>> charter cmunications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, having you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming en "washgton journal," your calls and comments live. then yuval levin analys president trump's return to the white house and pential second term challenges. and white house reporter adam cancryn previews the week ahead in the white house. and jeff gilbert on donald trump's executive actions targeting the electric vehicle industry. "washiton journal" starts now, join the conversation. ♪ host: this is the "washington journal" for january 27. today marks the first full week

of the trump administration, a busy one, which included ending a short sendoff with colombia over deportees, rolling back diversity equity and inclusion programs of the federal government, some key cabinet positions being filled, and party commutations for those who participated in the attack on the capitol. some of you may have agreed, maybe you didn't. did you think about the actions of the trump administration in its first week, and did you support or oppose those actions? here is how you could let us know what you think about the actions of the trump administration in its first week. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. ,independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text at (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook,

facebook.com/c-span and you can also post on x with handle @cspanwj. at thehill.com, they have a look at the president's first week in some of the actions. five takeaways from trump's whirlwind week back at the white house. they start with efforts on immigration, saying that mr. trump wasted no time this week following through on his pledge to drastically reshape the country's approach to immigration. severely restricting immigration while driving a greater military presence at the border, pausing admissions, declaring a national emergency at the southern border, designated cartels as a foreign terrorist organization, paused appointments at the border, and attempted to end birthright citizenship. that is just part of the list from the hill story. chicago tribune this morning, the front page looks at some of

the raids taking place in chicago. they say ice announced interested 1000 people nationwide on sunday. a spokesperson declined to say how many were from the chicago area. last year, the biden administration averaged about 310 immigration arrests per day. it says chicagoans and advocates for undocumented immigrants reported at least half a dozen ice sightings across the city and suburbs on sunday. it was the vice president, jd vance, on the sunday shows specifically on cbs, talking about the issue of immigration and taking criticism of the catholic bishops over comments they made over immigration. that full interview is online, but here is a portion from the vice president yesterday. [video clip] >> the u.s. conference of catholic ships this week condemned some of the executive order signed by president trump, specifically those allowing

immigration and customs enforcement to enter schools. do you support the idea of enforcement action at a church service or school? >> let me address this, of course if you have a person convicted of a violent crime, whether they are an illegal immigrant or not, you have to go and get that person to protect the public safety. that is not unique to immigration. let me address this particular issue, because as a practicing catholic, i was actually heartbroken by that statement. i think the u.s. conference of catholic bishops needs to look in the mirror and recognize that when they receive over $100 million to help resettle illegal immigrants, are they worried about humanitarian concerns or are they actually worried about their bottom line? we are going to enforce immigration law and protect the american people. donald trump promised to do that, and i believe the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, if they are worried about the humanitarian cost of immigration and enforcement, let them talk

about the children who have been sex trafficked. there are people who have been brutally murdered. i support law enforcement against violent criminals, illegal immigrants or anybody else, that keeps us safe. host: the vice president from yesterday. immigration just one of the actions of the trump administration in his first week. you can talk about that or other actions taken by the administration. if you support or oppose them. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. text at (202) 748-8003. some of you posting on facebook before the start of the show. this is a viewer saying, why are my eggs, groceries, and gas still expensive? also, the weather is the same. i just know he wouldn't lie about that, right? another viewer, dave, saying releasing the files on jfwere a positive.

he gives a negativ to everything else. and kevin jesrom facebook saying he hado more in a week then biden has done in 50 years,nde has spoken to and taking questions from form --from more reporters than biden did in four years. you can tell us on social media what you think about the president's actions in the first week. independent line, connecticut, this is kevin on the efforts of the administration, do you support or oppose them? caller: good morning. what he did with the di, he took a page from the electrical workers because since the mid-1980's, east coast to west coast, they said companies and contractors had the right to

suspend an electrician at any time and did not have to give excuses. this has been going on for decades, still today. that is all i have to say. host: is it something you supported or opposed? caller: oh, i opposed because it took the rights away from the electricians, the workers. this has been going on, companies and contractors have a right turn any electrician around and send them back to the hall. host: that is kevin and connecticut. fox news with this headline in recent days, the president's actions on those purges as they describe it of those de i programs, puts hundreds on leave , nixes $420 million in contracts. horace in philadelphia, democrats line. caller: good morning, young man. host: go ahead, sir.

caller: good morning. good morning. host: we can hear you. go ahead. caller: i oppose all of it, everything that he is doing, i oppose it except getting the criminals out of the country. i think that is a good thing. but that is a double-edged sword as far as i am concerned because this man is supposed to be our president but is a criminal himself. so i just do not see what kind of sense that makes he would you have a good day, young man. host: you said you supported the effort, given the president's criminal history, you said you supported the efforts to add specifically, why? caller: well, because i do not think criminals ought to be crossing the border and coming into our country and reaping

havoc and committing crimes and stuff when they could have stayed home and did the same thing. host: ok, horace there in philadelphia. let's hear from terrence, support or oppose the first week of the trump administration, go ahead. republican line. caller: yeah, i have been waiting for him to take action against illegal immigration for a long time. before that, it was people overstaying their student visas or h-1b's. there is the human trafficking, violence, and stuff like this. these people are also participating in online contests pretending to be american citizens. so it is a huge issue. host: what do you think about the approach the administration is taking, particularly when it

comes to these raids? caller: we have to clean up the mess that biden created. he had people taking up entire hotels that will not let anybody in there to see what was going on, how it was occurring. these people are committing crimes, driving illegally on the roads. they crash all the time where i live, and they run red lights. the police do not even approach them for the most part because they know that they are desperate. and violent. not all of them, of course, but it has just turned into a giant mess. host: terrence there in virginia giving his thoughts on immigration. it took on an international flavor over the weekend. bbc and others reporting that the u.s. decided it will not go ahead with tariffs in colombia after bogota agreed to accept without restrictions deported

migrants, according to the white house. donald trump had ordered 25% tariffs on all colombian goods afterwards president barred two u.s. military deportation flights from landing on sunday. the colombian president had initially said it's country would accept repatriated citizens on civilian planes without treating them like criminals. the white house says colombia has now agreed to accept migrants arriving without delay. they say dialogue will be maintained to guarantee the dignity of citizens, says col ombia. we are talking about trump's first week, what did you support or oppose? you can call us. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. isaac in maryland, independent line. caller: i oppose the actions that have been going on for the last week. i think some of the actions and executive orders that took place

are the reason why people decided to end friendships. whether people realize it or not , i keep hearing the same -- specifically with gei and affirmative action, i keep hearing people saying that there are already these laws and the books. in one week, what he did in one week with the stroke of a pen was take civil rights protections from minorities to the pre-civil rights era. think about that for a second. work protections. through executive order, he is rescinding protections for minorities in housing. how does that help people moving forward. what he has done through executive order is put civil rights back to the pre-civil rights era for minorities,

people of color, and other minorities. people have short-term memories. the reason why the civil rights era happened is because the laws were on the books but we could not trust the community and the culture to abide by those laws. so that is the reason why affirmative action was put into place which later evolved into dei. look at things that have happened, from the tuskegee airmen, from supposedly, do not know if this is true, supposedly removing some dei's, as well as black history celebrations from federal government agencies. these are -- we say donald trump is a racist, this is how we prove he is a racist, because he does things that directly impact communities of color in a negative way. people cannot see that. host: that is isaac in maryland.

let's hear from tim in florida. caller: first thing is, the first thing he did was everything is going to be cheaper again, gas, eggs, all that garbage. anyway, first thing he does is rescind the biden administration thing up restrict shouldn't -- on prescription drugs, medicare, and i went to get my wives prescription, and it went up to $540. i would just like to thank him for making my bills a lot more. i thought they were going to be cheaper. on medicare, when you get down to the pharmacy, when they tell you you owe them hundreds of dollars, don't blame me, you voted for him. host: this was published at a nevada on january 21, president trump rescinding mr. biden sick as a -- executive order on

prescription drug costs, change that could significantly affect americans with chronic health conditions and fixed incomes. it will slow or halt some of the progression president biden was making on initiatives to decrease medication costs. the order signed by the former president on october 14, 20, directed the department of health and human services to modify payment models, reduce prices and improve transparency of prices. medicare beneficiaries were expected to benefit from because having measures. the trump action does not actually repeal the already five multi-cap on insulin, medicare's 2000 annual out-of-pocket cap on prescription drugs, or medicare's ability to negotiate drug prices. those are in force by federal statutes. stanley joins us from arizona, republican line, on the first week of the trump administration. what did you support or oppose? caller: i'm actually from arkansas. host: i apologize. caller: that's all right.

but i really like donald trump. going to be a very good thing. he is already stopping the stove over in israel. he is going to start that were over in russia and ukraine. and prices will go down, mr. isaac, they will go down, i promise you. just give it a little time. same with everything. it is going to be fine, you will see, and prices will go down. sales about to go down a whole lot in washington, d.c., and i guarantee you, within a year, joe biden will be completely incompetent. who knows how many pills he was throwing down every day. host: you said you are confident in the administration's ability to reduce those prices. what gives you the confidence? caller: he has only been in

there, what, six days, seven days, but he will do what he says he will do. just give him a little time, give him a few months, and things will start coming down. prices will start coming down. you know. the world was not built in a day. things are going to get a whole lot better. host: ok, stanley there in arkansas. the wall street journal highlights recent comments by the president over the situation in gaza. this is out of tel aviv, saying president trump wants to clean out the gaza strip and urged jordan and egypt to take in refugees temporarily or long-term, a move that has britain -- has been rejected by arab country since the war began. the president said he wants the monarchs country to receive palestinians and he is expected to make a similar request of egypt's president. you're talking about a million

and a half people, and we just clean out the whole thing, the president said saturday. comments and other recent moves by his administration reflected sharphae in policy towards conflict in gaza, compared with under former president joe biden. international affairs, you can make your comments on that front. as far as support or oppose with the president has done. you can pick economics, immigration, or other things. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. mo in san diego, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. i have a little thing about the deportations and then social security. deportation, according to a website, the military planes he is using are costing $852,000 for one trip for 80 people. but here is the kicker, he does not have to use the military

planes. customs and immigration have been flying out the same amount of people on charter planes for years for $8,000. so trump is charging us, the taxpayers. $843,000 to put on a show for his followers. but his followers are paying for this, too. that is extremely bad business for all of us. social security elimination text, the plan to eliminate it is not fiscally sound. can you do me a favor and look up upcoming tax law changes for me? host: go ahead and finish your thought. i will let people do that home if they want. caller: ok. his plan might cause social security to run out in 2031, that is from reuters. that is six years from now. i do not know who can last six years from now when no social security. what are people going to do without social security in six years?

