♪ host: good morning. it's, january 26, 2025.

83 our -- a three hour "washington journal" begins. do you think faith leaders should get involved in politics? phone lines split this way. if you think yes, (202) 748-8000 . if you say no, (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, a phone line for you as well, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text. it is (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media at x @cspanwj, on facebook, facebook.com/c-span. very good sunday morning to you. go ahead and start calling in there. this past week, washington, d.c., saw several events where religion and politics came into close contact from the inaudible services and prayers on monday to friday. on tuesday, it was the national prayer service at the national

cathedral in washington. it was there that the bishop spoke directly to president donald trump in her sermon. this is what she had to say. [video clip] >> let me make one final plea, mr. president. millions have put their trust in you. and as you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving god. in the name of our god, i ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. there are gay, lesbian, and transgender children in democratic, republican, and independent families. some who fear for their lives. and the people, the people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings who labor in

poultry farms and meatpacking plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants, and work the night shifts and hospitals. that may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. they pay taxes and are good neighbors. they are faithful members of our churches and mosques, synagogues, and temples. i ask you to have mercy, mr. president, all those in our communities whose children fear their parents will be taken away. and that you help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here. our god teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger. for we will all desk for we were

all once strangers in this land. >> mr. president, what did you think of the sermon? what did you think of the sermon? what did you think? >> what do you think of the sermon? >>? what did you think did you like it? find it exciting? not too exciting. i did not think it was a good service, no. >> thank you, press. thank you, press. host: donald trump there. that day on tuesday, talking about that sermon from the bishop at the national cathedral in washington. the next day, he took to his truth social account to add to his reaction. he went on to say the so-called bishop who spoke at the national prayer service on tuesday morning was a radical left hardline trump aide are. she brought her church into the world of politics in a very ungracious way. that is part of donald trump's

true social posts the next day. we saw several events in washington where politics and religion met. one of them was on friday, the march for life here in washington, d.c., on the national mall. here is one of the prayers that day for one of the catholic priests present. [video clip] >> are especially welcome all of you -- i especially welcome all of you have gathered in this vast crowd as we stand together to proclaim our belief in the dignity of the child in the womb and to witness to this entity of all human life. this is why we march. and so let us pray. oh, my and eternal god, author and sustainer of the gift of human life, we are sons and daughters of jesus, your son, come before u.s. stewards of this great gift. hear our humble and heartfelt prayer. may we never fail to protect and

value human life from the first moment of conception through to the moment of natural death, may our efforts rightly include legal protection as well as constant prayer. may we continue to do penance for the cruel and tragic offenses against the divine dignity of human lifem especially -- life, especially by abortion. may we be instruments of your love and compassion for any pregnant mother in need and all of those who have been wounded by abortion. we turn to you father of us all for your grace and power to fuel anew in our time the ever present need to build up the culture of life. may this culture of life bring fresh energy for pro-life initiatives in every part of our nation. host: the archbishop at the march for life on friday.

we will show you more of those events this past week as we simply ask you what role of faith leaders should have when it comes to politics, should they get involved? fall is if you say yes, no, and not sure. this is our topic of conversation the first hour of "washington journal." we will start with joseph in boston on that line for those who say no. go ahead. caller: morning, c-span. i totally agree with religion getting involved in politics because it tends to be a lot of co-op. you are not dealing with facts or the truth so people in high places will use it as a tool to push the agenda and oppress other people. what makes america loses its value was a multi school trial on evolution in school.

being so-called communists. and george bush aid for religious organization act after 9/11. i think is set america back. we should have separation of church and state. america is a country that is beautiful with different diversity of the different religious groups. you have to have separation of church and state. separation of church and state and religious organizations, a lot of bad things happen under religion. host: that is joseph in massachusetts. on the line for those who say yes, lewis, illinois, highland park. go ahead. caller: i would say yes because religious leaders interact with americans every day. in religious settings and also

nonreligious settings. they are very close to the heart and soul of america. i was watching that clip on tv. i saw jd vance's wife so engrossed in those words of that minister that it almost brought tears to my eyes. those are heartfelt words and very important. i appreciate having the time to speak. thank you. host: all those words, this was speaker mike johnson on x the next day, saying the bishop hijacked the national park service to promote her radical ideology. this was an opportunity to unify the country in prayer, but she used it to sew division. caller: i disagree. those words are almost like a prayer for mercy, pleading for safety for human beings and our country. these people make our country work. if you go down the street and

see roads being fixed, they are not being fixed by white anglo-americans. they are being fixed by immigrants. these people are very important to our country and should be regarded as assets to our country, not liabilities. host: that is lewis in illinois. to maurice in michigan. good morning. the question we are asking this morning, should faith leaders get involved in politics? caller: good morning. host: what do you think, maurice? caller: well, first thing is i don't think we should offer anybody the right to speak for any reason. the minister or the lady who was doing the talking, she had a point of view, and she expressed it. there is no problem with hearing

the other people's input. it should be the right of everybody to say their thought. this idea of you can't talk because you believe in this is bad for the country. everybody should have the right to speak their mind. thank you. host: tony is next, indiana, good morning. what do you think? caller: no offense to earlier callers, but jd vance's wife, she is not running the country. if you look at donald trump or jd vance or anyone else who was on that screen, none of them looked like they were about to shed a tear. they all looked disgusted. i do agree with the first caller. separation of church and state. donald trump, the only reason he got elected in the first place in my opinion was because he picked mike pence. he knew that when the access

hollywood tapes came out that he was in trouble. that is when he picked mike pence to be his running mate. he is not a religious or godly man. and i don't think he sets a good example for christians. i don't think most of the republican party sets a good example. marjorie taylor greene. there are not many of them that do set a good example. and i don't think they should be -- church and state should be separate. go ahead. i'm sorry. host: do you think that the prayers at the inauguration on monday last week were appropriate? caller: no, i don't really. host: why? caller: i just feel like the entire last eight years or 10 years even that the morals in our country have totally

backpedaled even farther back than that. i don't see our country going in a good direction. i think that things have taken a bad turn. host: but on the role of religion in some of these ceremonies, tony, i guess what i am specifically asking, the president, whether donald trump or any president, at the end of their oath of office, they say "so help me god." is that something that should not be in this moment of a transition of inauguration of a new president in this country, the prayers and the so help me god? caller: yes, it should be. but it should be believed and heartfelt. i think a lot of people just say it without believing in it or feeling it. it is just a saying anymore. it is not believed or felt. just like he did not put his hand on the bible. host: that is tony in indiana.

let me take you to inauguration day. franklin graham there. the reverend franklin graham speaking before donald trump was inaugurated. this is some of what he had to say. [video clip] >> mr. president, in the last four years, there are times i am sure you thought it was pretty dark. but look what god has done. we praise him and give him glory. [applause] let us pray. our father and our god, blessed is the nation whose god is the lord. as the prophet daniel prayed, blessed be the name of god forever and ever for wisdom and might are his. he changes the times and the seasons. he removes kings. he raises up kings.

he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding. our father, today, as president donald j. trump takes the oath of office once again, we come to say thank you, lord, our god. father, when donald trump's enemies thought he was down and out, you and you alone saved his life and raised him up with strength and power by your mighty hand. we pray for president trump, that you will want over, protect, guide, direct him, give him your wisdom from your throne on high. we ask that you would bless him and that our nation would be blessed through him. host: that from inauguration day back on monday of this week. we are asking you this morning, should faith leaders get involved in politics? phone lines are on your screen. this is susie in florida. good morning. what do you think? caller: good morning.

i did not think i would get into all of this kind of nonsense going on, but the bishop was supposed to have a ceremony. it was supposed to have been celebrated in the church of christ. correct? host: it is the national prayer service. it is always on inauguration day the tuesday after the inauguration. it is something that is not unique to last week. something that goes back years and decades. caller: i understand that part of it. but the point is christ has been persecuted from decades, decades back and taken out of our country so to speak. they want to silence catholics especially for their beliefs.

and i would like that bishop to understand if she read the bible, she would know that jesus came out and told everyone a marriage is between one man and one woman. man shall not lay with man, nor woman lady with woman, nor either sex lay with the beasts of the field, and that includes dogs coming pigs -- dogs, pigs, whatever. host: that is susie in florida. this is david in port st. lucie. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i believe, no. my answer is pretty simple. when churches start paying taxes, they can get involved in politics. that's it. thank you. host: patrick also in florida.

good morning. caller: good morning. trotted out ralph reed and bauer for eight years and now you are saying, should faith leaders be involved in politics? that guy that rambled on about pro-life, did not say anything about processing our foods, using chemicals. mothers are using so much oxycontin that a new formula with oxycontin in it to wean the babies off, and that billy graham, god put donald trump in office. he is just like his father, cashing in on christ. you should read some of the letters mrs. graham wrote to police graham -- wrote to billy

graham. please come home, we need you. no, will not do it. his own daughter was in a lousy marriage and he begged her not to divorce so he can go on preaching. and that last lady that said women should not live, that is an absolute live. there is no phrase in the bible that says that. c-span, prove it. thank you. host: patrick in florida. we will head out to california. michael, good morning. go ahead. caller: yes. i think that people should have a right as an american to exercise their freedom of speech. i remember a while back, there was a congressman in boston named robert, and i thought he was a very good congressman. i think the problem with that prayer thing was that woman would have been much more effective had she went to trump

one-on-one and made her comments to him directly rather than giving the appearance she was lecturing him and he did not have a chance to respond. i have no problem with what she said. it is the way she said it. it came across very political good and later in the day she was all over cable television being interviewed by msnbc and others. it just appeared to be a full frontal attack on the guy that was in office. but nevertheless, people of faith have just as much an opinion as anybody else. and that clip you showed with the guy at the pro-life rally, what do you expect? he is a catholic. he is a man of faith. that is not political. he is expressing his faith to his flock and those who are pro-life. i have no problem with that at all. host: that is michael in california talking about bishop budde's media appearances after her sermon at the national prayer service.

this is from her appearance the next day on "love you -- on "the view." [video clip] >> you seemed to have struck enter. president trump said it was not a good service. he took to social media to say you were a radical left hard-line trump aide are, that you brought the church into politics and you owe the church and public and apology. given your role, it does not seem surprising you would speak out for the marginalized as anyone who has read the bible and knows the path of jesus, but do you think your message is being misconstrued and politicized? >> well, sure. yeah. but i think if you read what i said, how could it not be politicized? we are in a hyper political climate. one of the things i cautioned about this the culture of

contempt in which we live that immediately rushes to the worst possible interpretations of what people are saying, and to put them in categories such as the ones you just described. that is part of the air we breathe now. i was trying to speak a truth that i thought needed to be said but to do it as respectful and kind anyway as i could. and also to bring other voices into the conversation, which were voices that have not been heard in the public space for some time. host: bishop budde from wednesday on her appearance on "the view." more reaction last week to her sermon to president trump from members of congress. from ohio, senator bernie marino wrote on x, as a catholic and illegal immigrant, it is outrageous some woke bishop with lecture president trump about deporting illegals. it is an insult to all of us who came to this country the right

way. and one more from congressman andy barr of kentucky, saying as a conservative episcopalian who supports president trump and his agenda, i am profoundly disappointed that bishop budde politicized the inaugural service of prayer for the nation. by disregarding president trump's appointment of scott, a brilliantly openly gay man to serve as treasury secretary, and elon musk, a genius first generation immigrant to lead the new department of government efficiency. bishop budde's gratuitous could this is a that gratuitous -- gratuitous criticisms ring hollow. it apparently does not apply to the majority of americans who voted for donald trump. congressman andy barr. taking your calls in this first hour of "washington journal," getting your thoughts on the idea of politics and belligerent, specially for religious leaders. this is chris in arlington, texas.

