and attended to $20,000, that has happened for people. they don't care a lot. it has a different sort of use case. there are other parts of the world in which currencies are not a stable. cryptocurrencies have been valuable for making actual on the ground transactions. that is something we have seen. i mentioned stable coins. stable coins are cryptocurrencies that stay stable. that is where most on the ground transactions happen with cryptocurrency. they are done with stable coins. one last point. you are right. the whole idea of property is something that the cook to come see -- cryptocurrency world has pushed back on. a topic congress has been discussing as long as i have followed the industry and maybe they will take up sometime soon is the idea of some kind of diminished exception. if you transact with forward currencies, some kind of thing

where if you make a small purchase, probably not a car but if you buy some coffee or something at the grocery store, that would not be subject to taxation. it would function more like a currency in that case. we just don't have this kind of rules in the u.s. now. we have not agreed on what the number should be. you are right. it does not really function well as a currency on that level in the united states because we need tax rules to make a call on it. so far the irs decided to treat it all as property. that could change. the u.s. is just one chunk of the world. people in the u.s. don't sue her need alternative ways to transaction -- super need alternative ways to transact. that is why we see it happening more quickly elsewhere where money is not quite as stable. the main reason people

use and here is her making a bet on the future that bitcoin will become more valuable. it isn't really used as a currency very much and are part of the world. host: our guest is brady dale, they crypto reported for axios. you can find his work -- reporter for axios. you can find his work at axios.com. thank you for being with us today. guest: thanks for having me. host: next on washington journal, open forum. there's a public policy issue that you would like to talk about, you can call now. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . we will be right back. ♪ >> next week on the c-span networks the house is out as

house republicans hold their annual retreat. the senate will be in session as they continue to hold hearings for several of president trump's cabinet nominees, including robert f. kennedy, jr., president trump's nominee for health and human services secretary. also on thursday, kash patel will testify as he seeks to become fbi director. tulsa gabbard, mr. trump's nominee for director of national intelligence will appear before the senate intelligence committee. watch next week live on the c-span networks are on c-span now, our free mobile video app. also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on-demand anytime. c-span. democracy unfiltered. >> sunday night on c-span's

q&a, part two of our interview with historian nigel hamilton author of lincoln versus davis. he talks about the military face-off between these two american presidents during the civil war and the impact the emancipation proclamation had on the war's outcome. >> from that moment, the first of january, 1863, the south was doomed. until then, jefferson davis had been allowed by lincoln to frame the war as a noble, white, southern fight for independence. pure and simple. but from the moment that lincoln said no, you, jefferson davis, and your commander-in-chief robert e. lee have attacked the

north, which is what they did in september of 1862, the equivalent of pearl harbor. once you attack the north you change the game. >> nigel hamilton, sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. listen to q&a and our podcasts and are free c-span now app. -- on our free c-span now app. >> democracy. it isn't just an idea. it's a process shaped by leaders, elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few in guarding its basic principles. it is where 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 in open forum for the duration of today show -- today's show. on c-span2, the senate has gaveled in for more legislative -- more action today. they are expected to vote on the confirmation of kristi noem to be dhs secretary today, followed by a vote to advance treasury secretary nominee scott bessent. that is expected to happen at about 11:30 a.m. you can was set on c-span2. david in indiana on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

i want to comment on the earlier first hour regarding pete hegseth's confirmation. c-span is an attack mode again but that's fine. he is our defense secretary. the hypocrisy of the democrats is remarkable. you had a buffoon as a commander-in-chief you could not, you know, hold his last cabinet meeting. his wife had to do it. you are worried about the defense secretary not being of the right demeanor. i find it interesting coming up soon you will get the jfk, mlk and rfk assassination results. that will include fbi reports. you will find that marley thinking was one of the biggest -- martin luther king was one of the biggest persons for