everything he does is just fiscally unsound and wrong. social security runs out in six years? host: ok, ok. let's hear from dewayne in indiana, republican line. what do you support or oppose in this first week of the trump administration? caller: i have more questions than supporter -- or whatever. on immigration, my question is -- first a comment. it seems that most immigrants coming in here illegally are coming because of the situation that they have in haiti or colombia or wherever it is. they are trying to avoid poverty, the crime, and things of that nature there. so question number one is, what are we doing to alleviate the issues in those countries? and if we're doing anything, what is the cost of that

compared to the cost of trying to build a wall or kick immigrants out? host: all right, mark is up next in michigan, democrats line. caller: yes, hi, i think most of the problems started with reagan , and it is on this christianity, all of a sudden everybody was just jumping on the christianity bandwagon. even i was on it. now when i talk to christians, they are all trump and they are all doing things that have nothing to do with christianity. so i basically kind of divorced my family. they chose christianity, and i turned away. host: how does that apply to the events after the trump administration. caller: these christians make him think he is a christian himself. so all he is doing is blocking everything, and he is going to

let those, what, 1200 of those guys from january 6 off and girls, too? i saw them holding hands and praying while they were attacking the capitol. that just pisses me off. host: it was on sunday where the newly appointed to the senate, adam schiff of california, this is from nbc, blasting the president over his decision to fire 18 inspectors general late friday night and accuse the president of breaking the law. his comment was responding to senator lindsey graham earlier telling meet the press that the president had technically violated the inspector general act, which congress amended to strengthen protections from undue termination or -- for inspectors general. more of that on abc. but here's senator schiff yesterday talking about that action by the president. [video clip] >> the legislation you originally sponsored, presidents

have to give a 30-day notice to congress that they are going to do this. you heard senator graham just say that technically he may have violated the law by not notifying congress. is there anything congress can do about this decision by president trump? >> there is a lot that we can do. as someone who introduced the democracy act designed in part to protect inspector general's, to write-off this clear violation of law by saying technically he brought -- broke the law. yeah, he broke the law, not just any law, but a law meant to crowd out waste, fraud, and abuse. congress has the power of the purse, the power right now to confirm or not confirm people from cabinet positions that control agencies are what control agencies. these inspector general's to just be fired? let's remember, in his first term, he fired an inspector general for providing whistleblower complaints to congress, inspired in inspector

general for saying the pandemic response, his response, had flaws. the american people, if we do not have good and independent inspector general's, are going to see the swamp refill, going to see rampant waste and fraud, corruption. maybe the president's goal here, and he has a mean coin making him billions, is to remove anyone who will call public attention to his malfeasance. host: if you're just joining us, the first week of trump administration, his first week of actions, did you support or oppose those actions? you can let us know on the phone lines. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you want to text us, it is (202) 748-8003. facebook and x available for you to post. this is greg in ohio, independent line.

caller: i support everything trump is doing. this is what we voted for you due little crybabies, get over it. how come you people don't report on cnn getting rid of them people and msbs losing those people. you're probably hiring them. host: that is one topic. as far as support for the president's actions, specifically, what did you support? caller: d troops on the border. i want them to start shooting these people on site. host: ok let's go to linda in pennsylvania, republican line. you are next. caller: hi. yeah, my name is linda. first of all, you do not just shoot people on-site. i am sitting here listening to all of this. what i liked about what happened the first week, donald trump came in there with an agenda that was to close the border and

to keep america safe, and that is exactly what he is doing. the guy saying it is a christian thing, you know what, that is your problem. this is not republican versus the democrat, not donald trump versus adam schiff. adam schiff, first of all, made a mistake. he said we have the power. no, you don't, we do right now, adam schiff, deal with it. second, we need to keep this country safe. there's been too many things that have happened, children dying, being sex trafficked, young girls being raped. come on, wake up. they are yelling because he let the j6'ers out. i applaud that. but i did not applaud whenever oatmeal had -- i'm sorry, mr. biden, when he pardoned all those rapists and murderers.

why don't they have a problem with that? that is ok, but the j6'ers they are having a fit about. i think trump will do a good job. he has an agenda. yes, there will be problems and congress. there is all the time. that is called governance. host: ok, linda there and pennsylvania. gary in texas, democrats line. caller: good morning. i do not have a whole lot to say. you know, i am not sure if biden was running this country, unfortunately, or not. but what hurt me was groceries and gas and so forth. as far as president trump, i kind of have to agree with him on everything except one thing, his secretary of defense nomination. i just don't think he has the experience or knowledge to deal with these world leaders and stuff. i was hoping he would put in --

host: that is pete hegseth you are talking about, the secretary of defense, who got the vote over the weekend. caller: yeah, i am just not comfortable with him at all. i was hoping they would put in what's his name, on fox all the time, general -- do not remember his name. host: is it the secretary's background or his experience, what causes you pause when it comes to him taking the position? caller: it is his experience. he could have served in, i think he said iraq or whatever, he just does not have the experience. i do not care if he has been in iraq for 2, 3 tours or not, he just does not have the experience. host: gary in texas talking about the first week of the trump administration, as many of you have, what you support or oppose it he talked about secretary hegseth. on the pages of the wall street

journal, a picture of pam bondi, the nominee of the president to become the next attorney general , not confirmed yet. as far as what is going on currently at the justice department, saying many department employees are on edge as they await that senate confirmation of pam bondi. chief of staff is leading the department until then along with the active attorney general james mchenry, a longtime immigration lawyer. the wall street journal reports that as part of the department pivots, mizelle issued a memo friday shortly limiting prosecutions of people accused of blocking access to abortion clinics, calling such cases the prototypical example of federal weaponization. he put an immediate hold on civil rights litigation, many lawyers can take steps to ensure the president's appointees or designees have the opportunity to decide whether to initiate new cases, according to a memo. more there at the wall street journal website.

from bob in virginia, independent line. hello. caller: good morning. i kind of oppose everything he is doing because of the way he is going about it. what really bothers me about gaza is he promised -- well, him and netanyahu had discussed the gaza strip being turned into a, put it this way, resort for the rich people back when he was president the first time. i wish y'all would have a discussion about the legality of donald trump, because he is a felon and he is really not president. jd vance is the only one that has been elected by the constitution. i tell you, it we are going into a civil war in this country because the president don't know two cents. host: if you want to keep

participating, the numbers are, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. what to look out for today on our networks, a lot going on when it comes to the president and this administration. florida will be the focus of the meeting between the president and house gop leaders over how they will deal with reconciliation come a how many bills it will take, and other parts of the agenda. later today, house speaker mike johnson and majority lear steve scalise and majority whip tom emmer speak at the party retreat, the trump golf club in miami, at 3:00 eastern. you can see that on c-span here the president is expected to address the republican conference at 5:00, live on our main channel, c-span, and c-span now and c-span.org. minations for wednesday and thursday, president's health and

rort f kennedy, jr., will testify. he is an environmental l and activist. he was the024 independent enti candidate. you can see that wednesday a 10:00. thursday he will face another committee, the senate health mmittee, 10:00 here and watc that on c-span3, mr. kennedy getting questioned members of that committee. then the president's nominee for director of national intelligence, tulsa gabbard, 10:00 this coming thursday morning she will be on capitol hill to take questions about nomination to become the dni. th senate select committee on intelligence hearing will be live at 10 c-span. c-span now and c-span.org. and you can go to the websi app for the latest information on what is going on in this transition period of the trump administration. clifford in california, republican line. caller: yes, thank you so much

for taking my call this morning. looks like we won that civil war, according to the last caller there. those four disastrous gears that biden destroyed our country. and i think god that trump is back in office. his coy great day for america and a great week -- it is a great day for america and a great week. host: what did you support or oppose? caller: i support immigration, the illegal aliens pouring into this country, and i support all that trump is doing to take care of that national security problem that biden just -- well, not only him but his second in command, the czar, the great kamala, how she just ignored the situation and could not do nothing about it, took vacations

to the countries of origin there in guadalajara and guatemala and all them places. what did she do? nothing. but we did something. we voted for the man would do something about it. our great president trump. host: ok. taylor in north carolina, democrats line, hi. caller: it is really hard to pick what i disliked about the past week because there is so much to choose from. let's see, sending hundreds of thousands of dollars to send these immigrants back home, totally wastefully, that is out of our pocket. the price of eggs at an all-time high, i thought that was something people cared about. gasoline is high. food prices will go up because you can bet that nobody wants to go out and pick blueberries, nobody wants to go out and

picked vegetables. we need these migrants in our country come of these are our neighbors and friends. what else? managed to turn christians against the church because a bishop -- because a bishop begged him for mercy. he managed to put himself above god in the eyes of christians. it is incredible. he managed to put a drunk domestic abuse are in charge of the military. let's see, oh, there is a guy that did a literal nazi salute twice at his inauguration that he said nothing about. a defense contractor who is in charge of defense contracts, that is not a conflict of interest, i guess. he pardoned the jan 6'ers, and now he has his own thug army. what happened to these republicans who always said back the blue, they are so happy. and i thought antifa did that, so why did he not pardon these

people if it was antifa all along? host: he brought up the january 6 people who participated on the attack on the capitol, that was one of the topics from south carolina's republican lindsey graham, on nbc, talked about the specific action by the trump administration. this is from yesterday. [video clip] >> even his own vice president said if you committed violence on that day, obviously you should not be pardoned. do you believe that president trump was wrong to issue these like it pardons to the january 6 participants? >> i do not think he had the legal authority, but i fear it will lead to more violence. i think it was a mistake because it seems to suggest it is an ok thing to do. kamala harris wanted to raise bail money for people burning down many ebay applets, biden --burning down minneapolis, biden pardoning have to senate

going out the door. i think we will revisit the pardon power of the president of this continues. as to pardoning violent people who beat up cops, i think that was a mistake. >> so you think it was a mistake by president trump to issue display can pardons. what message does it convey to law enforcement? >> there really has not been better support of law enforcement and general, and a lot of people who support trump and law enforcement did not like this. but he said it during the campaign. he is not tricking people. biden said he would not pardon his family. but trump said he would pardon these people. he did it and it is not a surprise. but i do not like the pete -- the idea of bailing people allah -- out of jail or pardoning people who burn down cities or beat up cops. host: to ohio, this is steve, independent line. caller: good morning. i was just calling to see, are

the only immigrants that are being harassed or arrested or sent back home people of color? because i am sure there are some immigrants here in this country that are white, basically, and i do not see planes going back to russia or europe, so i was curious about that. the dei stuff going on and not wanting to teach different things as far as black history goes, that is fine if that is what you want to do. however, you could say the same thing about, say, the holocaust, not teach that either and see how people feel. that is my only comment. host: harry in virginia, republican line. good morning. caller: hi, it's harry. hey, good morning, united states. i support the president. he is true to form. anybody familiar with horseracing, we use the term

true to form. he is true to form. he said what he will do. i really support the immigration thing. i cannot go nowhere, to no other country. i applaud the president. this immigration thing has been going on too long, so hats off to president trump. host: some of you have mentioned the so-called dei programs, that was one of the things in the hill story about this first week, president trump spending much of that first week in office targeting issues considered liberal or "woke," taking aim at gender identity and at diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. he signed an executive order in his first day in office mandating that the federal government recognize only two sexes, male and female. it is part of a broader campaign

promised to rid the nation of what he called transgender insanity. he signed an executive order to end dei programs within the federal government and put those employees on administrative leave. memos were sent to federal employees across the government pushing them to report any efforts to disguise diversity programs and threatening adverse consequences for those who do not comply. ralph is next in new york, democrats line. caller: good morning. uaw worker from upstate new york, in opposition to what president trump is doing, rolling back lyndon johnson's 1965 civil rights law that barred discrimination for workers working for federal contractors, and he has two slick schemes, no tax on tips. employers can use that to shift their wages to tips so they do not have to pay their half of social security and medicare.