good morning. caller: hello. as far as the bishop, as far as what she was saying, you are talking about a prayer. it seems like the way we come up as a society to now is everybody wants to politicized something that is negatively set about trump. this bishop did not say anything negative about trump though. she was asking him to show compassion. because if you get technical, everybody is an immigrant to the united states. and to get mad at her asking for compassion for scared people because you don't believe in what she -- i just don't get it.

she basically just said show compassion, people are scared. you may not like the message she is saying, but all she is asking is that you show compassion for scared people. that is not politicizing anything negative. that is not putting politics into church. it is not putting church into politics. host: did you feel the same way that he was just given a message when it came to franklin graham's comments and prayer for donald trump at his inauguration, talking about his enemies, talking about god bringing down kings and raising of kings -- up kings? caller: as far as the inaugural address, you know, everybody is going to have their own opinion. but regardless of who is saying

what, you know, if it seems like if trump says it, it is ok to everybody. you know? i don't believe in everything he said. i don't believe a lot of stuff that trump says is right. i don't believe what the bishop said was wrong. but we are a nation of immigrants. it is what it is. but yes, you really should keep church and politics separate. host: that is chris in texas. this is ronald in the louisiana. good morning. you are next. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: first of all, people that misunderstand the separation of church and state, the original of all of this had that, showed that we would not become one particular religion. we would not become catholics,

church of england, this, and that. just stop and think about it. when john f. kennedy was running for president. , everybody was so worried he would worship the pope instead of rule the united states by the constitution, ok. lbj turned around and put it into law about the separation of church and state, the bishops could not talk about politics on the pulpit. that was the whole idea. member, no one particular -- remember, no one particular religion ruled america. going back to that woman preaching, she had the right to talk about what she wanted to talk about because that was her sermon, ok? if i like it, if i don't like it, that was her sermon, ok? everybody has the right to talk

about religion the way they want to talk about it. i heard one woman talk about not laying down with minute woman without animals and this and that. that is her belief, ok? some people don't look into enough of it to see that, all right? but that is how she believes. religion is a belief in a god, ok? i believe god is only one god, ok. they have jesus christ, mohammed, buddha, all of this and that. there was a question about, who is your son? he gives the particular people. we are all god's people. so the separation, going back to what i was saying, the separation of church and state, that is what the original plans were. politics and religion can get in

with each other. they have the right to get within each other. ok. but what we don't have the right is we cannot be all catholic, all baptists, all protestant, all episcopalian's. host: got your point in louisiana. we have been showing some reaction specifically to bishop budde's sermon to president trump last week. here is more on that. it is from guthrie grays fitzsimmons, senior director of policy and advocacy at the interfaith alliance, writing a comnn msnbc. budde is not the only religious lead calling out trump's mast you partition agenda. pope francis has named a new archbishop of washington who unequivocay clared mass deportations incompatible with catholic dtre in his first news cone eaier this month. ddy's message -- budde's

jesusge was her affection of s called to love our neighbors, to care for the oppressed, and to seek justice for the oppres justice seeking christian leaders to step up at this critical moment for our democracy and our faith. just some of the reaction. getting a reaction this first hour of "washington journal." we are coming up on 7:30 a.m. eastern. this is judy in nebraska. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is my opinion that the church has not become involved in politics, but the politicians have gone to the place where the purpose of that church was to preach the gospel of jesus christ. i feel that the bishop did that in love and compassion. she did not threaten. she could not control. all she did was to ask us to think about how sad the marginalized people are. thank you. host: kurt in minneapolis, good

morning. you are next. caller: hey. thanks for the call. or thanks for taking my call. i disagree 100% with the previous callers. i think that the venue was not the right place for that pastor to preach her views and interpretation of the bible to donald trump. she can do that on her own. i don't think it was fair that franklin graham actually expressed his views either. you know, the venue for donald trump when it is the inauguration prayer service, it

should be uplifting and not -- how do i express this? not something that should be political. host: so take me to the third event that we were talking about this week, on friday, the march for life of the annual march for life in washington, d.c., a pro-life gathering on the national mall. 20 of faith leaders go into that at that, appropriate venue for them to talk to their believers at that event? caller: yeah. i think that event is set up for that. it is not the inaugural prayer service. it is set up for people at that

event to express their views, and they can. there is nothing wrong with it. by the way, you got minnesota spell wrong on your tv. host: apologize for that. assuming that is the graphic that says the state you are from. i am sure one of our producers is rushing to fix that now. thanks for the call from minneapolis. caller: ok, thank you. host: daniel in the baystate. good morning. you are next. caller: hey, how are you doing? i got a question for you. you put on the television of the view of her speaking at the inaugural church setting for trump and everybody else in the church, but the one thing you guys missed is a clip in her past that she is at a rally and she is there telling all sorts of stuff and one thing that was caught in the clip was "i hate

trump, i want him out." now she is up in front of trump in church speaking the same step she was doing back then, so how is it in comparison to her antitrust rhetoric prior to her being able to speak in front of him? and one last thing. you think everybody in the church wanted to hear that? or did they come there to hear a praising of our country, of what just took place? i don't care if it is trump or susie q. it does not matter to me. that was not the proper place to do that. as far as graham saying what he said, it is his faith that he is speaking to trump. it is not her faith. that is not her faith speaking about these issues with immigrants. there is a difference. that is the part that burns me up. host: just to understand, why is

that not her faith? why do you say that is not her faith? caller: because she did not come out, right, and say i want to welcome everybody here. i know my church has dropped in patronage, and then she spews that. no wonder nobody is going to her church. i go to someone that is inspirational and not degrading. that is what i look for. host: daniel, are you finished? that is daniel in massachusetts. this is boris in cleveland, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. you know, this is really -- i will not speak against anyone, trump, nor the lady that was speaking. such as flesh desk flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit. and trust in god. let him speak to you. let him speak.

he will lead you in the right direction. he tells us to put on the protection, his protection, because if we follow the world, spiritual law and worldly law are two different things preet aiken speak for a long time, brother, forgive me. but spiritual law and worldly law are two different things. the world sees things fit for a world. god sees things fit for god. no man is above god. no woman is above god. god speaks to you, your spirit. if god's spirit is with you, is the spirit. host: so boris, what happens when speaking about god happens at these very public national events? is that ok? caller: no, i don't think so. because there are so many things to that. if you speak, it is going to be

through god's words that you speak. when god speaks to the spirit, and he does, trust me, i know, i was a sinner. i know you got so many more callers. but i was a sinner. when god spoke to me, he told me about corinthians. i knew nothing. i was a sinner. i was scared. i feared the word of god because i did not know who he was until i heard his voice. host: that is boris in tennessee. this is randy in kentucky. good morning. you are next. about 20 minutes left in this segment. caller: good morning. thank you. this is something that faith leaders are -- it is a law that political leaders are paid to not speak out against political issues. god is everything. god is politics. god is social issues.

god is whatever you want to make god. god is. but like i say, they get paid. they file 53 c corporations. it is all law that they cannot speak out against political social issues. that any pastor anywhere. the pope a while back spoke out and likened trump to the evil king. there are so many of these people that speak out and get paid. the catholics are getting paid to bring in all of these illegals and they will sit in their pews and the catholic church will be like a state sanctioned church basically because they are real big and probably one of the biggest. host: so, randy, do you want to revisit tax-exempt status for churches? is that what you are saying? caller: absolutely. i am a christian. i don't want to speak for other

religions. atheists don't want to pay for their religion either. they don't believe in this. all you have to do is simple. pay all of your taxes. pay your property taxes. pay your taxes on your offerings. don't let that atheist pay for your taxes. that is stealing. that is communism. that is people. host: got your point. this is john in princeton, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. this is a tough question. and i am not sure i can articulate it clearly enough. what is wrong with religion in politics is politics getting injected into religion rather than the other way around. most religions teach a moral code that i can get behind. but politicians have for thousands of years used religion to motivate jihad, crusades,

slaughter. it works the other way. you would be better off sticking to the basics of religion, so yeah, that is a mix of politics. host: did bishop budde stick to the basics of religion? did franklin graham sticks to the basics -- stick to the basics of religion when they spoke at the two very public national events? caller: what i heard was more in the vein of love thy neighbor, which i can get with. and not in the vein of those people are people so let's kill them and take their stuff, which has been used to motivate all sorts of horrible things in history. that is about all i got to say. thank you. i love this show. and i love the people that call in. i would love to sit down with a few of them and have a beer and

have a political discussion, but this is the next best thing. host: tell you what, when you do that, if you do that, call in and let us know how it goes. caller: [laughter] ok, i will try. host: back to the pelican state. this is russell. good morning. caller: hey, good morning, you guys. yeah, as far as intertwining the two come up politics and religion, i don't believe the pope -- the pulpit is the place to express your political views. it should be used for love and goodness in a sense. i think the bishop that spoke to president trump on immigration and stuff, i don't think that was appropriate. i grew up a catholic. i think that at some point i got discouraged because it seemed to

be she would be better off using her time to talk about what we have been having going on down here for a very long time, which is catholic priests molesting little boys. they need to address that issue as opposed to their political views. they can go outside the pulpit and demonstrate what they feel about the politics, and they certainly have the right to vote they can go vote and everything but on our local channel down here, we had two catholic priests talking about child trafficking. to me, that is hypocritical because you are leaving the wolf at the door of the sheep. i just don't feel it is appropriate. thank you for your time. host: bishop budde, an episcopal bishop. that was russell in indiana. this is steve in pennsylvania.good morning . caller: good morning. all i have to say is this, for

years, politics and religion have been mixed quite a bit, but people have done it in reversal. we talk about abortion. that is a moral issue. transgender things like that, god says there is a male and a female, not a lot of genders. how about the borders? in god's word, each nation has a border, a rule of law. in our country, we have lost that. we have politics have gotten to a point where it involves religion because they know they need a certain percentage of so-called religious people to vote for them. but i see that happening in a couple days, in fact on tuesday. this is what is happening. you look at the issues, they are moral issues. one thing is jesus, it was not a

social gospel, ok? the hub of his talking and preaching was to go into all the world and preach the gospel. the gospel is a good news that jesus christ was born to suffer for our sins on a cross, died, was resurrected, and someday he is coming back. our faith especially should be in the lord jesus christ and not political leaders because they do fail because they are sinners, and i want to thank you for your time. host: let me ask you before you go, we have talked about this before, church, religious institution attendance in the united states falling over the decades. 42% of u.s. adults back in 2000 said they attended religious services weekly or near every week. by 2023, it was down to 30%, a