infidelity. the hypocrisy is still alive and well. thank you very much. host: cojo in virginia on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i want to comment about the ice raids going on. i think the president campaigned on bringing -- what is it now that all these far workers are running? what is it going to due to the inflation he promised to bring down on day one? most of the workers that work at the farms or immigrants. i don't know if the indigenous people are going to go out in the hot sun to do that work. they talk about health care when most of the immigrants are the

one taking care of the elderly here, which most people are not willing to do that. as much as mr. trump promised to deport people, look at the consequence in the long run as to how it will affect the american people. the promise he made in terms of coming out here [indiscernible] now gas prices are going up. proceeds are going up -- groceries are going up. that is not what he promised. there are bad people you have to deport, that's fine. not this wholesale thing that everybody is going. all over the internet, people are going to run away and not work and it will affect the economy he promised. host: paul in pennsylvania on the line for democrats. caller: this message -- this

question is for the cryptocurrency exchange rate. one institution, whether it is a bank recitation, can i exchange bitcoin for the u.s. dollar? i want to know with the net amount in u.s. dollars would be for one single bitcoin. if you have a bitcoin registered in your name, what is the amount you get to put in your hand for u.s. dollar currency? thank you. host: david in riverside, california on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, tammy. good morning america. thanks to c-span for open forum. i'm happy that trump is president and trying to make america great again. a lot of his policy sound good to me. more importantly, america needs to turn back to the god of the bible. we wouldn't be dealing with gay

issues are high divorce rates or drug addiction and murder like we are and suicide and drug overdoses. the only way i can see forward is back to before the hippie movement and the sexual revolution. there are only nine countries out of 200 that allow a up until birther any reason. america is one. among them is china and north korea. most americans think america is going in the wrong direction. we need to the rent to the god of the bible and the morals of the bible and we can be free again. that will make america great again. the world can regain his confidence as well. as america goes, so goes the world. president trump can lower taxes, change america and lots of different ways and he should. unless we make america christian again and moral again, it will all be minor and reversible change. thank you. host: president trump was in

north carolina and california touring damage from the floods last year and the wildfires in california. during his trip to california he sat down with los angeles mayor karen bass and heard from individuals about the devastation that the wildfires caused. here's an exchange between the president and mayor bass during the event. [video] >> the number one thing we are going to do it immediately, and you will see this happen, is to clear out the debris. we are concerned now over the weekend because of the potential rain. we are going to move as fast as we can. we want you to be safe. we want you to be back in your homes immediately. pres. trump: the people are willing to clean out there on debris. mayor bass: and they can. pres. trump: if they rely on contractors it will be two

years. people are willing to get a dumpster and do it themselves and clean it out. it is not that much left. it is all incinerated. it will take a long time. you can do some of it but a lot of these people -- i know that guy right there that is talking. i know my people. he will be on that thing tonight going to stuff away. it will look perfect within 24 hours. that is what he wants to do. he does not want to wait around for seven months until the city hired some demolition contractor that will charge some $25,000 to do his lot. you have emergency powers just like i do. i'm exercising my emergency powers. you have to exercise them also. mayor bass: i did. pres. trump: you can do everything within 24 hours. mayor bass: if individuals want to clear out property, they can. [crowd talking] yes. you will be able to go back soon.

we think within a week. pres. trump: that is a long time. everyone standing in front of the house, they want to go to work and they are not allowed to do it. we need -- mayor bass: we need people to be safe. host: 3:30 p.m. eastern today, president trump will return to las vegas for the first time since his election to deliver remarks on tax policy. he is expected to address is no tax on tips proposal which he first outlined at a rally in las vegas last year. you can watch that live at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, and online at c-span.org. we look back to calls. john in ohio on the line for independents. caller: the previous caller was talking about martin luther king's assassination.

i have seen an important article that points out that the speech that is allowed by the media to be read every commemoration of martin luther king is a pretty but platitudinous. every right winger and races could claim or pretended to agree with but the one and most important speech that martin luther king said was his most important, he wanted to be his legacy, it totally censored every year. it is called -- you can look it up. the martin luther king beyond vietnam, breaking the silence speech. martin luther king beyond vietnam speech.