in the no tax on social security, that will increase the shortfall -- revenue shortfall for social security, and that hurts today's workers. lastly, his notion of merit shops, that is the opposition to union shops. and i thank you for your time. host: the president in las vegas over the weekend, taking some of that time to talk about that promise on exempting tips from federal tax. here is a portion. [video clip] >> near the top of the agenda for our historic republican majorities in congress is to pass a national tax cut for american workers and families. we campaigned across the country on a pledge that i am sure most of you did not hear too much about, a pledge to take the trump tax cuts and make them permanent, and that is exactly what we are doing. [applause] in the coming weeks, i will be working with congress to get a bill on my decks might -- on my

desk that cuts taxes to workers. it keeps my promise for -- i know you did not hear anything about this, and i'm sure it had no influence on this state, the fact that we won this crazy, massive majority, state that had not been won by a republican in decades. no tax on tips. no tax on tips. [cheers and applause] so if you are a restaurant worker, server, valet, bellhop, bartender, or one of my caddies -- i go through caddies like candy. if i play badly, i always blame my caddie. [laughter] or any other worker who relies on tip income, your tips will be 100% yours. host: president trump's first

week, what did you support or oppose? laura in massachusetts, independent line. caller: hello. a couple things, thank you. first of all, all of this, again, it is just a lot of distraction. this is what the republicans do. basically what they are doing now is they want to gut medicaid while they are giving billion seven dollars for ai, for their early in air buddies who sat on the podium there during his inauguration. and it is all about wagging the dog, about making everybody look the other way while they are doing their dirty dealings on the other end. i mean, how can you take medicaid from poor, poor americans. and this is going to affect hospitals, nursing homes, group homes. host: in the spirit of the

question, in the first week specifically, what did you support or oppose? caller: this is it. this is his plan. this is reaganomics. this is trump doing his reaganomics again, take from the poor to give to the wealthy. he says he is going to do tax breaks for people that work in restaurants? where will their social security be when they go to retire? a lot of this stuff is just throwing bones to people so that they can do their agenda, which is to really enrich the alien heirs. they are already so rich. it is just -- this country is just so poor and so many workers are struggling. this stuff, it is just another act. he is a con man, doing the same con job he has done during part one, this is part two of it.

it is just really sad. and letting the january 6 people out, like, they are all good people, like we cannot see what we are seeing, like we did not see what we saw on television. that was a mirage. so it was very disappointing to see this man back in office. thank you. host: let's go to charles in indiana, republican line. caller: yes, i support the wall in the mexico. i think it is a very needed thing for our country. i appreciate that he is sending military folks down there to protect that. a lot of military folks have been training and waiting to do something for our country. why would anybody bring those people into our country in the first place? i fully support that, and thank you very much. host: charles there in indianapolis. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

what did you support or oppose in this first week at the trump administration? it was yesterday that the democratic governor of illinois talked about a memo that was put out by the trump administration morning state and local officials not to interfere with those immigration efforts taking place statewide. here is a portion of some of his comments on cnn yesterday. [video clip] >> are you concerned that illinois state and local officials come up between including may be yourself, could face prosecution if you do not comply with federal immigration authorities? obviously, you say you agree on people who are in the united states, and chicago and elsewhere, illegally who are criminals, but what about those who are, as you say, citizens of the community? >> we are going to follow the law in illinois and federal law, too. we expect them to do the same.

i am very afraid they will not follow the law. the reason they put a memo out like that is -- that is already the law, everybody, we have to follow federal law and state law . otherwise we are potentially subject to prosecution. of course, we all know that. they are just putting that out because they want to threaten everybody. they want people to step back and let them do whatever they want to do, the federal officials. the reality is they cannot break the law. you have heard them talk about something unconstitutional this year, removal of birthright citizenship. we will stand in the way of them breaking the law in illinois if they are not following federal law. we know that if they show up with warrants to take people away, we are going to hand them over. there are people with deportation orders and have had for many years, even during the prior trump administration, who need to be picked up and who are violent criminals and should be deported.

so we're going to do what we need to do, but we also have a law in the books in illinois that says that our local law enforcement will stand up for those law-abiding undocumented people in our state doing the right thing, and we're not going to help federal officials just dragged them away because somebody pointed at them and said that person is brown or that person is not from here, check it out, maybe they are undocumented. host: danny joins us from maryland, democrats line, good morning. caller: i think my most disappointing thing in this first week has been the downfall of the republican and individuals in it, following the cloudless leader. we have seen someone that actually decided that people are born intersex, transgender, and you cannot control that on an executive order. we have people like your caller

earlier that said just shoot at people coming over the border on site, which is disgusting. our country is supposed to be built on christian values, american values, and we have seen the republicans who have voted for him falling into a bed of corruption, hate, violence here these guys are perpetuating it. he is breaking the law. we had the situation with the inspector general being fired. he is a felon and is breaking the law. his followers love it. people voted for him by mistake, and he is hateful and senator, and it is time we start recognizing that. we have the catholic bishops putting out a statement against him. we have the episcopalian church against him in statements. still, his followers continue to love and follow a false god. there are years of conspiracy and facebook and meta and all

this crap getting into your life, it has convinced people that reality is not true. host: ok, that is danny in maryland. let's hear from mel in new york, independent line. caller: way to go, president trump, for challenging the leftist application of the birthright clause of the 14th amendment. that was not meant to justify anchor babies that we have seen in the past decade. thank you, president trump, for making measures for america's energy independence and prominence. thank you, president trump, for pardoning the pro-lifers who were unjustly imprisoned by the previous administration. thank you, president trump, for deep sixing dei, that should not be in government. it belongs in a category of

meritocracy, and that initiative is appreciated. i thank president trump for withdrawing from the paris climate agreement. i thank president trump for terminating the ev mandate. stop this government intervention in trying to make america's energy policy whereby it interferes with the free market thank you, president trump. host: the new york times looks at essex at the trump administration's policy, especially in the first week, federal workforce being 1:00 -- being one of those categories. it makes it easier to fire federal employees by subjecting them to rules governing political appointees who have much weaker due process rights, and mr. trump also issued a memo asserting his authority to fire several thousand members of the so-called senior executive

service on the top bureaucrats across government and the administration have begun to move -- to remove some of them. other memos told agencies to require employees to return to office full-time as soon practical, which has prompted some federal employees to look for jobs and to list employees who are still completing pro deletion aerie period required of new hires. a lot of categories from that piece from the new york times about the trump administration in its first week. you can find it online. next call, republican line. caller: i can laugh at liberals all day long. i support the president's efforts in pardoning and commuting all of the january 6 prisoners, i called them political prisoners, and i really support president trump

in his explaining the difference between what he did and what biden did. what biden did was very, very bad. he pardoned folks who apparently did not do any crime. it is amazing because you do not see any of these people like adam schiff, liz cheney, bennie thompson, you do not see these folks standing up and raising their hands saying, hey, we do not want the party. president trump, if you remember, you had some folks on washington journal explaining, four years ago, ok, what the preemptive pardon was. and donald trump never asked for that. he never asked for it. it was the mainstream media planting a seed and getting people who were totally gas lit

to follow. again, president trump never did that. he never did anything with preemptive pardons. i thank him for doing what he did, and i appreciate him for what he is doing now. host: ok. he mentioned the media, one of those things from the hill highlighting the first week, here is the header. mr. trump still loves the press, adding, the president spoke to the press every day this week, starting on monday right after his inauguration when he took questions for more than an hour while signing executive orders from the oval office. he talked to the press again tuesday from the white house while announcing a new artificial intelligence investment. he was interviewed by fox news host sean hannity on wednesday or thursday, president trump took several more questions from the oval office while signing additional executive orders. he answered questions throughout friday.

you can find more at thehill.com. christine, democrats line. caller: i am looking here and colombia is going to have to deal with 25% or 50% tariffs. colombia provides a huge amount of our coffee. gas prices are up. our $35 insolent out the window. you are going to stinking pay because of what trump has done to you. the egg prices are up because of bird flu to some extent, this is a huge tragedy in this country.

nih is not allowed to communicate anymore. it cannot tell us what is best for our health. we will not find out about bird flu. we will not know how bad it is. for two months when covid was rampaging, he said it was going to go away in the spring, said it was going to be fine, said it was nothing, don't worry about it. we had 1.2 million dead people. we had refrigerated trucks in the street in front of hospitals with the dead people stacking up in there. this is huge. host: ok. martin in michigan, independent line. caller: i agree with the action president trump is taking. the comment on the tips, instead

of going through all the rigmarole of not being taxed, why don't they just say it is a gift? if sare nontaxable, so change the word tips to gifts -- if tips -- gifts are nontaxable, change the word tips to gifts. what about aiding and abetting crimes taking place? and then this so-called bishop in washington, d.c., just because a person is called a bishop does not mean that that person is a person of god or a christian. and if you look at that episcopal church, look at the organization, it is not a church , it is a business. if you look at all the annual reports they put out and all the people they have, it is a business masquerading as a religion. host: ok.