12 percentage point drop. a steady decline. why do you think that is in this country? why is there a decline in church attendance or religious attendance? caller: i think families today, a lot of families are one parent families. that is one thing. two is schools are socialism itself. another thing is there are some people in the pew that are not truly christians. they are christians in name only and not in their hearts. if you are a christian, people that are not christian should see a difference between a christian and a non-christian, how they live, how they treat other people. i think you are seeing that decline because a lot of christians put a face mask inside the building but when they go out, they are different, they are not what they should be. people can pick it up very quickly. so i want to thank you for your time.

i appreciate it. have a good rest of your day. host: the dispatch with a recent column, beauty, truth, and goodness, catholicism's answer to gen z. that story says the well-documented rise of the nuns, those who claim over the disbelief or affiliation, has fueled theories that politics has taken the place of faith. even so, some gen zers are turning to the catholic church for the tradition and community often lacking in modern institutions. the 2023 cooperative election study showed a significant increase in just one year and the percentage of millennials and gen zers identifying as catholic from 6% to 20% for millennials and from 15% to 21% for gen zers in the years 2022 to 2023. this unexpected shift they write suggests some young people the catholic church is filling a void left by modern society.

a study on young people and religion. that is in the dispatch, the story from today published january 26 if you want to read it. this is mike in illinois. good morning. caller: hi. i don't think religious leaders should get involved in politics. if they want to teach the faith and then affect people by voting individually, that is great, but i especially don't think the catholic church should be involved in anything because it seems like every 10, 15 years there is a big flareup of priests molesting kids, and they have not rooted out. and i don't think they have the moral authority to say anything to the government or anyone else. host: that is mike in illinois. this is bonnie in the buckeye state, cincinnati. good morning. caller: morning. host: go ahead, bonnie.

caller: yes, i believe they need to have church into politics. i am so afraid. this is the first time in my life. i am 66 years old. that i have been afraid. my husband is so afraid he cannot watch the news. they have to have some kind of balance, and they need help because trump is not who he appears, and people are scared. and i am too. for the first time, i am afraid. and the lady i think her name was budde. host: bishop budde. caller: thank you. she told the truth, and it hurt him. she said have mercy, and that is what this world needs. it has to have some mercy. it needs to have some balance. it is getting out of hand. and i think in my heart history

is repeating itself and people don't see it. they look at their pocketbooks. that is all they are seeing. we don't have money for this i don't have money for that. they need to see the big picture. it is going back to the way it was with hitler's. they are slighting things under some people are not paying attention to what is really going on. they are getting right back to the way it was with the nazis and the jewish people. host: that is bonnie. this is kathy in waynesboro, georgia. good morning. caller: yes. hi. i wanted to respond to that man who said there was nowhere that is said you cannot lie with a man with a man, a woman with a woman. his leviticus, chapter 18, verse 22 and verse 23. it deals with line with a beast, so he should look that up and familiarize himself with that. host: so bring me to last week

in d.c. caller: i don't think they should. if they do, their 501(c)(3) should be taken away and they should start paying taxes, but the whole chapter of 18 deals with sex and sexuality and how to deal with that. i wonder how these people would feel if that woman was preaching have mercy on the fetus for no abortion. how would they feel if she rambled on about that? like that one man said, she is radical. host: there was a lot of discussion on the national mall -- a lot a discussion on abortion on the national mall. caller: she is not catholic. i don't believe she is catholic. she is episcopalian, right? what was your question? host: she is an episcopal

bishop. there was a talk about -- there was a march for life about abortion. that topic was the entire topic of the march for life or the overarching topic of the march for life. caller: that was not in a church. that was not in a religious setting. that was not in where you talk of god and jesus. host: so is it ok on the national mall or not ok? caller: yes, i think it is. in fact, we need more of it. we should be preaching this on the street corner. and the compassion she wants, the mercy she wants is for illegals. we have nothing against immigration. we want them to come legally. that is all you have to do. come in the right way. host: kathy in georgia.

a few minutes left. this is sarah and brooklyn. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think to this question we are asking this morning, sarah? caller: yes, i am concerned because i hear christian people condemning a christian leader for witnessing. don't christians believe the bible when it says you witness at every opportunity that you can? she was not yelling at him. she was speaking gently and mildly of her faith. now, i want to know how these people calling it would feel if that same budde had said, oh, god has given us trump. he approves of everything trump does. god loves trump. trump is a holy man. they would not be calling in right now saying she said

something wrong. so what my point is, it is not against the law to gently chide our leadership. that is how black people gained civil rights, by making a protest. and for these people to call in and all of a sudden satan is the wrong time, it is never the wrong time to speak the truth. it is never the wrong time to witness. if you are really a christian. you christians want to set aside christianity while you do something wrong, while you do something evil, cruel? you want to forget about christianity? don't bring that up right now. it is not the right time. that is what my whole point is. host: that is sarah new york. a few of your comments via social media. eddie on x saying there is a double standard. the church can preach to republican politicians to

prome beral causes but the churchnot preach to liberals about morality. this is d saying her sermon was way out of her league. she had no business bringing religious pageantry and politics together withopots that we have to deal with as a nation as wle. all this limited was attempt to divide people, invite them. sermons should be vetheir own time. this from ej in ohio. the question should be, should christian faithears, and therein lies the hypocrisy. if it were any other religion beyond christianity, they would be scored. host: james in kentucky, you are next. caller: good morning. i wanted to say christianity, when you go to church -- you don't campaign in church. you don't speak of that. host: that is james. this is david in texas.

good morning. caller: good morning. when you started, you stuck a stick in a hornets nest this morning. i am more of a deist type. i am a trump supporter and do not agree with many of the concepts of religion out there but i certainly wholeheartedly support the idea of religion in a public square. i think it is something that has made our country better for the most part. certainly led to christianity and western culture led to the charge against slavery. i am not a churchgoer. have not been to church in 50 years. have nothing to do with that. the constitution is not allowing government to mandate a certain church or anglican church had to convert to a piscopo church in this country because they cannot have churches that reported to the king of england.

we have the right to free speech, the right to assemble. these things are both integral. i personally would like taxing churches and schools. i have no problem with that. but you get into these discussions about how many angels can you fill -- it feels like people are talking about people speaking for religion and politics and you can different opinions based on what people's beliefs are. the constitution is the constitution for everybody. my problem with the speech that a piscopo minister gave is something is being overlooked is that she was an episcopal minister. if you go to episcopalchur ch.org, they have a whole section there in a handbook. they are a very woke politically correct organization.

it literally says in the book. it talks about woke values. it literally uses the word woke in the book. they talk about critical theory, critical justice theory. that is what she was speaking on behalf of. she was giving a lecture to the president. she was not giving a sermon, per se. host: david, is it any surprise that some religions tend to vote overwhelmingly for one political party over the other? you talk about being a woke church. looking at the 2024 election numbers, white evangelical protestants overwhelmingly vote republican. 81% voted for donald trump in the 2024 election. any surprise some religions tend to fall towards one political party or the other? caller: socialism has a history. in france, early france, the catholic church, etc.

really if you just talk in terms of christianity and support, i can understand how they would make a connection with the global community. that is what the pope is. the pope is i do want to stay close to a marxist but he is anticapitalist listening to his sermons. again, let me read this directly right straight from the manual on the upper support church's official website. the need for crowning critical justice theory -- they will protest chaplains to minister and be there and help people doing protests. they need to be grounded in critical theory or activist parlance. that is the message she was giving in and. that is not the message of america as everyone can see the ddi way that is a rollback, and all of that is being taken out of business.

if you gave me 30 minutes, i could give you a lot more on that one. host: david, i have two more minutes and a couple more callers so go ahead and wrap up. caller: my point is -- ok, i want to change the subject for one second. i have a hard time listening to your show anymore. i use to call in all the time. . this whole conversation, you have five people at associated with the republican party as it stands today. every one of your callers have been supported which is saying, which the majority of people in this country did not -- do not support or donald trump another president. host: i would say go back and listen to the calls again because it was a lot more diversity of opinion than that but i appreciate the call and always enjoy chatting with you, david. caller: thank you very much. host: patrick, alabama. good morning. caller: morning.

this is a pitiful thing to watch. people need to define christian. christian is christlike. they need to read the 24 chapter and everyone will understand what is going on. that woman standing behind the pulpit, whenever a preacher stands behind there, you are supposed to be led by the spirit of god. the spirit of god was nowhere near this woman. people misuse the word of god. go back to 1980 two today and see how many christians are going to church. this is the reason you cannot lead nobody to christ. false prophets will rise. prophets will arise. -- they take one little scripture and use it to fit their meaning. that's not the way the bible was meant to be. they talk about the love of god. that's true.

god loves the sinner but god doesn't love sin. there is no such thing as a transgender child. they better read the word of god. this woman sitting there talking about love thy neighbor and thyself, she needs to get the definition of what illegal means. the bible teaches you that a man that won't provide for his own household first is worse than -- we have to take care of america first and once we take care of our own, then we can help others. host: that's patrick in alabama, our last caller in this first segment of the washington journal. up next, we will be joined by white house journal reporter natalie andrews. we will review week one and look ahead to week two of the second trump administration. later, a conversation with marvin kalb on his book, a

different russia, khrushchev and kennedy on a collision course. we will be right back. ♪ >>onight on c-span skew and day, part two of -- c-span's q and a, part two of our interview with nigel. he talks about the impact the emancipation proclamation had on the civil 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, it was the equivalent of pearl harbor if you will. once you attack the north, you change the whole game. >> nigel hamilton with his book, lincoln versus davis, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q and a. you can listen to all of our podcasts on our free c-span now at. -- app. >> the c-span bookshelf podcast

feed makes it easy for you to listen to c-span's podcasts that future nonfiction books. each week, we make it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biographies, current events and culture. from our signature programs about books, afterwards, book notes plus and q and a. you can find the c-span bookshelf podcast feed and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now mobile videopp or wherever you get your podcasts. and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: wall street journal white house reporter natalie andrews joins us to wrap up week one of the second trump administration and look ahead to week two. i want to start at the end of week one. president donald trump dismissing a dozen inspectors

general at agencies across the federal government. what's the latest on where we stand on that and what will happen on monday at these agencies? >> it was surprising news that happened late friday night and was something that trickled out as the news spread. it was not some the administration announced right away that was going to be happening. generally, they are supposed to give congress notice and that did not happen. donald trump set on air force one when he talked to press that it was commonplace. it was something he planned to do. but it has alarmed a lot of democrats and people who oppose trump because this is -- the inspectors general are people who are supposed to oversee department's. they are kind of a watchdog group. without that, it is alarming folks as to what is going to happen. host: the dismissal appearing to violate a federal law that requires 30 days notice before a president fires the inspector general. so, who, what's the recourse