he says the united states government is the greatest purveyor of violence and imperialism in the world. it goes around the world with interventions that support dictators that kill thousands of people in pursuit of the furthering of the profits of american corporations. that is on tape and in print. it is censored by our so-called free media every year. there is another one called the deep state and crimes of the u.s. empire. gladio. the deep state and the gladio crimes of the u.s. empire. the so-called free press has

suppressed. it was brought up by cia people who are complete the persecute about all the yes-men, to purveyors of the propaganda of the cia and pentagon are given every opportunity and every platform throughout the media. i think people should get that article called the cia take over of america in the 1960's by killing jfk, rfk and mlk. global research. host: we will go to angela in maryland on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: i have three things i saw this week that makes me sure trump is not for america or the working people. let's start with the

cryptocurrency. right now the house financial services committee and senate financial services committee are trying to make rules and regulations around crypto. they don't know anything about crypto. nobody does, not even the people that run it. whatever rules and regulations they make, they will be a million holes in. the financial service companies, you have your 401(k)s with them and the banks, they will feel secure with the rules. they will invest your money in that and their money and that. that will be the next financial collapse and bailout. the tariffs. trump said by february canada and mexico will have 25% tariffs. he told the world economic forum this week that all countries and all businesses that are not physically in the united states will have a tariff. that is called across-the-board tariffs. everything you buy you will pay more for.

what is he going to do with that tariff money? lee put that money into the social security and medicare trust fund? is he going to put that tariff money into the debt? is he going to give it to elon musk to go to mars with? i don't know. third, infrastructure. he did exactly what i predicted this week. he put an executive order to pause the infrastructure money. my husband puts it underground -- in underground water and sewer pipes. that is coming to a halt. good luck with your old water and super pipes. he's not for the working people. thank you, c-span. host: we would go to joel in illinois on the line for independents. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: go ahead, joel. caller: thanks for taking my call. my main concern is the super

pac's. specifically aipac, the american israeli public affairs committee. i live in the st. louis area on the river. there was a congresswoman named cori bush who lost her primary. according to her, she's blaming aipac. i understand there were four -- four former congresspeople who lost their primaries. two republicans and two democrats. i think -- you can label me an anti-semite if you want but i believe they are becoming too powerful. i'm not the biggest fan of the squad or the quad or whatever

but i think they have a point about holding israel accountable. what happened in l.a., we are all concerned about it and cried over it. i can understand why maybe mismanagement of resources led to the severity of the wildfires. i'm not here to debate that. it was tragic. anyways, as americans, you know, we stood idly by and watched our tax dollars annihilate 48,000 palestinians. i know that number is -- you can debate that number. if you look at what gaza was before and what it is now, our tax dollars led to that destruction. that could have been prevented. we sat here as americans and watched our tax dollars do that to a people. don't tell me they were all terrorists. they weren't. let's be reasonable.

i'm concerned about the strength of that political action committee and where it is steering this country. host: that was joel in illinois. claudia in texas on the line for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm going to try to speak as intelligently as i can. i'm a former democrat from boston. i now live in lubbock, texas. i am part of the republican party. this is what i want to say. i have heard a lot of you callers on both sides of the fence. growing up in a democratic party, i can understand where they are coming from. what i'm seeing is a common bond is theft. i'm talking about trump in particular. everyone is seeing him as -- i hear people say he wants to be a dictator. he wants to control and all this good stuff. nasty stuff i should say.

want to think about the farmers, i hear both sides say we need the immigrants. it depends on what party you talk to. some call them illegal immigrants, undocumented, some call them legal immigrants. we need them to work the farms. if we don't have them on farms, they will not be harvested properly. no americans are willing to do that job. two things about that. number one on both sides, maybe not exactly but it is kind of a form of slavery that both sides complain about. you want to exploit people with low wages for dirty jobs that american people are not willing to do. that is every party. what i have watched over the years is complacency in our country. total complacency. it has been a water drip. the reason i say a water drip is because we have all been primed to think or to be depended on the help from the government.