let's go to will in texas, republican line. caller: hello. i pretty much support everything president trump is doing. it is just his first week in office, people expect prices to drop, asked to drop, eggs to drop, in one week? come on, give him some time. i never complained about biden for four years doing nothing but hurting our country. but every time you can see a call from a democrat coming in, they are going to whine and cry about he is doing this, doing that. host: give me a specific on his first week, what did you support or oppose specifically? caller: i support him going to north carolina. i support him going to california. and what he is going to do to help those poor people that got

burned out because gavin did not do his job, another democrat failure. that is about it. thank you. host: one more call, from al in texas, democrats line. al in texas, hello. go ahead. caller: do i need to turn my tv down? host: yes, please. al, go ahead, please. one more time, please go ahead. caller: hey, i am a retired air force master sergeant, and the thing about this whole deal, man, you talking about immigrants, talking about gaza,

and control, and the thing about it is this, if president trump can get reelected, we don't have no country. host: specific why, gaza the immigration thing, what did you oppose or support? caller: two guests will join us during the course of the morning together. next up we will hear from american enterprise institute yuval levin, later on, one of the first actions by the president, several executive orders targeting electric vehicles. jeff gilbert will join us to discuss how evs could be in the future of the trump administration.

both coming up on washington journal. ♪ this week on the c-span networks, the houses 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 cabinenominees including robert f. kennedy, jr., nominee for health and human services secretary. he will appear before the senate finance committee on wednesday and the senate health education, labor committ on thursday. also, kash pel seeks to become fbi director. then, tulsa gabbard, mr. trump's nominee for director of national intelligence will appear before the senate intelligence committee. once this week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our free mobile video at

also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand. c-span, democracy unfiltered. if you ever missed any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events future markers that guide you to interesting and new the really highlights. they appear on the right-hand side of the screen when you hit play on select videos. this timeline tooled makes it easy to get an idea what was debating decided in washington scroll through and s a fpe minutes on point of interest. democracy. it isn't just an idea, it is a process. a process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select you with guarding basic.

it is where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nations course is charted. democracy in real-time. this is your government at work. this is c-span. giving you your democracy unfiltered. washington journal continues. host: yuval levin is the american enterprise institute constitutional studies director and also the author of the recent book "american covenant: how the constitution unified our nation and could again." thanks for joining us. guest: thank you very much for having. host: we had you want to talk about it before, but how does that parallel to the days we are seeing now under a new resident when it comes to unity in the united state. >> the argument is that the constitution brings us together helping us fight properly's agreed with our constructive,

and that it assumes there will always be divisions but establishes procedures and institutions that are set up to but americans agree in ways that lead to negotiation, bargaining and compromise. especially in the time when we are intensely, deeply divided. the kind of 50-50 moment that we live in now in the united states the last generation means that we have to let our institutions function. that's going to be hard to see in the first week of a new administration where everything we hear is what they want to do, but what they want to do and what is actually going to have to is going to mediated by these two should the difference between with the president wants and what he gets as a function of what he can get through congress, what he can persuade the courts of, but the public thinks about what he is up to. all of these things are there to help us broaden coalitions, to help us deal with each other and to force us to confront the reality of this agreement which is the basic underlying fact of our democracy. host:'s main avenue right now,

executive order. how does that help or hinder him? guest: every new since bill clinton, so for 30 years now has come in with his party controlling both houses of congress. that has not meant that they just been able to do whatever they want. it's a challenge. the first week of a new administration, this is one week. there are 208 weeks in a presidential term. the first week as defined by the president because what is in the news is what he wants to do and what he is starting to say. very soon the president has to confront the reality of the world. he doesn't simply control that reality and very simply they are tested and assessed by events they don't control. so what we learned in the first week is what he is trying to achieve. i think it doesn't show us that president trump has a distinctly assertive executive approach to this term. there are things he wants to do and he's going to be very aggressive about doing them on

his own. the orders be seen, a lot of them are about telling his executive officials to start a process, to begin to do something, and the question of what really comes of that is very much an open question. every president seemed like he's on top of the world getting everything he wants in the first week, but it doesn't last. host: he said my proudest legacy be that of a peacemaker and a unifier. what is the face on that front? guest: obviously we are a divided nation. a lot of recent presidents have started out saying they want unity. his inaugural address, the way in which he describes unity is actually very similar to how a lot of our recent president have. you look at former president bidens inaugural or the trump previous one or president obama. they talk about unity in terms of not disagreeing. they say if we all agree there is nothing we can do, but that is not what unity means in free society.

what unity means is not so much thinking alike as acting together. the challenge for a president, for our national politics is how do we act together on national problems when we don't think alike? the answer to that involves negotiation, bargaining, the test of any president is what he can get accomplished in that way. not only how does use his power, because ultimately that is much more constrained than we often imagine. and they need other people to agree with and in order to get anything accomplished. the challenge of whether this president or any president in the a unifier is whether he can get other people to come along. host: do you think there is a better sense of him doing this this time around? guest: i think he seems to have a better role -- sense of what the role of the president is that he did in his first term. i think he's much more inclined to be acted in dealing with

congress that he was last time. he said he wants to be every republican member of the house. i think you should meet every democrat. i presidents often assume they can only get support from their own party but he could easily imagine democratic vote for certain versions of a tax bill or some of his immigration bills as we seen in this first week. that he is intent on getting to know members more that he was last time. he's much more involved in setting the strategy for republican congress, thinking about how many reconciliation bills, what we do first, what do we do second. he was much more passive about that last time then this time in part because he sees how important it is for that to work out. whether it will succeed is another question. president to involve themselves in how congress does it work don't always end up getting what they want, i think he does have a different approach, a different strategy at the beginning. host: if you want to ask

questions, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us questions or comments, (202) 748-8003. a recent piece that folks can find online, you write in it that him coming back now is a refusal to pay a tentative some failures not only from former president biden, but from some in his first term. guest: you look at the politics of the 21st century and a sense, the public over and over has said no thank the person in power. as one to change. we had a very, very close narrow elections now for a long time he stands out about this moment in american all it takes is that we had no majority party, no clear majority already for almost 30 years.

all of our election tevin close. every newly elected president has started out saying i won, i get to do what i want now. but the truth is they win very narrowly. he got 49.8% of the vote. that is a 50-50 election. each time when the new president's first hard at the outset the public has reacted poorly because what they said is we don't like the last guy or than we love what you are offering. the danger of over reading the mandate is a danger that every 21st century president has run and that donald trump is clearly running. he's behaving as though he won a massive landslide election when it was a narrow election. and rather than start out by broadening his coalition, he seems to be starting out by spending political capital gain from the election. and we will see, but that has not worked out for his predecessors. it didn't work out for him in

the first term. the danger is losing public support quickly and the public saying no, we don't like this either, this is not what we were saying. neither of our parties is quite connected with with voters are looking for. they face this challenge for a generation now, and each time they've been elected because the other party was unpopular. and that is a hard mandate to read. to say well, i am here because the other guy didn't meet the public expectations. you want to say i'm here because i made promises, the public wanted it and now we are going to do it. it is very hard for a president to get their head around the fact that they won because the incumbent was unpopular they then take actions that make themselves unpopular and as we've seen, the public's ability turn against him and throw him out even when they elected i think he needs to be very cognizant of that and think about how to build our support before he takes aggressive action. but like our other 21st century

presidents, it's going to be a challenge for him. host: could immigration are one of those other topics, some democrats expressing support for some of these is that an avenue he could start building support? guest: kids possible, but he has to think about where there is broad public support. i think there is broad public support for controlling the inflow at the border. there is much less public support for mass deportation of people who are here. and that the station is an important line to draw. there are ways i think that he could use immigration to broaden his support, but there are also ways in which he can become a huge political problem for him if he asked to aggressively. the lessons of the first term are there for him. the way in which they move early on the travel bans and other things salad the public pretty quickly on president's immigration views. he does run that risk, but he does have some opportunity here as well. host: the book is "american covenant: how the constitution

unified our nation and could again." this is dorothy in baltimore. morning. caller: want to ask because he seeks to be very knowledgeable as far as what he's talking about. i wanted to enter this question why does the president not talk more about the things that help or hurt us in president, congress or the senate does what they do. the thing i think we are missing is this. we talked about what the president wanted to do, but the thing that people were talking about, one, immigration. he halted the doj civil rights division, which people keep saying that is a minority. that is not a minority, that is people with disabilities, people who have been discriminated

against, women, white, black or whatever. is not just for people of color. can people keep saying it, but that is a major thing to do, even the police department. that is where you would go, he would contact your federal government if your police department wasn't handling it right. he halted all of that. they are not thinking very well. the press keeps talking about what the president wants, what congress wants. you all should make each one of these things that he does that hurt us and be truthful about it. host: dorothy, thank you for the question. guest: you raise a number of important points. first of all, one of the ways in which thinking about politics in this first week of a new registration is a challenge is that there hasn't yet been much of a response to the president's actions within the system, and especially from the courts. federal courts act in the past tense.

they review actions after they happen and the question is which of these early actions is going to pass muster in the courts and which are not. i think they are going to run into challenges very quickly. the notion amendment doesn't require birthright citizenship is going to get tested all the way up to the supreme court. what you describe here also falls into some of these categories to fire the inspectors general, for example is a violation of federal law. the president can fire them but has to give congress 30 days notice. there's going to be a lawsuit almost inevitably. there may ultimately be some pushback from congress and from the states. and that is how our system works. our system exists in a kind of tension so that different interests, different pressures,

different groups can exercise the power they have in the system and where we end up is where they land when all of those pressures are added together. we will see. this is not a last word, it is the word. the other thing i say is part of what you say is politicians need to focus on what the public is asking for, not only what they want. in one of the base of operating is that it is difficult to know what the public wants. there's not a stronger, broad majority behind any party agenda or platform at this point. again and again we had 50-50 elections and that genuinely does make it difficult for policymakers to know exactly where the public is pushing him. gradually they are coming to some understandings about public concerns about disorder, public concerns about a lack of agency and control, whether that is at the border war and foreign policy, in criminal law in the united states.

both parties are coming to recognize that that is a public priority for example. but when elections are so close and when the other factor we seen in the century is control goes back and forth, we had more swings back and forth of control of congress in the last 25 years than any other century. we've just had the third presidential election in a row with a party in the white house has shifted. so this is a time when politicians find it genuinely difficult to know would voters are asking for. host: pensacola, republican line. pat, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to respond to the previous caller from maryland to this talking about the constitution, trump holding some civil rights cases or whatever. my question for her, and this is the right see, where with the civil-rights division of doj

when these students at columbia and georgetown were blocking jewish students from being able to go to their classes? we heard nothing from the doj about that. if that situation was reversed, if there were a bunch of white students keeping black students from getting to their classes, biden would have had the national guard on campus. but this is another plain hypocrisy that we see from the civil-rights doj because they were left-leaning. they still haven't mentioned the issue, and the civil-rights division, i think it was kristin clark, she never uttered a word about it. so you talk about the constitution, it is all about perception. people like this on the right, republicans, we expect to be treated fairly.