here? is this congress stepping in next week, what is your sense of how this unfolds on monday? guest: if it was not donald trump, maybe congress would step in. i am doubtful that publicans want to step in and object to donald trump right now. they are really in lockstep with donald trump. they may look at his reasoning and agree with it. it's an interesting world where we have congress that is ready to work with donald trump and not so alarmed by what he may do. host: you don't see this as a moment where some republicans will step out and i quote senator chuck grassley was quoted in a statement he gave yesterday. there may be good reasons that the igs were fired. we need to know that. i would like further explanation from president trump. regardless come the 30 day detailed notice of removal that

is required was not provided. guest: senators like to have their due process. they want a lot to be followed. they will ask questions. don't think we will see the alarm that maybe democrats will project from republicans. host: donald trump moving ahead in his second administration, what's on the agenda that we know about for next week, looking ahead to us -- for us for the days to come? guest: they will have their annual policy retreat and will be planning reconciliation. they will talk about their big tax bill, what they want to reconstruct and i expect more executive orders this week. they have not put out a robust schedule of what the president is going to be doing. i would expect it to be just as busy as last week. host: donald trump meeting with house members. for the senate side, focusing on confirmations. we saw the confirmation of pete hegseth. we saw the homeland security secretary be confirmed, kristi

noem. what other confirmations are coming up next week? guest: one of the big hearings is robert f. kennedy, jr. will have his moment. he has two hearings this week because, as health and human services secretary, he goes before the finance committee and the health committee. they will go back to back with two committees. they will continue confirming everyone. they are determined to get the president his full cabinet as quickly as possible. tulsi gabbard will be i think it is thursday, she will be in front of congress. that will also be a hearing that will have a lot of eyes on it. host: do you expect donald trump to be back on capitol hill, speaking with the senators, arm-twisting on these nominees? guest: donald trump likes to often bring people to be white house. he's very collegial, he wants to meet with every house republican. he's going to invite people over to dinner. he's going to have them to the

white house, which they like. they felt as though they were frozen out during the biden administration and are enjoying having the white house back. host: pete hegseth, it took jd vance breaking a tie in the senate to confirm him as secretary of defense. who has the toughest path of those left in your mind? guest: likely tulsa gabbard. it seems like she was a former democrat, as was robert f. kennedy, jr.. it seems like there are concerns from republicans there and they may not be able to pull in democrats like some of the other nominees have. although, some democrats have spoken warmly of robert f. kennedy, jr.. so, we will see. host: we are talking with natalie andrews of the wall street journal. if you had ever -- have ever had a question for a -- this is a good time. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independents, (202) 748-8002. we heard about trump 2.0, what about milani a 2.0 -- melania 2.0? guest: we have looked at how milani a trump has approached this job differently. you leave office and four years later, you're coming back. we have seen donald trump come back in a different way. we have seen melania trump come back in a different way. she is more confident. she did the swing with trump to north carolina. she was by his side when he was talking to press. she was more assertive it seems and she spoke to folks who have lost their home in her native language. we may see a more outward facing, more public facing melania. we will have to see. host: malik is up first, calling from missouri city, texas. you are on with natalie andrews.

caller: donald trump has already competed -- committed impeachable offenses. congress will not do their duty. i would like to point out that there is a lot of talk about dei. yet, we have a fox news host who has been confirmed as secretary of defense. we have a very incompetent, unintelligent u.s. attorney general in pam bondi. and yet, somehow, dei has caused the country to catch on fire. it's almost laughable that she talks about melania trump read people need to realize melania trump -- trump. people need to realize melania trump came in on an ion's time visa. she has no talent and yet she came in under the einstein visa. let's talk about the atrocities trump has committed by letting out domestic terrorists. the january 6 people he pardoned, the majority of them

are domestic terrorists. host: that is bleak in texas. what do you want to pick up on? guest: melania used the visa about a lot of models use. it is an interesting point he makes. i think that democrats are going to have a lot of reasons for concern in the donald trump administration. republicans right now are not ask pressing concern. they -- it takes a whole partisan body. it takes a whole body to act on something. host: speaking of figures we will be seeing more of in the second trump administration, press secretary carolyn levitt, what has your interaction been like with her? we will see her in the brady pressroom soon, answering questions, going toe to toe with reporters. guest: she's going to let donald trump speak for himself. i think a lot of the time, she does not see a need to do a briefing every day when donald trump is willing to answer questions for 45 minutes direct to reporters.

so, we may see less of her as a press secretary. she goes on mpox -- fox news quite a bit and does cable news quite a bit. we do think she will do her first briefing this week though they have not noticed anything. host: this is terry in oregon. you are on with natalie andrews. caller: good morning. i would like to present to the listeners the pushback against the illegal firings of the 17 inspector general's. it was from the council of the inspector general's of integrity efficiency, hannibal mike ware. specifically, the third paragraph is based upon the 2022 amendments to the inspector general act of 1978, the president must notify congress 30 days prior to removal of the ig improvised substantial, in

case specific response for each removal. securing inspector general independence act of 2022, blah blah. the requirement to provide the substantial -- was added to better enable congress to engage on and respond to a proposed removal of an inspector general, in order to protect the independence of inspectors general's. the whole preference of or platform, one of the major platforms was to bring law and order and justice and all of this and fight for the people. and here, we have everything that he is breaking down of our checks and balances. and i'm sick of it.

and i believe that enough people are going to be fighting back and not put up with this kind of stuff that is turning our government into an oligarchy, with all of the wealth that is involved now, because of the stupid decisions of the supreme court. and now, we have -- i'm emotional. i have been so scared about all of the -- i mean -- he wants to send illegal immigrants, get rid of the criminality and the first thing that he does, on the first day, is release the 1600 january 6 convicted criminals! host: that is terry in oregon who was quoting the letter from inspector general where of the council of the inspectors general on integrity and efficiency, quoting, securing

the inspector general's act of 2022. what was that? what should we know about that act? guest: it was designed to be a check and balance on the executive for this very purpose. donald trump has ignored that. is this a sign to come of more things donald trump will it ignore? host: can you ignore that? what is the consequence for ignoring that? guest: i think congress will have to act. if congress does not act, then we don't see it. if we see congress become more alarmed and act, we could see some pushback to donald trump and maybe they act and maybe he does not do further things. but, republicans are very much in line with donald trump right now. so, it is a unique time where we are not seeing this growing alarm over -- and i think donald trump feels very empowered to do what he sees he was elected to

do. host: to the hoosier state, this is robert, republican. good morning. caller: yes, sir. how can they be convicted without a trial? these people who were pardoned had no trial yet. they were not convicted, they were put in jail. host: robert, there were a lot of people who went through a trial and were convicted. there are also ongoing investigations that were shut down. caller: everybody that can't see that trump loves his country, he has shown that. he has been in court forever. ever since he announced he's going to be president, the democrats want to judge everybody. god said do not judge lest you be judged. look at these democrats. all they do is complain about their ancestors didn't get paid.

they would build the country. that's all i hear from the blacks. host: far-right. that is robert in indiana. brian in nevada, independent. good morning. caller: i'm just calling about the inspector general thing with trump. i am not real clear on what he can do on that. if you could explain more about what inspector general's do, i would appreciate it. host: natalie andrews. guest: i think they are -- most government agencies if not all have an inspector general. that is an outside watch drug -- watchdog. yes, they are with the agency but these folks are tasked with looking for wrongdoing or test with making sure the laws complied with. they are kind of the inner watchdog of that agency.

the most recent one that was lauded by republicans was jeff horwitz at the doj who did an investigation into james comey. horwitz was saved, he gets to keep his job. these are folks, largely unknown. it's not like the folks that lost their job were people who were targeted by the right over the campaign are things like that. but, these are folks, they are tasked with looking for wrongdoing. they come out with reports on the post office or things like that that we, as everyday citizens, aren't paying attention to but really appreciate generally that they are there. host: they have investigative powers but the power of the inspectors general is in the public report that they can release to the general public, can send to congress and it is congress that takes action or doesn't take action on the inspectors general report.

it's that waste fraud and abuse that they are test with looking at. that is the power of the inspector general. host: they have this oversight of an agency. it is a very unique job. i imagine you are not loved when you show up at an office as the inspector general. but yeah, the reports have been game changing. host: some of these offices have hundreds of employees that could work for an inspector general. but we are talking about a dozen or more agencies that all lost their inspectors general on friday. guest: it was a late-night order. this was not something that was necessarily public, which was more interesting. when you do things at night or when you do things late on a friday evening, it's not necessarily something you are ready to go out and chat about. host: this is edrick in

illinois. go ahead. are you with us? we will go to kevin in texas on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want to talk about being woke and the whole thing about being woke. what has happened with the u.s. government, people should be aware of. if you woke, you know significant changes are being done. it might not be for your benefit. if you are woke, you know that you can't just walk down the street and make adjustments or whatever. if you sleep, then you would run into a sign. the american people need to be understanding what is going on with the u.s. government. they makes it again changes and it's not going to benefit us. all the people that supports trump, it's not going to benefit y'all. host: that's kevin's thoughts in

texas in terms of the american people knowing what's going on with the government. they will hear directly from president trump in a primetime address from the house chamber, announced by speaker johnson that the presidential address in a non-postelection year, we would call this the state of the union address. but this is the presidential address, tuesday, march fourth in the chamber of the house. do we know at this point what that address is likely to focus on? guest: i don't think, yet. host: we have plenty of time. guest: i think that donald trump will probably outline the same things he did rally after rally and at his inaugural address. he has talked a lot about what he wants to do and it was very interesting this week to see him immediately deploy that in action. we talked about -- he talked about bringing the federal government back to work. he talked about that in nearly

every rally, he talked about the federal government and what he wanted to do. here he is, one of his first day one things. host: would your guest be the tone of this march 4 address will sound more like what he said at the rotunda of the united states capitol on inauguration day or that 34 minute speech that he gave at the capitol visitor center after he came down from the rotunda to speak with his supporters there? host: i think we will get -- guest: i think we will get rotunda donald trump. he will probably have a teleprompter and won't be as spontaneous as he was after. it's not necessarily that there are two different trumps. it is the same trump and then we have one that is more casual and then we have prepared remarks. the same themes are always there. host: who are donald trump speechwriters? have you met any of them and have you been able to talk to them? guest: that is a great question. i am relatively new to this beat so i am looking forward to it.

he is surrounded by people who have worked for him in the campaign or have spent a lot of time at various policy institutes. those people have been elevated. for example, one of his speechwriters in his first term is the domestic policy council lead. these are people that are deeply seeped in donald trump and what he wants to do. host: a few minutes left with natalie andrews of the wall street journal, taking your phone calls on the week that was in the trump administration and on the week to come. this is rachel in florida. good morning. caller: i have a question. i would like to know how inspector general's are chosen. are they supposed to be nonpartisan? how do they do that? and, i've never heard any inspector general's having anybody -- holding anybody accountable for anything. do they do that?