one of reagan's biggest sayings was be afraid when the government says i'm here to help you. we are blaming trump for trying to be a dictator and take over yet he's trying to dismantle all the rules, the policies that these farmers are being subjected to. a farmer will tell you you have to use certain inputs that cost astronomical amounts of money. we don't even manufacture here. they start paying all this money. in order to continue farming they have to use this low-cost labor. it is a vicious cycle. for me, if i making sense, my generation, someone has to take the head. when you are detoxing from a drug there is a period that is painful. i have never taken drugs but i can empathize with anyone that probably has and how painful it is. we have to take a hit. we have the detox on the government.

when these regulations are pulled out from under our feet, whether it is welfare or snap or subsidy -- subsidized programs, we need to help our neighbors. i don't care what your party is. you see someone hungry, you have to help each other. we need to let trump allow farmers to afford to run their farms without depending on the government subsidies or they go under. it is all control. host: that was claudia. lou in portland, oregon. the line for democrats. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: people have different issues and different perspectives. i was thinking about in oregon local responses to trump practices in the first week, which may tie into national things.

oregon gray panthers is holding our protect communities events on valentine's day. getting vacancy -- it is an advocacy group. they have an alliance with 80 groups that are protecting immigrants and people of color and people who are one of the many targets of the trump administration. i wanted to add based on people who had phoned in that i'm someone that used to live in los angeles and las vegas and chapel hill, north carolina. i know some of the places trump has been targeting this week. i think community responses is helpful. by democrats and independents to trump's agenda. in portland, oregon, keith wilson is a sign of hope. he just got elected mayor. he has not been elected to office before. his primary issue is housing and social justice. there are a couple of people i would try to mention. kale turn, with the

asian-pacific action network, kale is organizing this for harm reduction on valentine's day in portland, and a newly elected congresswoman, a doctor from oregon, maxime dexter who has been focused on gun reform and social justice and housing along with health care now that she is in congress. i know you pretty much answered what people talk about. do you think that -- maybe you are not allowed to say your opinion but the trump agenda and the first week has been helpful or not so much? would you say it depends? thanks. host: host: as host moderators we do not offer opinions or comments like that and that was our last call for today's program. we will be back tomorrow morning at seven :00 a.m. eastern with another edition of "washington journal."

until then, enjoy your afternoon. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> c-span's washington journal, our live form inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics and public policy. from washington and across the country. sunday morning the washington journal white house reporter discusses week one of the trump administration and a veteran journalist talks about his book, "a different russia." c-span's washington journal join in the conversation live at 7:00 eastern on c-span, or online at c-span.org.

>> this afternoon president trump will return to las vegas for the first time since as the election to deliver remarks on tax policy. he is expected to address his "no tax on tips" proposal. you can watch that live at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, or online at c-span.org. ♪ >> american history tv, exploring the -- the people and events that tell the american story. we will visit mount vernon to tour recent efforts at the historic property. duke professor cecilia marques discusses latino migration trends in the early 21st century and how latinos shaped the

culture and economics of the american south. on the presidency, has story and discusses the second u.s. president john adams. his presidency unfolded against the backdrop of the politics and personalities of the new nation. exploring the american story, watch american history tv on c-span two and find a full schedule on your program guide or walk any time on c-span.org/history. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more including sparklight. >> what is great internet? is it strong? fast? reliable? at sparklight we know connection goes way beyond technology. from monday morning meetings to friday nights with friends and

everything in between. the best connections are always there right when you need them. how do you know it is great internet? because that works. we are sparklight and we are always working for you. >> sparklight supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> on this vote the yeas are 50 and the nays are 50. the vice president votes in the affirmative and the nomination is confirmed. ♪ host: this is "washington journal" for saturday, january 25. last night the senate confirmed pete hegseth with the vice president casting the tie-breaking vote. the president announced pete hegseth as his nominee and since then the former fox news host has raise