six people were not treated fairly and it goes on and on and that is why we voted for change. host: pat in florida. guest: i don't agree that the january 6 folks who committed violent crimes and were treated accordingly but otherwise, you make a very important point. the selective enforcement of civil rights laws and the biden administration is a big part of why there's been this reaction against ddi and against the way in which the civil-rights division has been operating. and some of the president's early administered actions on this front, including a response to campus anti-semitism which was not taken seriously enough by the biden administration and needed to be responded to. in the way in which you have to respond to the violations of any american rights. my hope is that the direction the our head it is that kind of direction. a colorblind enforcement of our laws that doesn't take account

of someone's identity first, what religion are they, what colors their skin, but of the simple fact that they are americans and their rights need to be protected regardless of anything else about them. i think that is the way our laws need to be enforced. we will see if that's where we are headed, but i do think that is part of why there's been the kind of reaction that the college describe nine posts: this is the recent headline that the administration lay off employees offices. what do you think specifically about the action and the existence of these programs overall with the law offices? guest: these programs are new, they are not some kind of long-standing feature of american policy or the federal government they are frankly intended to dance part of the progressive agenda of the biden administration, which tried to treat federal workers, and others, differently based on their race, based on their ethnicity, based on other factors that i do not think should factor into how our

government treats ways or its citizens. and so i agree that peace officers should go away. i think the federal government has less power to do that over the private sector and the idea that the president is trying to compel private actors and private companies to change their procedures seems less right to me, but the underlying principle does the right to me. we should treat one another as equals regardless of any identifying feature about ourselves. what matters is that we are all american citizens and that means we are all equal. host: it was a former center credit leader of the house of representatives, stacey abrams who ran for office who said this about this action saying dei are treated fairly and are able to purchase faithfully internation principles odi have under guard print legislation such as the civil rights act and americans with disabilities act. despitealse arguments from cynical activists and politicians that pervert dr.

king vision of a society of equals, the values are rooted in removing various opportunities of the narrative be for themselves. guest: i think those are good goals but i don't think that is a good description of what the eia has been in practice. it has stood in the way of the kind the principle that underlie our civil-rights rights laws and our commitment to civil rights and the constitution. i don't disagree with what she says that what our goals and aims should be, but i do disagree about what it has been in practice. host: this is susan in massachusetts, independent line. caller: thank you for being on today. you know, i believe the constitution is a great roadmap for democracy, but we had a failed one due to our two-party system which isn't invented in the constitution, as i understand it.

it is really rooted in politics. it got politicized in the 1840's needed by congress and it protects two parties. the american electorate by and large is centerleft, center-right, centre. they are not friends. and the way things are set up, they end up being one party states. they know they are safe because they come from one party states, and then they have no incentive to compromise with people of the opposite party. when jeffrey rosen is always on on constitution day, so i also think as a sidebar to that, because congress has failed really since roe v. wade, even if you are pro-choice, which i

am, with limitations. severe ones, actually. the supreme court now has become a legislative wing of our federal government, i think they're important and they are picking of the slack from a failed congress. and lastly, i think we should start getting back to overseas and not just do it. host: thank you, we appreciate the callable moolenaar -- respond. guest: let me start with right don't quite agree. it's true that the two-party system is not formally embedded in the constitution, of the two-party system is a function of our constitutional structure in a very important way. particularly of the way in which we choose the president. because in order to win the presidency you have to win the absolute authority of elected to the electoral college, it's been the case is the beginning that if there are more than two

serious candidates for president there is a very real danger of the election the house of representatives and the people not really getting to choose the president. that happened twice in the 19th century and then you have the doubling down on the two-party system to describe. and we haven't had an election go to the house since then. since 8024 when the game to see the real entrenchment of the two-party system. i think our system actually is a pretty good fit for the american constitution. it means that each of the two parties is a broad coalition, and that a lot of the kind of coalition building that happens between parties and the european parliamentary system happens within parties in the american system. and the parties themselves are brought to where a lot of negotiating and coalition has to happen. i think generally it has been good for us but in recent decades we see already system become deformed somewhat, especially my primaries. somewhat also by changes in the media environment so that we are left in a place where as you

say, the fringes of the parties make the most important decision at the beginning of the election cycle, which is who gets to run. who is the nominee of the party. doing that in the way we do through primaries means that a very, very small fringe of each party, you have about 8% of the public showing up to vote on primary day. those people i very intensely engaged, they are ideological, they don't want to see a lot of bargaining, they want to see people who are more hard-line along their views. and those are the kind of people we now get in our system. i think there is room from reform of how the parties choose their candidates, but i do think that broadly speaking the two-party system works well for us. i very much agree with what you say about the way in which the weaknesses congress has come to deform the american constitutional system. a lot of the overreaching of the courts, even a lot of the overreaching of the president which we see now is a result of under reaching by congress, under reaching that is intentional, where members don't want the responsibility of making the big decisions in her

system and deleted two other people. the system is not meant to work that way and we do see a lot of problems as a result. i think it's necessary for congress to reassert itself and put itself at the center here. host: you brighten in your piece about disgrace. using president biden these dispraise not because he was reelected, but at the same time there's no getting around the dispraise involved in bringing donald trump back to the white house after his own post- election the trails of his constitutional load in 2021. guest: what happened in 2020 and 2021, donald trump laufer election, that happens. instead of accepting that as every has president has, he decided that it didn't really happen in try to persuade his voters that it didn't really happen. he persuaded a large chunk of the public that the letter was not budgeted. he created a real constitutional crisis, part of which was an assault on the capital which was done by people who thought they were acting on his behest,

whether they work or not. i think there's no getting around the fact that that is a failure to uphold the president's responsibility under our constitution. whatever you think of donald trump or one before that moment and what he has done since, that was a failure to uphold the responsibility of the president that i think can only be seen as a disgrace in our constitutional system, and to bring them back after that is a kind of civic failure that the republican party went back to the same and that it that it had, given what he did, i think was a failure responsibly on their part. president biden ended his term by taking all kinds of actions that i think our realm beyond the scope of appropriate uses of presidential power. his use of the pardon power at the end, the notion that he could declare a new constitutional amendment to be valid, cat is not how our system works. that is not what presidents do. in both cases, the public is faced with a very unfortunate choice in this election. you can see it in the way people

voted. they were not happy with either choice. that is what a 50-50 election looks like. they had to make a choice between any sense, two evils and they made one. they decided that the incumbent needed to be out but i don't think we should forget what happened after the 2020 election in a think it is very to all our presidents to account when they failed to uphold their oaths of office and that has happened here, there is no way around it. host: new jersey, democrats line. caller: good morning. we find the revolution and we all felt that had a part to play. but right now we have a president who does not really wish to follow the u.s. constitution.

he sees himself as above the law and he has been thanks to the poor actions of our supreme court giving him what he sees as unlimited power. it's going to be iraqi for years . i pray that we don't have anything serious happened to this nation as a result of his total incompetence and criminal activity, but i can't be guaranteed it. nobody can be guaranteed it. and i do not blame president biden. this four years from the rule of donald trump. it tells me that america has faced, and not demographically or ethnically, but we have people who applauded criminality.

they applauded what he did. they applauded what the oath keepers and the proud boys did on january 6. because they are criminals to the core. and we have to call it out. it is not who we are. host: thank you. thank you for the call. guest: i agree with what she said at the end. i do think there is dangerous criminality in the january 6 assault on the capitol. i don't think they should have an pardon, at least the people who committed violent crimes should not have been. i also think we are in for iraqi ride. there is no way around that. at the end of the day every administration has something like a personality of the president for good and bad. we saw that the first time around with donald trump but we see it with every president. the strengths and weaknesses of the individual are reflected in the work of the administration. there is a way in which character is destiny, and if

character is destiny that is not breaking news for donald trump. host: she talked about the supreme court the community decision, how it can affect the next few years. what is it and what is it not? guest: i don't agree that that immunity decision broke new ground in a way that changes the place of the president and air system. the idea that there is some immunity for presidential actions and for especially the processes by which presidents make decisions is a very long-standing principle in law. the court has never before believed and asked to codify or expound on the meaning or extent of that principle. what they did was fairly generic and it's going to have to be tested as a practical matter. i think the question of exactly what it means is going to have to be decided because donald trump those intent, i think, to test the bounds of his constitutional power. my hope is that the court are strong enough to stand up to those downs.

our system only works to our cause additional offices are assertive and aggressive, but also restrict and restrain one another. and it is incumbent on the courts to make sure that presidential actions happen within the framework of our laws and of the constitution itself. i think the supreme court does need to do that. that is my sense, it does want to restrain both of the other branches from reaching beyond their appropriate powers. they've done that a fair amount, they restricted the power of the president of the administrative state, and i certainly hope that they have the backbone to continue to do that. i think they will, we will see. host: republican line from florida, nelson, hello. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i tend to disagree with a number of your statements and before i ask my question, i would like to point out that in the 2020 election, there were several states that violated their own

election laws and their own constitutions, which puts a question mark as to what the real results were for that particular election. i would also like to point out that donald trump since he has taken over in one week has been making the united states a safer place to be by his getting rid of the numerous criminals that were allowed to come in by the last administration. now, having said that i am a trump supporter, i think he is a good president and i did vote for him. having said that, i do have a concern where you and i may agree, and that is the proliferation of executive orders that has been used by the last several presidents, because

congress can't seem to even agree as to what a man and a woman are, and i think that that is a danger in regards to the possibility of slowly losing our freedoms and our rights. i hear a lot of things about dictators and things of that nature, oligarchs, but i think that this friend of a continuation of the executive order in order to get anything done leads to the possibility of those potential results. host: nelson in florida. guest: first of all i would say the 2020 election was litigated and adjudicated in the outcome of it was decided in the ways in which are available to was in her system to decide things like that. any close election what is really need tested is our commitment to the law. and i do think that it is important to recognize that

would happened after that election was a loser of the election just simply being unwilling to accept the result and that should not happen in our system. i very much agree with the latter point the part of the problem we face is that congress not willing to step up and do its job. and so on whatever issue may be important to you, where you see presidential action in an aggressive, assertive way that tries to make policy through executive orders and ministry of actions, very often what is happening there is a vacuum has been created by congress, and the president is rushing into phyllis. it is a problem that presidents are doing this, they exceed their authority. of the underlying problem in the vacuum. by congress, the unwillingness of our national legislature to step up and do its job that job is hard. it means taking responsibility for decisions that may not always be popular and it doesn't i a willingness to do it. but nobody's forcing these people to run for congress.