can she cite some examples of how they brought these agencies to be accountable? guest: the inspector general came out of this trace over the watergate scandal, after nixon resigned and that this is one of the checks and balances congress put in place to oversee agencies. you know, i am trying to think of various reports. it is true -- host: the horwitz report is one that we talked about. guest: that is one that was striking. often times, they will, with reports and congress will call the cabinet secretary or they will call an agency before the oversight committee. and they will talk about it. or, even still, an inspector general may come out with a report. it is public and the agencies will act because there is an outcry.

there was one with the post office that i am trying to place the year. it caused some outcry over how they were operating in action was taken. host: in terms of how they are appointed, i'm cheating because i have the numbers in front of me. 32 require senate confirmation. of those dozen or more that donald trump said on friday that handed them the walking papers, those are the hands of the major agencies. all of them requiring an appointment. this is jack in tallahassee, florida. you are next. caller: good morning, c-span. i just want to talk again about the inspector general's. the president has to follow the law. if not, then he can't do anything, he has to follow the law just as every american citizen. he does not give the 30 day

notice. that is a poor example to set. we are not an imperial public. we are an american republic. he has to follow the line he did not give the 30 day notice. it is now seemingly in the medic that he does not intend to follow the law. and if we continue this path, we are going to end up being more like a nazi germany. i have studied this process of nazi germany, of following just an erosion, an erosion of checks and balances. he needs to follow the law. host: that is jack in florida. one other quote about the firing of the inspectors general, senator chuck schumer calling trump's actions a chilling purge. these firings are donald trump's way of telling us he's terrified

of account ability and is hostile to facts and transparency. guest: the inspectors general is one place that can hold an agency accountable. the other is congress. congress can do a lot to push back on donald trump if they disagree with him. we will just have to see if they do it. host: one more call. this is john in pennsylvania, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. yeah, i was wondering -- four years, when biden was in office, all we heard about was trump, trump, trump. i was wondering when are we going to start talking about joe biden? how about joe biden sleeping with his daughter or when he was told by the supreme court to hand out money to the students to pay off their debt? you bring this woman on here, how longest -- host: that is john, a republican. do you think there will be

investigations into joe biden or the biden how quickly do they start in the 119th congress that is now lead in the house and senate by republicans? guest: i think they could look into biden. there is a lot of angst there from republicans about joe biden, about his family. joe biden issued the pardons, which republicans say is a sign of wrongdoing. donald trump was clear to say that joe biden did not pardon himself and he should have. i think one reason why democrats were so forceful in looking into donald trump was there was always an idea that donald trump could run for president again. and that he was the leader of the party. that brought -- that put a target on donald trump for a lot of lawmakers wanted to block that from happening. i don't think that biden is going to run for a second term at any point. so, the republicans may want to move on to find another, you know, site of a higher to

investigate. host: one more call. i know i said last call but this is mark, the last call. tulsa, oklahoma and independent. noah had. -- go ahead. caller: natalie andrews, come on. what are you selling, honey? you work for the trump agenda. you stated that going after republicans is a little weak. host: what's the question, if you could be respectful? caller: you should give me five been his. the thing is, jonathan, what is natalie andrews doing for us? host: natalie andrews, reporting with the wall street journal. how long have you been reporting and what other beats have you covered? guest: i am new to the white

house beat. i covered congress for eight years. i started covering congress when donald trump first arrived to washington. this is my second term with donald trump and we will continue to bring people the news. host: we will continue to let viewers chat with reporters on the trump administration, covering the house and senate. we appreciate your time. wall street journal.com is where people can go for your stories. guest: i love c-span. [laughter] host: we appreciate that. coming up at the top of the hour, we will be going by marvin kalb to talk about his latest book, a different russia, khrushchev and kennedy on a collision course. that just came out this week. until then, it is our open forum. any public policy or political issue you want to talk about, the phone lines are yours to do so. the phone numbers are on the screen. we will get to your calls after the break. ♪

>> democracy, it isn't just an idea. it's a process. it's a process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few regarding its basic principles. it's where debates unfold, decisions are made in the nation's course is charted. democracy in real-time. this is your government at work. this is c-span, giving you your democracy. unfiltered. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this timeline told mx. it easy to get an idea of what was

debated and decided in washington -- makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio is easy. tell your smart spans -- your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern, important affairs throughout the day and weekdays, catch washington today. listen to c-span any time. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. c-span. >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv podcast about books. with current nonfiction book releases and bestseller lists as well as industry news and trends through interviews. you can find that atpanow, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.

>> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. rouse to our latest collection of c-span products, apparel. books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit organizations. shop now or anytime time at c-spanshop.org. >> washington journal continues. host: here's where we are on a sunday morning in washington, after a fairly rare saturday senate session, the senate was in yesterday to hold confirmation votes. and we now have a new homeland security secretary and secretary of defense. kristi noem was approved, confirmed yesterday by the united states senate. it was a vote of 59-34, earning several democrats to her side in that final vote.

the pete hegseth confirmation, it was a lot tighter. it was a 50-50 tie in the united states senate and jd vance came in to make the tie-breaking vote, confirming pete hegseth as secretary of defense. the swearing in was held yesterday evening. that's where we stand ahead of another busy week at washington. more confirmation hearings and votes are on schedule. we want to hear from you. it is our open forum. any public policy or political issue you want to talk about, now is the time to call in. 25 minutes for your phone calls to let you lead the conversation. this is terry in rogers, minnesota. up first, republican. good morning. caller: i'm just going to speak to the last issue, are the inspector general's hired and served at the pleasure of the president. they are an executive branch office. i don't -- even if you were to challenge it, i'm not sure that

the legislative branch has any right to affect that. i don't think that the president can tell legislators what their staff should be doing. so, on that issue, even if they were to argue it, it would never stand in court. the separation of powers would come into play pre-thank you. -- play. thank you. host: that is terry in minnesota. joyce is next, a democrat. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: this is the first time i have called. i am a 70 nine-year-old senior citizen. i just had a question. i hear all the time about the lady, i think it was ashley madden, who was shot at the u.s. capitol on january 6. did you know that she had a knife on her? you can look it up. they found several weapons on

some of the people arrested for january 6. i just wanted anybody to know that. host: i will tell you what, joyce. if you want to watch c-span's book tv coverage, there was a book about ashli babbitt that came out last year. ashley, the untold story of the women of january 6. jack cashel is the author of that book. we featured it on book tv, if you want to watch. it's on book tv.org and c-span.org is where you can go to find book tv's listings. we will hear from trey in ellicott city, maryland. independent. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for allowing me to join this forum. i used to be a criminal justice professor. and i have actually switched careers. i don't know how i teach the next generation about justice

when we all have eyes and the ability to perceive. we can see that not only the current president has broken many laws, but that he will scorch this earth to hell and back than a to or adhere to just laws. as an african-american, i know there is nothing about our so-called democratic philosophies that will protect the most vulnerable in this society, if in fact both the minority of whites as well as a majority who are complicit want to affirm whiteness. this is incredible. to the last caller who talked about the inspector general's serving the president, there are rules and policies and protocols that one must follow.

and trump has slighted those rules. i don't know why that is a point of discussion that is often dismissed. no one says that he can't -- it's just a way of going about it. it's a scary time. host: that was trey in maryland. this is kurt in anaheim, california. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: doing good. what's on your mind? caller: i want to let you know i appreciate what you're doing. i love the open forum. i want to let everybody know will be ok. it's like starting a new job or being on a good football team. as long as you have a good quarterback and you have rules and policies and everybody knows the job they need to do, it's going to be ok. we will get through this. relax. host: whose are good quarterback, kurt? caller: donald trump.

host: in california, good morning. caller: good morning. i think the world as it is must be or might be a situation that continues to unfold by the people and the constitution makes it irrelevant. as one that operated as an inspector general in the federal government at one time before i got too old, i just want to say that it's important to be independent. to be able to exercise that independence and -- in looking in and uncovering those issues that need to be brought to attention. a president just can't come in and wipe people off the board

that are federal individuals. i want to get over just briefly about the bishop. the bishop at the national cathedral, i believe she was at the national cathedral, the of his school bishop was speaking as a pastor. she can speak and say what she whizzes -- wishes as the spirit lead and she was doing that. it's hard to go against that, even though it offends people. she was speaking her heart. and we want the truth. just because i'm a democrat doesn't mean i will vote -- won't vote for libertarians or republicans, which i do. i look at individuals. i don't necessarily like her. i know personally i worked with the chaplain to the senate and

the chapel to congress. the chapel to congress i knew a lot better. strong individuals and well educated, can speak to topics. that are important. host: you worked as an inspector general, do you mind saying what agency? caller: no, i said i'm retired now. am just going to say that we have people that need to be utilized. and congress has a responsibility to ensure that they are protected. as inspector general. and i thank you for all of the time that i have. good day. host: that's joe in north carolina. this is al in washington state, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. as a retired scientist, i would

like to make a comment in that my assessment of this current administration and the previous and current operations have pushed back the operation of this government to the point that it will take 80-90 years to recover. civil service has been run out of the government. and they will -- it is difficult to recruit newer individuals, younger individuals because of the operation that this current individual is doing to tear apart our government, such that the moneys that they are trying to save in the operation, it's

going to be pocketed by the oligarchs, because that's what they are investing in. they are trying to make money and i don't know why they need to have so much money. if you look at the previous history of -- from the turn of the 18th to the 19th century. there was one decided to give up making so much money. that was carnegie. he couldn't spend his money fast enough to build the libraries across this country. there is one person may be trying to do that now and it's bill gates. he can't spend it fast enough. the rest of these guys, the current president is bringing in around him, don't have a clue as to what real life is. because they have too much money.

host: that is al in washington. a few minutes left in our open forum. also looking at the opinion pages of today's paper and national papers, this is george will, writing about pete hegseth's confirmation. the headline, the hegseth mistake. he ended the column saying only three republicans, mitchell connell -- mitch mcconnell, susan collins and lisa murkowski, with a cumulative 90 years of senate experience proved their fitness to be senators i voting hegseth unfit to be defense secretary. president trump vowed to encourage a merit-based society and did not start with the pentagon's ear ring. he named the three republicans who voted against pete hegseth, thus requiring a tie-breaking vote from jd vance as vice president.