if that is the job they want they have to recognize that is the responsibility they taken on and has to reassert itself. i think we seen under both parties that congress stepping back, earning power over the president and treating itself as a kind of observer or at best as just doing oversight over presidential action, that is not their fundamental role. legislation is, and i think we need to see much more legislative action. host: to that end, to what degree do you see congress as a rubberstamp for the president? guest: there are narrow republican majorities and they are going to try to support his agenda wherever they can. the challenge if they make and secondary to the president. they treat themselves as existing to advance an agenda and that is just not quite right even when the president is of your own party. i think you're reasonably likely to see a divided congress after the midterm election, and at that point obviously oversight changes a lot, that just shouldn't be the case. there should be a commitment both to oversight into

legislation at any point and under any kind of party leadership congress congress has to see itself as the prime mover in the system, and we got to a place for congress sees itself as secondary. post: our conversation, he's also the author of the book "american covenant: how the constitution unified our nation and could again." jack is out next from pennsylvania, republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. you seem to have taken a stance that the 2020 election was a free and fair election to the american people, and i don't believe that for a minute. i believe that in every form and fashion the 2020 election was corrupted. i believe it was corrupted and targeted in one direction from summertime on. i believe people like mark elias , people like the 51 intelligence officers and our

mainstream media were in full cahoots to create an election that was neither free nor fair. something we are guaranteed. thank you. guest: well we do disagree on that. i think that there certainly were all kind of action at the margin on both sides that were attempt to destroy the election results, but that ultimately the election, that where there were questions, they were dedicated and adjudicated. but it is worth saying that the reason that we can even have this kind of argument about an election at the national level is that our elections have been most 21st century. and whatever you think of how it was run, you can certainly save the 2020 election was extremely close. and what happens in a close election this becomes a test of our commitment to the law. to the rule of law, by which ultimately these questions are decided. the outcomes are determined both

by judges and by congress certification. that was done in 2020. i think we have to accept the results of elections. prior to elections before 2024, of 20 and 2020 were treated as illegitimate by the party that lost them the result and the resulting president were treated as illegitimate. i think we have to move away from that way of treating our national politics. and one thing i do feel good about about the 2020 for a much and is that even though it was still close, it was at least decisive enough that the losing party did not treated as a legitimate election and that is trying to think matt had to deal with the fact that it went it did. what are voters teaching us and showing us about what they believe in that what we should be arguing or? i think a party that loses the election should always try to learn in that way. to pretend that he did not happen is not a serious way to respond to the outcome of an election. the 2020 election did happen. it was four years ago.

any of us to her adults saw it happen and i think the notion that it was fundamentally distorted by some conspiracy is not right. it's worth looking at the results. it's worth looking at the work that has been done since then to assess the outcomes, to assess the way it was administered. it was certainly not without problems but i do think we have to treat the outcome as legitimate. host: joe is in ohio, democrats line, good morning. caller: when i look back at the election, i look back at it as the election of hate. on their public inside i never would have guessed 10 years ago that they would be against the constitution, against law and order. pro-russian, and anti-election all because of the fact that the white population is decreasing in the united states. and then on the democratic side, and people didn't come out to

vote because of anti-semitism. i never would have guessed that the progressive party would be for the death of israel and extermination of jews either wittingly or unwittingly. so a lot of people sat home and that is why trump one. -- won. and very upset over the fact that when people vote with hatred, it makes everybody poor. we should have been concentrating on the middle class. looking at housing. why there is a shortage of housing. looking at economic issues. but now, people are driven by hate and now look what we've got. we've got trump and his corruption. guest: one way to think about the point this color is making is that a library election and leanne fundamentally negative. voters have been voting on the basis of welfare against and have not been offered enough way of a positive agenda to vote for what they are for. it is actually connected to the

fact that we have 50-50 elections over and over. what happens when you have two minority parties rather than a majority that is holding the coalition together in a minority that is trying to broaden its own coalition, both of those are engaged in coalition voting, trying to reach out to more voters and build support. in a 50-50 moment when you have essentially two minority parties, they are each most invested in getting the most devoted voters out with me that therefore message to the country is that the other party must not be allowed to win. and if you step back from american elections in the last 20 years, the essential message that both parties have offered is if the other party wins, the country is over that is an argument that make it 50% plus one, but it is not an argument that builds the theater of the country. it's not true and it's not an argument that helps to think about what we are going 20 years that we don't have now. but our politics is going to be doing doubt this country the more prosperous and more peacefully generation from now the next durable majority

collection, the next real winner of an american national election is going to have to offer the country as an addition to the to think about not just 50%, 60% voting for you. you have to think about how to appeal to that broad segment in the middle of the country that is underrepresented in every election and over, and you have to offer more than the argument that if the other guy wins, it is the end of everything. you have to offer of yourself as more than just not the other guy. i think both of our party set on a terrible job on this front for most of the 21st century. host: we have confirmation hearings this week for rfk jr., tulsi gabbard. you can comment specifically on those, but what message do you think these and other nominations is the president trying to send? guest: these are very controversial nominations. not all of his findings have been that way. marco rubio got confirmed 99-0. we seen a number of other cabinet level appointments get

confirmed with very broad bipartisan support and we see that the sub cabinet level, there are a number of individuals is chosen who absolutely pick at the divisions in our society and who frankly in some respects are just not the right choices for the job they can appointed to, are not appropriate, not experienced, are not right for it. i feel that way especially about rfk jr., he strikes me as a very poor choice for running the department of health and human services, but i think in all these cases they are going to be marginally hard to get through. and the fact that even in this moment when republicans are very intent on helping trump succeed and advancing his agenda, a number of them are willing to say no to these particular nominees. action raise red flags. the senate's job is to raise red flags when those are necessary. and happens to every president.

this president already has his first choice for attorney general who dropped out before there was even a confirmation hearing. i think people have some more choppy waters in the coming weeks. host: the website for our guest organization, aei.org. thanks for the conversation. coming, a look at the future of the electr vicle industry with jeff gelber, an automotive reporter from detroit. but first off, open forum and if you want to participate, (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. independents (202) 748-8002. caller: we will take those calls when washington journal continues. ♪ host: c-spanshop.org is c-span online store. browse our latest collection of products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan, and every purchase

helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with full tds podcast about books. with current, nonfiction book releases, plus bestseller list as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find it on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. listening to programs on radio through c-span radio is easy. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily important public events affairs throughout the day and week this, catch washington today. listen to c-span any time. just tell your speaker play c-span radio.

c-span, created by cable. the c-span bookshelf podcast feed makes it easy for you to listen to on c-span podcasts that feature nonfiction books in one place so you can discover new offers and ideas. each week we are making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with the acclaimed authors discussing history, biographies, current events, and culture. from our signature programs, listen to c-span bookshelf podcast feed today. you can find the c-span bookshelf podcast feed and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now mobile video app or wherever you need your podcasts, and on our website, c-span.org/ podcasts. this week on the c-span networks, that houses out as house republicans hold their annual retreat. the senate will be in session as they continue to hold hearings

for several president trump's cabinet nominees, including robert f. kennedy, jr., the nominee for health and human services secretary. he will appear before the senate finance committee on wednesday, and the senate health, education, labor and pensions committeen thursday. also on thursday, kash patel will tti as he seeks to become fbi director. then, tulsi gabbard, nominee for director of national intelligence will appear send telogen's committee. watch this week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to want to watch a live or on-demand anytime. c-span, democracy unfiltered. washington journal continues. host: this is open forum and if you want to participate, (202) 748-8000 democrats.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. independent, (202) 748-8002. later today we will hear from hauser publican leaders on that retreat taking place in miami, florida president trump, talking that futurlegislation and other topics. 3:00 is when that is set to go. c-span, c-span now and c-span.org. the president later expected to take remarks. you will see that on c-span and our other platforms. when it comes te nomination hearings, today's for rfk jr., live wednesday a10:00 will of people for the senate finance committee. you can see that on ma channeled is the ny he will go back to capitol hill to take russians from the senate health committee. c-span3 is where you see that as well as the.org. a tulsi gabbard, the e to become director of national intelligence, heirmaon set for 10:00 thursday.

the main channel where you can skip, thus platform there as well. you can always go to the website for more information. let's hear from dave in this open forum. they've joined us from ohio, independent line. caller: good morning. i was just calling about the birth rate citizens where something wants to send a lot of the immigrants back to their countries saying that just because they were born of the united states they are not a citizen. saying that illegal immigrants over here committed felonies that he wants to send them back to their countries. so he is an illegal immigrant and he did commit felonies. so are we going to send him back they a country he is born from? host: sue is in west virginia,

democrats line, hello. caller: good morning. i was calling to comment on hegseth. i know it's a little bit lately remarking on him that during his testimony without watch, he stated emphatically that he was going to treat everybody fairly, which was a big issue with him, and religion or race, but during the actual confirmation process, he never met with a single democrat before his testimony, which in my view is a form of discrimination. discrimination against democrats , so why should we believe that he is also not going to discriminate against people for religion, sex and race? host: color, finish thought, i'm

sorry. caller: selections, -- well, i just hope that some of them have a different outcome. i thought the hegseth confirmation was very disappointing. i'm really disappointed in the gop for their support of such an unqualified, and in my opinion, dated person. host: we are told of the defense secretary is expected to make some comments sometime this morning before heading to work on his first day. there is a video from the pentagon where he is expected to make those comments. we will continue watching that. let's hear from william in north carolina, independent line. caller: good morning young man, how are you? host: i well. caller: my comment is i first called in 2012 when i told you

all the bush was burning. we had also just been conceived in the spirit of above by the truth, where the second one, father, lord's christ, he is the holy one. this is to all the faithful, true, loyal believers scattered throughout the seven continents. the poor, the hungry, the blind, the sick, the homeless, the addicts and alcoholics, the petty thieves. to the widows, to the orphans. also, to all the worldly leaders, to the ministries of defense ministries, the ministry of religion. host: the message is? caller: the message is we have suffered long enough, the time is at hand.

the time has come. host: north carolina, democrats line, good morning. caller: thank you, i'm responding to the caller that c-span seems to get every day that the 2020 election was stolen. the media and knowledgeable people should know every instance of voter fraud was a trumper. in arizona, they had that vote going on. trump lost 360 votes. every person should know that. in pennsylvania, probably thousands, actually of kids. well, sons and daughters voting for their dead parents and they all voted for donald trump.

in north carolina, there was a congressional district in the northeast, i forget what number it is, but we had to have a reelection for republican malfeasance. i don't know what else you can call it. it was just so bad that it couldn't even be dealt with. so all of the voter fraud that has ever gone on within trump elections has been by donald trump's people. host: let's go to keith. keith in florida, independent line. caller: you and most of your c-span moderators do a great job. it's not easy to listen to everybody's unique point of view. i appreciate that, and i think we all do. a couple of things.

i'm a journalist for a foundation and i peel to critical thinking and the opposite of critical thinking is groupthink. and it connects to the idea of what trump represents. can you hear me? host: keep going. caller: sorry. so the legacy of trump is the public, to the extent that it doesn't want to deal with parties and the groupthink mindset that so many people are captured by an believe from their partisan views, look at the legacy that trump offers, and that is that they don't elect individual people, they elect individuals from the private sector. like elon and trump, and don't

elect anybody for a political party. host: keith in florida. this is open forum. republican line, your next up. go ahead. caller: ok. i just wanted to say that i am maga and i voted for trump in 2016 now and is because our government sucked and it was vote for the lesser of two evils, that is all you ever heard, where you can't vote at all or vote for independent who will never win. host: i'm going to put one pause. pete hegseth arriving at the pentagon. >> is an amazing job beyond what anyone can fathom, but talking to the chairman and so many other folks here, we are in capable hands. war fighters or race ago. if you see president said last week, his executive orders, he's

hitting the ground running. he's made it very clear the emergency at the southern border, the protection of the sovereign territory of the united states is the job of the defense department and the cartels are for terrorist organizations. as a result this pentagon snapped to last week to help move forward troops, put in more barriers, and also ensure mass deportations, support of mass deportation support of the president's objective. that is something the defense department absolutely will continue to do. today there are more executive orders coming that we fully support on removing dei inside the pentagon, reinstating troops were pushed out because of covid mandates, iron dome for america. this is happening quickly. and secretary of defense it is an honor to salute smartly as i did as a jr. officer and now as secretary of defense to ensure these orders are complied with rapidly and quickly.

every moment that i'm here i'm thinking about the guys and gals in guam, in germany, four in fort bragg, missile-defense sites and aircraft carriers. we will hold people accountable. the hall orders of the president will be executed in the defense department swiftly and without excuse. we will be no better friend to our allies and no stronger adversary to those want to test us. mr. chairman, thank you for welcoming me. the warriors of this department it is an honor of a lifetime and we will get to work. god bless you all. this is a person who was killed in afghanistan. i'm asked what i wear on my

wrist. he was a soldier i served with in guantanamo bay. host: first comments of pete hegseth defense secretary at the united states. you can continue watching on c-span 2 if you want to see his comments. joining us from the white house from politico adam cancryn. we just heard from pete hegseth. a lot of other nominees this week. what is the extent the white house is confident? guest: it has been very confident possibly with all of their nominees. pet hegseth was the -- pete hegseth is a barrier they got over and you have tulsi gab bart. cash patel and robert kennedy

jr. these are three what some thought would be the most differ ones but there's reasonable a lot of concern over tulsi gabbert and she can overcome some concerns of republicans within as a democratic and conversations with bashir al asa. the expectation is they have the votes to get through but we will see what happens during the hearings. host: you wrote about one of the nominees r.f.k. jr. particularly his takes on vaccine. can you elaborate? guest: this is the big question around him going back to his independent run for president. what does he believe when it comes to vaccines kind of the core element. public health. for a long time he was one of the most influential antivaccine

activists. he said i'm not antivaccine but i want transparency but that is not the belief from democratsed a some republicans and in hits camp i had allies saying ultimately his closest and most ardent antivaccine supporters will win and have influence over his agenda and that could include disbanding a key advisory panel or rescheduling vaccines so maybe they are not necessary to have your child go to school. so it would be a sea change in how we approach vaccines as a country. you will hear a lot of questions from both sides much the aisle about what he believes, what he will do on this. host: being find that story at hit -- politico.com.

guest: the agenda will be the legislative agenda. there's been talk will there be one major landmark reconciliation bill, or two or responsible -- possibly three. he wants tax cuts, action on immigration and the border and all of this litany of other things. the question is how does congress get it done. there's been sharp disagreement between the house and senate side over the process and they need to get a decision on how to go forward before they can assemble these bills. they are most likely going to be party line. they won't get any democratic help. there is a thin margin in the house and senate. republicans have to move together on this. the first trump term this was a problem with obamacare repeal and there is anxiety of trying to avoid a repeat of that.

host: is it the president himself directly dealing with the leaders or team dealing with the leaders to achieve this? guest: we have seen him take a more hands on. first term he was new to politics and trusted congressional leaders to figure out their caucuses. it appears he is more involved. he is due to address this retreat at 5:00 this afternoon. he has a lot of strong opinions but he also believes and has more confidence in himself and knows how politics work and should be the one in charge. we will see if that helps or if it hurts. so far we have not done a lot of resolution. host: does the agenda include coming up with a plan and dealing with the spending deadline congress faces later? guest: that is is what he wants.

back to the government funding shown in december 1 of the thrash points that scuttled the original deal was whether there was going to be a raise of the debt ceiling and just federal spending overall, wanting to cut a trillion, two trillion. these are big ambitions. a lot of doubts over what it is realistic. that is why it comes down to one bill, two bills. the process parties more than formally in washington. these are all things that need to be answered if if the at the retreat today then the next week. host: what is on the president's schedule this week? guest: we don't know. we know he is going to address congressional republicans later this afternoon. obviously there are all kinds of controversy and work over

tariffs. we saw the back and forth between the president and leaders of colombia over tariffs and taking deportees. but one of the things that is odd about the first couple weeks is we have not gotten a regular schedule ahead of time of what the president's plans are each day. this is pretty stamp or we got it during the biden administration a full week ahead and a daily schedule every day. that hasn't happened with any regularity. so we know what he is doing today and we will find out about tomorrow and that will be tomorrow. host: what is the expectation that the first conference will heard? guest: the expectation is she will do a briefing. this would be a bigger issue if the president himself had not done several media visibilities his first few days. inauguration night he went 40 or

50 minutes from the oval, the next day about 40 minutes taking questions from reporters. so from the media perspective as long as there's that regular interaction with the president himself i think it is an open question the necessity and whether there will be a regular cadence of press briefings. we haven't gotten any kind of assurance that that will happen on any particular debt. host: adam covers the white house for politico. you can see his work at politicocom. thanks for your time. guest: any time. host: we will resume with calls on open forum. thanks to those who wait. democrats line tina, go ahead. caller: thank you for accepting my call. i just want to let all the voters who voted for trump know

how illiterate they are. the stimulus collection trump denied it. news people feed it look,this -- need to look,this stuff. he denied our stimulus checks. but when president biden got two the white house he accepted. trump wanted his name put on this because the sthrs -- stimulus came up while he was in the chair. he never accepted a stimulus check at all. something else i want to let people know. most of those women that are coming to america they are pregnant when they get here so they come here to have their babies and the ones they punt in the hotels those are the immigrants they need to get them. also, the ones they know have

caused trouble in the united states. it is so much going on that can easily be solved if the news people do what need to. one more thing, please, please, please, rachel lee, read the statements where trump said he wanted to run america lake -- like russia. host: sylvia in virginia independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. i'm excited about the reports coming out for the kennedys, john and robert, and dr. king because i was 9 years old appear listening to the radio when i tpoupbldz -- found out when president keep was shot and 12 when dr. king was shot and we had a religion where we were not

allowed to have tv, just radio. i was shook when i was a child and i would be happy to hear more truth. host: eric joins us in minnesota, democrat. caller: i'm going to give you a comment that is common sense to everybody but first impressions matter. secondly, oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice it deceive. we talked about 2020 when trump issued the big lie. they should drop back to 2016 and remember how he won that election was by lying about the fact that he had a porn star when his wife was freshly postpartum. then if she had told the

accountant that would have sway ed the election to hrlt. look at that. john edwards, well in this case he paid money to further cover up a lie. so, in 2020 we had that example that he is not only a liar but a dirty liar. now it pours out that he is hiring imbeciles to run the country. host: james is next independent line. caller: hello. during the pandemic trump was saying -- during the pandemic we found out out florida got all the test strips, all right? and while desantis was running

for president he said that trump gave all of the vaccines and test strips to florida only in the beginning. so florida was always protected from the beginning. that is what i'm curious about. >> it was john radcliffe on such fox news amongst the conversation an topics there -- an topics the origin of covid-19. >> part wave we have to do -- part of what we have to do is restore trust in the american substitutions. that includes the c.i.a. one thing the president stressed the purpose of the c.i.a. is to protect americans to keep us safe from foreign threats and adversaries. but we need to be truthful with americans. he has stressed to me and others these are not mutually

exclusive. in the case of the c.i.a. which is the best foreign intelligence service in the world, after five years to not have a public assessment to be honest with american people about where the likely source of a pandemic that killed millions around the world including a million americans and impacted all 345 million americans in some which. people lost -- in some way. they lost jobs, houses, businesses. i had the two-on-one on my first day to make public an assessment that took place in the biden administration. so it can't be accused of being political and the c.i.a. has assessed the most likely cause of this pandemic was because of a lab related in incident in wuhan. we will continue it investigate that moving forward. host: here is phil in minnesota,

independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. you know when i look at everything that is going on in our country, i don't know what it think, to be honest about it. i just know that the president is nowhere near as strong as he appears to be. but how do you get people to see him as he is and how he appears to be. you know, pedro, i have lived in denmark, the czech republic, germany, and five years in russia. i have been in 20 countries. i used to sing the blues, an -- and i have never been a member of a political party.

i think i'm going to run for president in 2008 on an independent party that i'm going to start. and it is going to be 100% moderate, with a moderate message, a moderate platform. and just something that i have to do. because the way it is going, no one is doing anything for children and the next generations of americans. i thank you. host: william is in ohio, democrats line. caller: yes, pedro, good morning, this is the old 89-year-old hillbilly. it is a shame of what our country is coming to. my lovely little great granddaughter just got out of

the navy which made me so happy that she got out. she was a nuclear engineer and so is her husband and they are out of the service and i'm so thankful they were able to get out. it is just a shame what this country is coming to. i used to live in west palm beach and see him every day. pedro, i'm sorry, but i can't keep going because every time i think of him and see his lips move i know the whole world is being lied to. host: let's hear in joe in maine, in-line. caller: i hate to ruin your day, pedro, but i'm going to continue with the last caller. this big hero president trump has such nerve to take on the bishop and -- in washington,

d.c. -- but he just got put on his fees by the president of colombia. you're not reporting that the colombians are coming here to get an explanation from trump which will lead to the rest of the latin american countries to band together and form an agreement. not donald trump holding his breath until countries change. he departments tariff -- he didn't tariff anybody, hasn't tariffs countries. host: he threatened the tariff and the president of control responded to that. host: absolutely. he didn't apply the tariff t. is hogwash and the whole world knows it. that is what he ran on is threatening colombia. host: one more call. time in california.