51-50, pete hegseth was confirmed. mitch mcconnell released a 15 paragraph statement about pete hegseth in the wake of his confirmation and in the wake of mitch mcconnell's no vote. it reads in part, effective management of nearly 3 million military and civilian personnel and a budget of nearly $1 trillion and alliances and partnerships around the world is a daily test with staggering consequences for the security of the american people and our global interests. mr. mcconnell said mr. hegseth has failed as of yet to demonstrate he will pass this test. but as he assumes office, the consequences of failure are as high as they have ever been treated the united states faces core native aggression from adversaries bent on chattering the order under pending american security and prosperity. in public comments and testimony before the armed services committee, mr. hegseth did not

recognize that. if you want to read the statement, it's on his website. back to your calls, this is stephen corpus christi, texas for republicans. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to respond to natalie andrews. i thought she showed her bias by calling mr. trump donald trump instead of president. that showed some buys. she also proved what donald trump said about the doj and the political assassinations they tried to do was what they were doing because she said they are not going to go after biden because he's not running for reelection. so, i guess all the things that he did weren't a problem. so, just because he's not running for reelection. that proves to me that yeah, that's why they went after him. he was a protocol. she was talking about our heart.

we talk about science too. there is a problem with the mental issues in the united states and the lgbtq people. bringing that up at the speech was wrong. host: steve in texas. this is gail in north carolina, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. at first want to say, the day before the election or inauguration, trump did a speech. and he said that he was very -- this is what trump said in his speech, talking about elon musk hoping him win pennsylvania. he was very effective. he knows the computers better than anybody. we ended up winning pennsylvania in a landslide. it was pretty good. thank you to elon. and that, in my opinion, sounds like -- i always thought there was no way trump could have won all the battleground states. and we know that if he won pennsylvania, he would win the election. in my opinion and in some of the

research that i have done, some of the democratic congressman in capitol hill are investigating this to see if trump truly did she, which i think he did. that's the first thing. host: you don't think he won the election. how did you feel about republicans saying they didn't think joe biden won the election in 2020? the election denierism, as it was called? caller: they had 60 judges that said biden did win and how many recounts did they have? they had recounts in all of these differen states and all of them showed biden won. there has been no backlash or recounts for trump. the democrats pretty much let him win, not even contesting the fact that now, here he says the day before inauguration, thank you, elon. and we know that elon had something to do with the computer systems. but that is one issue that i

have. the second issue i have is that since trump came into office, he has always been a liar. they have had so many lies that he has said like fema, the lives about the immigrants being criminals. i did some research this morning on immigration. they said that there is more -- immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than nativeborn americans. the immigrants that are criminals, yes, they need to be deported. but the ones that are out here working in our fields and working in our poultry plants, working in hospitality, the ones that are serving food in the restaurants, working in the hospitals and personal caregivers, these people just want a better life. leave them alone. if the may pathway to citizenship. they are paying social security taxes. all these immigrants are paying social security taxes and they won't be getting that money when

they are 65. what trump is going to do, he things he's mr. macho but all of this is going to backfire. our groceries are going up because there is nobody to get food. there is nobody in california because the immigrants are too scared to go to work. host: nikki is in rockway park, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i travel like the other millions of people in the united states. so, i would like to make an analogy and compare the greatest advertisement, the most wonderful ship to ever sail the sea. the name of that ship was the titanic. but, due to unforeseen circumstances, that ship sunk. but all of the wealthy people who could afford to ride this

great vessel, the best there ever was. so, i would like to compare the titanic to the trumptanic. all the wealthy individuals who can afford to ride that ship, t it may e, there just might be unforeseen circumstances. host: that is nikki. in massachusetts, republican, good morning. caller: i want to talk about the 2020 and how happy i am that it was stolen and that trump was not in there for the four years because he would have been blamed for the pandemic or the plandemic, it gave the country four years to see how badly it could be run by the democrats. i think now, it's going to be 12 years of republicans. because there is no one that is going to be able to beat jd

vance. ok. it is impossible for democrats to beat him. host: you still think the 2020 election was stolen? caller: absolutely. host: what gives you confidence in the results of the 2024 election then if you think that election was not legitimate? caller: because there were about 15 million less people who voted in the 2016 election and the 24 election. the 2020 election, there was 15 million more people who voted and everyone was afraid to come out of their house. host: that is stephen massachusetts. this is bruce, a democrat in california. good morning. caller: hello pre-thank you for having me on. the last democrat you had on, the lady, she was right with everything that she said. when trump came into office his first term, he took out all of the infectious investigators

that obama had put in. when he did that, the pandemic happened, right? one million americans died because of that guy. because of the president. donald trump. he got rid of the health organization and kicked us out. we got the flu, the bird flu. it's popping up everywhere. the guy is sick. he's twisted. all of these people are guilty of sedition. and treason. you know? they attacked our capital. all the nominations and all the nominees that he put forward, none of them admitted to the loss in 2020. all of them, how can that be? host: naomi in baltimore, maryland. independent, good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. in response to the previous caller, how can that be? the reason is that there is a litmus test to be in the cabinet , now. and the only qualification is a willingness to stand behind the big lies and do whatever donald trump says. donald trump ran on improving the price of groceries, eggs, milk, i will make your lives so much better. and now what do we see? first thing, criminals let out of jail. people who had clearances, who acted on his behalf in his previous administration, if you can call it that. they have now had their security details revoked. this man is a criminal. every republican, except for two

women who, obviously, showed a little more strength and character than the rest of the republican party, the rest of the republican senators. and mitch mcconnell, who's on his way out, they were the only ones to stand up and say no, this guy is not competent. he has too many absolutely disqualifying characteristics. and no character, at all. host: that's naomi, our last caller in this open forum. stick around, an hour to go in this morning's washington journal. in that time, a conversation with marvin kalb, the author of a new book, a different russia, khrushchev and kennedy on a collision course. stick around for that conversation. we will be right back.

♪ >> this 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 human -- health and human services secretary. he will appear before the senate finance committee on wednesday and the senate alth education labor and pensions committee on thursday. also othursday, cash patel testify before the senate judiciarcommittee as he seeks to become fbi director. then, tulsi gabbard, mr. trump's director of national intelligence nominee will appear before the senate committee. watch this week live on the c-span networks or on c-sp now, our free live mobile video

app. head over to c-span now for scheduling information or to watch live on demand at any time. c-span, democracy unfiltered. >> weekends bring new book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. here's a look at what's coming up this weekend. geometric ai founder gary marcus looks at the potential risks of artificial intelligence, the prospective regulation of the tech industry, in his book taming silicon valley. so see ashok -- sociology professors discuss the lithium in california's salt and see region. the authors of the book charging forward. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, give her -- gib kerr argue's robert e. lee has been unfairly canceled. in his book on cancel -- un-canc

el robert e. lee. >> then ron wyden shares how -- watch book tv every weekend on c-span two and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online at any time at book tv.org. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and interviewers on the afterwards podcast. on q and a, hear wide-ranging conversations with nonfiction authors and others who are making things happen. our weekly hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a variety of topics. and the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with interviews,

industry updates and best sellers lists. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now at or wherever you get your podcasts and on our wsite, c-span.org/podcasts. >> tonight on c-span q and day, part two of our interview with historian nigel hamilton, author of lincoln versus davis. he talks about the military face-off between these two 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 unknowable white southern fight for independence.

pure and simple. but, from the moment 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. it's the equivalent of pearl harbor. once you attacked the north, u change the whole game. >> nigel hamilton with his new book "lincoln versus davis." tonight on c-span skew and day. you can listen to our podcasts on her free c-span now app. >> washington journal continues. host: journalist and professor, author of the new book "a different russia: khrushchev and

kennedy on a collision course." start at the end if you would. right when nikita khrushchev learned john f. kennedy had been assassinated he cried. why? guest: it was one of the marvelous interesting in my judgment fascinating aspects of nikita khrushchev that he had a dream and the dream was that if he could sit down with an american president, he figured that he and the president could solve all the problems of the world. all he needed was that opportunity. and he got that opportunity only once in june of 1961 in vienna when they met at the summit, the summit that was greeted with enormous expectation and ended in the deepest disappointment. and khrushchev took it into his mind that he wanted to somehow or another take kennedy to the

cleaners, he was going to get his way, he wanted to rewrite the stragic balance of the world which favored the u.s.. he wanted to fav rsia, the soviet union and he did have that moment with kennedy which led to the cuban missile crisis, which led the world to the edge of a nuclear war. afterward, they reached an agreement on an atmospheric nuclear test ban treaty. after that finally in khrushchev's mind, he felt that he could sit down finally with kennedy, he thought kennedy had six more years, two more years of his first term, for years and a second term, they would reach all kinds of agreements. of course he did not know when he engaged in this fanciful

illusionary kind of feeling about the world that within a month, kennedy would be assassinated and within a year he would be kicked out of power and when he learned that kennedy was killed, all of the reports that i've seen indicate that khrushchev cried. and when he went to sign his name at the american embassy the day after the assassination, he was in tears. host: the book is "a different russia." it is not your first memoir about your time as a journalist in russia but -- guest: the first was because khrushchev labeled me peter the great and that helped me a great deal as a journalist getting closer to him. the second book was assignment

russia and that was when edward r. murrow hired me at cbs and a couple years later as he sort of moved me through the system, i had never been a journalist before and they wanted somebody representing cbs in moscow who spoke the language and knew about the history and the literature of the country and i had written something for the times he had liked and on that basis and the conversation we had which lasted for three hours which he asked me any number of questions, a really fantastic journalist. he stood up and put his arm around me and said how would you like to join cbs. i said yes. that was sort of the end of my career as a scholar and the beginning of it as a journalist in that second book carries me to may of 1960 and this book

begins with kennedy's inauguration and a very revealing speech that khrushchev made giving it a sense of the world, his judgment of what the world should be like and kennedy of course independently was doing his explanation to the american people in the world of the kind of global systems and these fascinating individuals, extraordinary people were in collision because they represented two totally different sociopolitical systems and when you thought about it in national terms, there was a collision between the soviet union on one side of the cold war which is where we were at that time and kennedy on the

others. it is an amazing thing that these two people were in charge at that moment in october and november of 1962. but at that time the world was literally on the edge of a nuclear war. and one of the two people, nikita khrushchev had the gusts to acknowledge in public that he had made a tremendous blunder. he had gambled on putting missiles and troops into cuba to shift the balance of power, to gain an advantage in the negotiation of berlin, but he failed because kennedy called him on it and khrushchev backed off. if he had not backed off on that fateful sunday, the world might be very well have ended up in a

nuclear war catastrophe. host: talking about marvin's new book, a different russia. taking your phone calls as well, phone lines as usual in this segment democrats 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. he is with us for the rest of our program today. how many years total were you a journalist in russia and how were you able to be there and do that job at the height of the cold war to be an american journalist and communist russia. guest: to understate the answer, it was very difficult. because in the first phase in my time there as the moscow correspondent for cbs, all of our copy was censored. in other words you could not say anything to the american people

that did not go through a russian sensor and there would be many times when words and phrases would be asked out and if you had tried to play it smart and you sort of said it anyway, they would pull the plug on you. and suddenly -- so you always had in mind that not only was your ultimate listener in the united states, you had this additional listener just down the hallway, the sensor that proved to be a she, and she was very conscious of what khrushchev wanted. what was the image of the soviet union, that they wanted transmitted to the world. if you violated that image in

what they would regard as an ugly way, they would yank that. what you had to do as a support -- as a reporter is be mindful of the sensor, but find language that would get you your -- get your point across without offending the soviet union. i remember on one occasion there was a meeting of the entire communist world in moscow. communist leaders from all over the world gathered together in the kremlin. i was trying to say to them that this is a really terrible bunch of people. there was a story at the time about a group of gangsters who had been picked up in upper new york state. i forgot right now the name of the town but everybody knew it

if you were listening in america listen to the broadcast, what i said which went right through the sensor was that the communist leaders gathered in the kremlin in much the same way as the weather was if it can new york, the ethic of gang that just the other day. to an american ear it was a group of gangsters. but i couldn't say that because they would pull the plug. you are always in a contest with the sensor because i work for cbs i also had to take pictures for television. there was no cameraman that they allowed in the country. so i had to take my own pictures. i was not terribly good at it but i did the best i could. but if i was taking a picture that they did not like, they

would stop me from sending it to new york. how would they do that? they would let you ship the film unless it developed. in the soviet union before you sent it to new york. which could have taken weeks and weeks. which meant that the stories value would have been shot. you could not travel around the soviet union without permission. you always had somebody on your tail. you could not travel more than 25 miles around moscow without official permission and when you got the permission there was always somebody on your tail anyway. so it was, for a western reporter in moscow in the midst of the cold war it was a fascinating story, please don't get me wrong. all of the obstacles were worth overcoming to try and get the story out because you knew that

in the midst of the cold war, it was extremely difficult to get the news out but extremely important that the news get out. for example, it is very difficult now, there are very few if any american reporters in moscow at this time. because putin simply will not allow it. and one of the reasons i call this book the different russia is that we are so used to thinking of russia under putin. putin has been there for 25 years. i happen to think he is a short timer by which i mean kicked out tomorrow morning. but rather that it sort of down the road but not that far down the road. he's run this place for 25 years and we are in the midst of the ukraine war and a terrible

confrontation between the united states and russia and we think that that is the only russia that exists but that is not true. the russia that i covered in many ways was similar. it was a dictatorship. there is no doubt about that but it was a dictatorship that was reaching out to the west, that was reaching out to a leader like kennedy and trying to get a deal. khrushchev always invited western musicians, artists, scholars, journalists, to come to this soviet union. that is not happening today at all. so the relationship was so very different. we had a chance then to coexist peacefully. in a competitive relationship, coexisting. today, that coexisting factor is

i don't want to say in doubt, it is something that we have to consider very carefully. guest: that russia you covered from ash host: that russia you covered. nikita khrushchev becomes premier of the soviet party in 53, so this book is about khrushchev and kennedy. that plenty of years under a different president, under dwight eisenhower. what was that relationship like. khrushchev and eisenhower. and the change of presidencies, what was h view coming iof john kennedy. guest: great questions, a historical questions. in 1956, i arrived there in january. khrushchev had been essentially the boss only for about a year

or 18 months. it took a year or so before he could establish his position following stalin's death in march of 1953. so khrushchev wanted very much by 1956 to say to the russian people and to the world that russia is now changed, it is no longer stalin's russia, it is now khrushchev's russia. and delivered a very famous secret speech, i believe it was february 24, 1956. and he summoned all of the leaders of various communist parties which had been meeting in moscow at the time to come back to the kremlin in the middle of the night because he

wanted to tell them his view of stalin. and his view of stalin was very negative. but because he had ruled for 29 years, he was a legend, if you spoke one word against stalin you could be killed. and what khrushchev did was in this one speech destroyed the myth, the legend, the fears that surrounded the russian people when they thought about stalin. khrushchev called stalin a murderer because of what he did during world war ii. he would point out the thousands and thousands of people during the 1930's that stalin sent off to siberia. and khrushchev wanted a different kind of russia. a different russia and he began

to release people from siberia, he loosened opportunities to write and to speak and he opened the gates of the kremlin to an influx of western businessmen and scholars and journalists. it was in that opening that i slipped through and a lot of other reporters slipped through. it was an incredibly exciting time. and when i returned to 1959 to cover richard nixon's visit, it was also a stark debate with khrushchev at that time. some people don't member that. it was very interesting and nixon tried very hard and i think to a large extent

successfully to outwit khrushchev but it was a collision and it usually is when you are talking about russia and the united states. and khrushchev wanted more than anything else i would say, he wanted to strike this relationship with an american president. eisenhower was a great favorite in the soviet union because in world war ii he was of course the great and historic gener. leing against the nazi crusade. that involved the soviet union. we were at that time allies to defeat nazi germany. but when khrushchev met with eisenhower in 1950 -- 1954 or 55 in geneva. and then twice, once in the

united states and once in paris, they met three times and he wasn't able to get anywhere with moscow. so eisenhower, who would once been held in the highest esteem by khrushchev suddenly there was nothing to talk to and so he invested all his hopes that this stream of his about a deal with an american president, all of those hopes were invested in young john kennedy and for a time, those hopes were realistic, but then finally when it came to the division of berlin and then the movement of russian missiles into cuba, kennedy insisted that those missiles be removed and khrushchev have the gusts publicly to acknowledge he had

plundered and pull those missiles out. khrushchev lived with what i regard as a dream that somehow with an american president he could accomplish miracles but miracles don't happen in international relations. you have to protect your interests and those interests are protected even at the cost of war and right now we have many different instances with russia and china and many other countries around the world. host: newly released, martin is the author and is with us this morning. taking your phone calls per john is up first in new york. independent, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. excuse me sir. i'm 77 and --

guest: young man. caller: [laughter] i knew i liked you for something. i do remember the cuban missile crisis. i remember my father stockpiling in the seller. i remember really the fear of going around the neighborhoods and people talking about and armageddon. but as i grew older i kind of did a little reading into it and i remember some people saying that the real hero of the missile crisis wasn't so much john kennedy it was khrushchev and the reason they felt that way was exactly what you said, he backed down. an interesting sidebar of the story was as i remember reading the united states had jupiter missiles in turkey which are intermediate range missiles at the time capable of reaching deep inside the soviet union. in order to level the playing field, khrushchev decided that he would send in these missiles

as i understand it into cuba and give them like a minute and a half of american cities. it was brinkmanship diplomacy and they say the real hero of all of this was not john kennedy because he was just a new and experienced -- inexperienced guy but dean rusk who went eyeball to eyeball with his counterpart and resolve the whole thing. it was really scary because there were some other historical anecdotes involved, of the united states issuing the monroe doctrine which they didn't really have a right to invoke legally. so i found a whole period fascinating. we came very close and listening to you i don't know since that fateful october 62. i'm hoping -- there's invents unfolding around the world. excuse me sir. i just hope that cooler heads

will prevail and things will work out. it will be interesting to hear your thoughts about that. thank you for doing what you are doing. guest: you are very kind sir and i repeat here in your 70's, i'm in my 90's so keep on going. the period of the mid 50's through to the mid 60's, there were extraordinary personalities and in the middle of the cold war, those personalities had to demonstrate their value. in holding off a nuclear war between the two powers that could have destroyed the entire world. i think that we don't as people today, maybe people over the world. do not fully appreciate the deadliness of a nuclear weapon.

you think back to world war ii. a nuclear bomb, two atomic bombs were dropped. the only time in the history of the world that they have been used. they were used both by the united states against japan, against hiroshima and nagasaki. two cities there were absolutely leveled. with tens of thousands of people killed. can you imagine? that was in 1945. could you imagine if you jump ahead to the early 1960's those weapons had been improved considerably. they were infinitely more dangerous. if they had been used by the soviet union against the united states, the u.s. against the soviet union. not only were those two

countries have been wiped out, but the countries all around them all around the world would have been utterly destroyed. we would have been set back decades and decades. think today about how much more perfected those nuclear weapons are. and we don't think about them today. enough. to give a pat on the back to our new president, during the campaign, donald trump was the only major campaign -- candidate that i am aware of who kept raising the issue of nuclear weapons and the danger of using nuclear weapons. just this past week in davo's,

trump once again raised the question of nuclear weapon negotiations, which we have not been involved in now for decades. but we have got to get re-involved in the best interest of the entire world. if president trump can lead the world in the direction of a containment, perhaps an end or a promised end to the use or even the threat of the use of nuclear weapons that would be a big deal. and if the world appears to be at this point, who can really be certain, but appears to be at a turning point. and that turning point screams out for another serious effort at disarmament, particularly in

the field of nuclear weapons, and i hope that putin and russia and xi jinping, the chinese leader would somehow get together with trump and find a way to handle this. that is -- some people and sure will say that is totally unrealistic. trump cannot be relied upon, he is extreme the unreliable himself. all of that may be true, but the effort ought to be made. the effort ought to be made and even if he just begins that in it of itself. >> the caller brings up the cuban missile crisis. i want to go to page 460 of your book, different russia. in the wake of the cuban missile crisis. after his cubaapitulation, khrushchev had to worry more about his political survival.

one did not have to be an american ambassador, a foreign correspondent or evey to search the tv clues about khrushchev's shaky standing in the kremlin. the cuban missile crisis, khrushchev remains in charge of russia until 64. how did he overcome that shaky standing and what role if any did president kennedy play. guest: in a way he never did. and kennedy was killed in november of 1963 so we will never know exactly what happened with him. what we do know on the basis of the historical record, on the basis of in my case personal observation is that when these two men, kennedy and khrushchev which is really weeesaying this but it iserbly

important to me and to any reader of a different russia, you have the feeling when you follow these two men they were to giants on top of the two giant nations. and they were nuclear weapons between them. and they hadn't been used since 1945. but in the middle of the cold war these two nations were deeply antagonistic. and therefore their readers ended up being in an antagonistic position. one towards the other. but, in the remarkable case of khrushchev and kennedy, there was an example of two leaders who sought or attempted to go beyond the obvious talk of the

day and see if they could find a way of reaching an agreement which they ultimately did in september of 1964, the first nuclear arms agreement between these two superpowers. was to ban atmospheric nuclear tests. when those tests were taking place, people all over the world were terrified. because the atmosphere itself was being poisoned. it was affecting the ability to drive in the food that you ate. the air that you breathe. and so there was a strong feeling of urgency that you had to somehow contain the spread of atmospheric tests. so they did reach this agreement. and khrushchev living in a bubble of hope believed that he could take that one agreement

and build it into a monument of agreements between the u.s. and the soviet union and would take care of all of the problems. of course it did not happen, kennedy was killed. in that time between the cuban missile crisis and when khrushchev was kicked out of power in october, khrushchev was in a deep depression for about a year, traveling from one country to another just wasting time. he was not accomplishing anything. because he could not quite get over the fact that people around him in the kremlin kept referring to him as khrushchev, the man of the harebrained scheme. they use that expression.

and they kept throwing that not at him directly but around him. and they were losing confidence. and took them two years, actually one year from the agreement on from 63 to 64, they built up their strength around khrushchev for what purpose, to kick him out of power, which they accomplished on october 14, 1964. khrushchev at the time was a beaten man, but the country he left behind when he was kicked out of power was significantly different from the country he took over 10 years earlier. and 10 years earlier, if you would opposed leader style you would be killed. when khrushchev was kicked out of power they did not kill him.

they sent him off to a relatively satisfactory post power life, he was given a small home outside of moscow and an apartment in moscow. given a car and driver, he had a substantial pension, his children were allowed to continue in their work. it was civilized. khrushchev left a somewhat civilized soviet union which did not exist until he was in power himself. so in that period between the cuban missile crisis and when he was kicked out of power, he was in a depression, he did not accomplish terribly much but he

felt when kennedy was killed that his opportunity was killed along with it. he felt as if this golden opportunity had slipped through his fingers. >> this is bernie in louisville, kentucky. >> good morning. i have to confess i had to do a little bit of research on you and your career so i came up with some type of reasonable question on the topic about the russia and relations. in one of my research you were one of eddie mauro's boys. -- ed morrow's boys. also on nixon's enemies list which i thought was outstanding combinations. anyway, during that time in 62

with russia, china was not the china that we knew now. who was russia's allies back then, did they have any other than cuba and i'm just curious about the relationship with these other countries around their and i have to ask you both. you can answer if you want to. are the commanders going to the super bowl? i say yes. guest: i say i would be thrilled if they win today and went on to the super bowl but i always have that in my thought and i think that has to do with simply being a journalist. you have to examine what the evidence is. the commanders came out of nowhere and they are on the edge of the super bowl and is an

extraordinary thing. so much will depend on this rookie quarterback. and if mr. daniels can pull it off today i would regard that as a football miracle. on a measure of the agreement at the end of the cuban missile crisis. now to come back to reality, you are asking essentially russia's allies at that time and especially china. it is an extremely interesting relationship. right now they are very close and the agreement between xi jinping in china and putin in russia, the each call and agreement of no limits, that it was boundless in its capacity. i think that it is boundless

only in their diplomatic imagination. because they each have interests that are quite different and i think they are now coming to a head. by which i mean the central issue is the war in ukraine. the war in ukraine has been supported by china in many ways. china helps russia on the diplomatic scene, helps putin particularly politically at home, works out in economic trading relationship that allows china to use in a way that superiority economically to help russia economically because russia is besieged by sanctions. russia is now on a rough -- war footing.

china is helping russia but if you went back to the period in the 50's and 60's they were extremely antagonistic. they actually fought minor skirmishes along their common border. the antagonism was tense in the communist world in those days. most communist had to believe what it is that came out of moscow, it was russia was the first communist nation and leave that was therefore entitled to the respect of all other communists not just respect, obedience of all the other communists. china present -- was in dissent against the idea that it --

mausert did not believe he had to bow down in front of anybody and he regarded khrushchev as a peasant. that they were both peasants. but khrushchev was a peasant to became the soviet union. mao, a president to leader of china. china was in the 1960's was only 10 years or so removed from its own revolution becoming a communist country. he thought it deserved to be the leader. they were in constant ideological conflict, splitting the communist world apart. if you went back into history, several hundred years there is one example after another of russia and china not in a cozy

relationship, far from it. but in a very antagonistic relationship, it is something we ought to keep our eye on when we think today about who are russia's key allies. russia today as china and north korea, as iran and those for regard themselves as an access of resistance against what, against the united states. i believe definitely they are not going to succeed, but so much depends on the leadership of the united states and how well the new leaders of the united states are going to do on the world scene. >> 20 minute slough with marvin cal this morning. the book we've been talking about a different russia. russia, khrushchev and kennedy on a collision course.

we will take viewers to don in fall river massachusetts on the republican line. fall river by the way, broadcast home of the lizzie borden murder case. go ahead from massachusetts. are you with us? got to stick by your phone, line for democrats, republicans and independents as usual. you were just talking about vladimir putin and where russia is today. let me take viewers to the final paragraph of the book. this is what you writeia clearly is not ready for democrutin stands in its way. they think the struggle land in a historic struggle between east and west, a powerful tug towards

authoritarianismnd strong pull towards a western-style democracy. khrushchev's russia was radically different from putin's russia and may yet prevail. why do you think it may yet prevail? guest: i guess it has to do with my feeling about russia writ large rather than russia today as a country governed by putin and antagonistic to the united states. think about the literature that comes out of russia, the great music that is, out of russia, the philosophy, a range of issues that unfortunately are not reflected so much in the politics of russia, through russian history they have been

governed by one czar after another, that is an autocracy, that is a dictatorship. 1917 communists come into power and they are in power from 1917 to 1991. and that was a run of dictatorships one after the other culminating in joseph stalin -- not culminating but the high point, after 29 years. so you had one example after another of russia being governed by autocrats. i speak in terms of putin as -- and what i mean by that is when the mongol hordes came out of the east in the 13th, centuries. and governed large part of what is today russia, ukraine even

going into western europe, they imposed their form of dictatorial rule, it was a genghis khan in one case the great mongol leader, but followed by his sons who were also leaders imagining themselves the leaders of huge empires and they were. so, russia's background politically is locked into autocracy. and it is very difficult to imagine the russian political system being democratic and yet there are strands of democracy that run through 19th-century russian history even through good parts of the 20th century. there is in the literature you

know people who are thinking that an open way you want to deal with the western world. a czar like peter the great in the early part of the 18th century spending more than a year in western europe, leaving russia to go because he wanted to find out what the west had that was so fantastic that we russians did not have. and he tried to bring not only parts of the economy from the west into the russian empire, there were ideas that flowed along with the goods. when catherine the great and the latter part of the 18th century she had a steady relationship with western french and english writers, philosophers. the ideas were there, they are

still there. but they are not probably on a scale, they are not as heavy. as the autocracy. but there is very much a strain that found with khrushchev, gorbachev and yeltsin. in recent ruston -- russian history there are movements which get cut off because they are not strong enough. so for me it is a hope that the democratic side of russia would emerge after putin and in that democratic side emerges a gorbachev type leader who will reach out to the west and find in the west a friendly hand and

ready to help the east. it is the same planet and we have to share it and find a way to do that without war. without a small war becoming a big war, you have to be incredibly careful. host: this is marianne in the keystone state, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i have a question about the cuban missile crisis. i only heard it once that khrushchev took the missiles out of cuba because we, the united states, agreed to remove missiles that we had pointed at russia. and that's why it was settled so quickly. is there any truth to that? guest: there is some truth to that, yes ma'am.

we had known for a long time now that the united states had starting in the mid-1950's they began to move a medium range missile into turkey. and this was the time when the united states in the midst of the cold war was trying to encircle the soviet union to stop the spread of communism. it was very much in america's interest to put those missiles in turkey. when khrushchev found out in april of 1962 with those jupiter missiles were in fact operational in the soviet union. khrushchev was furious. and he told his defense minister when they were at a meeting in

bulgaria, he said -- what he meant by that was he was going to try to put missiles, russian missiles into cuba pointed at the united states to offset the jupiter missiles in turkey pointing at the soviet union. and there is no doubt that during the negotiation that led to the end of the cuban missile crisis there was talk on both sides about getting american missiles out of turkey, russian missiles out of cuba. one dependent upon the other. where i part company is good while those talks were going on, no question about it. the decisive, what was of fundamental importance of the

time was not the sideline discussion about an exchange of missiles, but in the middle, the decision by one of the two leaders of the time, namely the russian leader khrushchev, his decision on that fateful sunday, october 28, 1962. he sent kennedy a letter saying that he was going to ship and return the missiles through the soviet union. that was the key thing that ended the crisis. there was a lot of talk about a lot of things the definitely involved the exchange referred to. as the key issue that resolve the question. the key issue i believe and i

believe the documents are clear on this, the key issue was the khrushchev decision on that sunday to give the order to send back to the soviet union. where that decision not made at that time, please remember the sunday before the monday that kennedy had committed himself to take military action against cuba. if khrushchev had not made his decision on that sunday, the following day, kennedy almost certainly would've taken military action against the russians in cuba and that would have ignited a world war between the united states and soviet union. thank you very much for the question which is central to understand. host: sony good stories in this

book. i did want to -- for you to tell the story of singer jerome hines. guest: it is a wonderful story. in the cuban missile crisis it ran from monday night until the following sunday, october 22 28th. on the 22nd the president delivered his famous speech setting up a quarantine in cuba. on tuesday in the soviet union if you were a reporter in russia at the time as i was, you certainly felt you had to stay in the office and cover that story. but my wife had tickets to the opera and the opera performance, she had these tickets and wanted

to go. i thought i should -- but my wife wanted to go and so i've course yielded and went. while i was seated there before the opera gets started, i looked off to the left and there was a box set aside for famous people and just before the opera began, khrushchev arrived and he was there on the first day of the crisis. people worried about a nuclear war, he arrives to go to the opera. and i am about 15 or 20 feet from him and i can see him and he was happy to be there. jerome hines was the great american opera star and he was on a tour of the soviet union, a

very successful tour. khrushchev kept inviting westerners to come and hines came, he delivered this magnificent performance. he sang it in russian and khrushchev went backstage, we tailed along with him. as peter the great, i could get around some of his security people. only because khrushchev allowed it. and i asked him a question or two about the cuban missile crisis and he left me with a clear impression that he is going to find diplomatic way out of this crisis. which meant to me 24 hours into the crisis that khrushchev, who started it, was already seeking a way out of it.

and that way was diplomacy, but it ultimately was by way of his own capitulation. he was the one who made the decision to put the missiles into cuba and is the one on that sunday who made the fateful decision to pull those missiles out of cuba and that is what resolve the crisis. not until i did enjoy a wonderful performance by jerome hines. host: the final two or three minutes here. in the end in your estimation, did nikita khrushchev failed to achieve a different russia, a different vision for russia than joseph stalin? if he did, why? guest: my answer to that is yes. he did succeed. in history i have found you

don't succeed 100%. if you can succeed 51% sometimes that is a huge step forward. and i think in this case, he succeeded because if you were in russia at that time, you could sense the difference yourself in the way in which people responded. it was easy there for me to strike up a relationship with somebody on a walk through the park. or in the opera for example if you just leaned over and began talking to someone. you could get a feel for what was happening and it was clear that the mood of the stalin era had dramatically changed. once khrushchev had delivered an extraordinary secret speech in

february of 56, it became possible for russians who had lived with fear to begin to feel that the fear was being lifted from their shoulders. they could talk more easily, not as frightened that at 2:00 in the morning the secret police would knock on the door and haul them off. there was a change, it was very obvious the russians and even obvious to some of us westerners who were in moscow then talking to russians and observing what was happening that khrushchev had made a major change, but you can only change up to a point and then you will run into the reality of the soviet system which was old, broken down, and

in many ways even today remains that way. host: marvin's third memoir is titled "a different russia: khrushchev and kennedy on a collision course." it is out now, we always appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: that will do it for us this morning on the washington journal. we will be back here tomorrow. at 7:00 a.m. eastern, in the meantime, have a great sunday. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] >> c-span's washington journal,

our life form involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics and public policy. from washington and across the country. coming up monday morning, the american enterprise institute analyzes resin trump's return to the white house and potential second term challenges. political white house reporter adam reports on white house news of the day and previews the week ahead. also jeff gilbert of wwj news radio is gus's executive actions dealing with the electric vehicle industry. washington journal, joining the conversation live at 7:00 eastern monday morning on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org.

♪ host: good morning.