democrats lin. -- line. caller: i will show my age but the first presidential debate i remember and campaigned was john kennedy. now, i have always been under the impression when a president nominates his cabinet members he wants people who have some authority or knowledge of these particular positions. there's a number of -- i don't see that they have like r.f.k. jr. has no brown -- background in medicine. the other thing is the thing about social security. this whole idea that it is going to go broke, i realize there have been system major cutbacks but how can something go broke if everybody is paying into it?

even you, you get a paycheck and you pay out for social security. as long as there's people working in this country they will be paying into system. eventually there may be cutbacks but why doesn't congress put back all the money they have been taking out over the years? host: tom finishes off this round of open forum. the future of electric vehicles is up for question in the new n trump administration. joining us to jeff gilbert with wwj radio in detroit. we will have that conversation when "washington journal" continues. >> it week on the c-span networks the house is out as republicans holds their annual retreat. the senate is in session holding hearings for several of president trump's cabinet follow

nominees. he will appear before the senate finance committee and heah, education an pensions. cash patel will testify thursday as he seeks to be the f.b.i. direor. then tulsi gabbert will appear before the senate intelligence committee. watch this week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now our free mobile video app and go to c-span.org for scheduling information or watch live or on demand any time. >> unanimous fiction book love ers c-span has podcasts for you. listen to authors on the

afterwards podcast and conversations with nonfiction authors. they are weekly hour long conversations with authors of nonfiction books and about backs podcast takes you behind the scenes of the industry with insider interviews, industry updates and best cells lists. download -- best cells -- sellers lists. democracy, it isn't just an idea it is a process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted with guarding its basic principles where the course is charted. democracy in real time this. is year government at work.

this is c-span, giving you your democracy unfiltered. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is jeff gilbert. he reports on automotive world for wwj news radio out of detroit. here to talk about look vehicles and incoming administration. thank you for your time. guest: good morning. a pleasure. host: why do you think this is a particular target? guest: electric vehicles have been a lightning people on the left support them seeing them as something green. people on the right have a tendency it oppose them. they satisfy them as expensive -- they see them as expensive anden necessary. you had that before the election started. host: when it comes to the

executive orders if you can elaborate a little bit one of them technically targeting what the biden administration did on this. can you elaborate on that for us? guest: at this particular point a lot of these are in flux. we can't tell how much the president can do by executive order. he would like to get rid of the waiver that allows california it set its standards but he has to go through the e.p.a. process. he wants to get rid of the up to $7,500 tax be rebate. that was in the inflation reduction act so that will likely require some sort of action by congress. so what the president can do, what the president cannot do is going to develop over the next several months. host: former president biden wanted to satisfy a certain number of -- to see a certain

number of electric vehicles sold by 2030. is that off the table? guest: under president trump's desires. that was not in stone. they would lead to goals. so at this point there is so much in flux it is hard to tell. that of course is driving product planners in the auto industry crazy. host: who is the most affected right now of those planners? guest: i would say general motors because they went in on e.v.'s earlier than everybody else. they converted one plants in detroit it total e.v. production. they are working on another one that is delayed until next year and had knows long term. but of course is affected. we saw some backpedaling even before mr. trump was elected.

ford had a lot of ambitious e.v. plans that they backed off. everybody is saying they will follow conditions and market conditions change. host: what about foreign makers? guest: mercedes and b.m.d. had high end e.v.'s that department sell as well. volvo wanted a small compact e.v. it was made in china. that caused problems so there are issues in terms of where the vehicles are made. host: jeff gilbert for this. if you want to be part and ask questions about e.v.'s and the future, 202-242-8000 for those who support itted. you are an owner and want to

give us your perspective or ideas on it, 202-748-8002. there is an organization known as the alliance for automotive innovation out of d.c. this is part of the statement they put out after the preside executive orders came down. people know there's a mh between market dynamics and e.v. sales targets for the recent regulations especially in the states adapted california's gas ban an e.v. sales requirement. the countries should have a le standard it reduce carbon in transportation. we can't have regulations that puts it too far ahead of the customer. first of all, they represent the full auto industry. is that the general take ofable makers these days? guest: what the alliance for

automotive innovation does, is at the speak for the industry so that means that individual car makers can lay back and give a little more cautious statements. car makers have not gone out as individuals as aggressively as that. they do want one national stamp. that is something -- standard. but a number of car makers got their than slapped when they support president trump in his first administration trying to roll back the california rules. then mr. biden came in an california rules were golden and the car makers had to backpedal. they let the alliance speak for them so it doesn't come from an individual car maker. for the most part told love to have one national stamp it set a fair table for everybody and they can compete on it as pose

to california setting the standard. host: there was another reaction from a group as the zero emission transportation association. this is part of tv statement. three of four are built in the u.s. the e.v. ind has reduced eupbtsdz on other. this is critical to america's security and merit continued support. give a take of who at the represent and what they are saying. guest: they are strongly in favor of look vehicles. the inflation recovery act had a lot of incentives for on shoring of batteries. that is why we can have more

domestic e.v.'s. but in terms of domestic e.v.'s is a mexican made e.v. domestic? under future tariffs it might not be. you see car makers backing on some of the investments again before mr. trump took office. general motors selling one ofthd planned to build, afford backing off on some battery and tv production so you see the number of things happening because of the marketplace not just because of the political atmosphere. host: jeff gilbert joining us for this conversation, alan and iowa you are on with our guest. good morning, go ahead. caller: thank you for this time. you and i've talked about this before. i talked to a couple years ago,

i got into electric bicycles and in the past four and a half years i rode over 15,000 miles on the electric bicycle. i really like the whole concept of electric. i bought a previous about two years ago a little used previous, people talk about the expense of electric cars, there's a lot of used electric cars out there. it's a lot of possibilities. host: that is alan. guest: one point he brings up, the previous isn't a hybrid and it was one of the original hybrids and toyota of all the carmakers has been pretty consistent in it saying it feels hybrids have or bang for the buck because they do have a gasoline engine as well as the electric motor, so you don't have to worry about running out of range and recharge but you can get better fuel economy.

toyota in particular the toyota camry its best-selling car you can only buy a hybrid form so we are seeing more people adopt hybrids and more people even planning what is called extended range electric vehicles where you have an electric vehicle that has a gasoline generator on board to recharge electricity so that is something we are seeing more of. so it is not just pure battery electric vehicles we are starting to see more choices in the marketplace. host: catherine is in new york, and ev owner. you are on with our guest, go ahead. >> thank you. i am and ev owner because i needed to buy a new car during covid lockdown and there were no cars to be bought and i had a lot of time to do research and i decided to find out which car company made the most efficient

internal combustion engine. and it turns out that the best internal combustion engine is 35% efficient. and then, compared to an electric engine, it is 85 percent efficient. and that is what decided it for me. why out of every hundred dollars of fuel i have a pump in my car did i throw a $65 on the heat and on the pollution. so, why aren't we talking about the efficiencies of the one engine versus the other. that's my question. host: thank you. guest: you are very much getting into the engineering there and that is an area that i am not really qualified to talk about, but for an individual the efficiency comes with ok what am i going to be paying to fuel this vehicle and that really

depends on your lifestyle. for somebody who does not do a lot of long term, who has a short commute, somebody who is not going to take a vehicle along distance, an electric vehicle is awesome. they never have to go to a gasoline station. it is extremely efficient for them, for other people who do a lot of driving who have to charge publicly that could be a different equation because the public charging infrastructure isn't the best, and even added best it takes longer than fueling up a tank of gasoline. so a lot of these arguments depend on your own lot in life. >> we saw the federal government enter into helping that infrastructure be built. what was the success rate they're getting charging stations up? guest: so far there has not been a lot of success but it is not over yet so we will have to see what happens. the commercial industry, i thought one of the most

ingenious things is the general motors tie-in with a number of rest stops to put them on rest stops with interstates and things of that nature. you still end up with the incident. i've had this happen myself, you might need to go to a recharger and all of a sudden things have changed. it may not be working and unlike gasoline stations there are not usually people around who can help you with the problem. so those are a number of the issues that we still face and even several years into this. >> the energy information tells us for the flirt -- first quarter of 2020 four hybrid electric and plug-in vehicles 21% of sales what does that number tell you. guest: it tells me again we are talking about a variety of vehicles, pure electric vehicles are closer to 9% to 10%. the rest of that includes hybrids and plug-in hybrids like

the extended range operate for a while on gasoline for a while and electricity so there are a group of electrified vehicles. and in other interesting things, if you look at december sales is the latest month we have data for, we saw a large spike in electric vehicle sales probably because a lot of people who are interested in buying ev are concerned about that tax credit going away, so they went to the dealerships to look for them. so you are going to see a miniboom in ev sales over the next couple of months because people are maybe considering the ev may want to get off the fence before those tax credits possibly go away. >> jeff gilbert joining us from the conversation. let's hear from eric in new york. you are on with our guest, go ahead. caller: thank you very much. well, we started in this --

exploration, or experiment really of ev's, of course it was hybrids to begin with. and -- that seemed like a good idea to me because you can create your own power on board, it does not have to lose any of its energy that was initially created through transmission lines or the print into a battery. not to mention all the supply lines in the lithium and all the various things that -- i think our downsides of electric vehicles. and, -- could you explain to me again i know you talked about why -- it just strikes me as the logical step is to create your own power on board and reduce your the amount of fossil fuels you're going to use and lighten up on the lithium a little bit, the batteries are smaller. and you know, --

host: we got your point caller, thanks. guest: a lot of people as you can tell don't -- they hear all of these terms and they don't live in it every day so they don't quite understand what things are. a hybrid they start coming about in the 20th century. they improve the efficiency by adding an electric motor to the gasoline rate in a number of different ways to do that. but essentially like a hybrid plant which is a cross between two plants, this has electric and it has gasoline rate improves fuel economy and can also improve power without hurting it. so they are used for a number of different reasons. a plug-in hybrid actually has a bigger battery that you can run for a short amount of time, 20 or 25 miles as an electric vehicle that it becomes a regular hybrid. a gasoline engine, no worry about recharging.

what is called an extended range electric vehicle. the chevy volt a few years ago was an example of that, is an electric vehicle but there is a gasoline motor on board that when the battery wears down it kicks on and recharges the battery, the car runs on electricity but the gasoline is there to generate the electricity. you have all of those under the moniker of hybrid. >> how capable is the united states currently in developing minerals and things for batteries. how dependent are we still on out of country sources. >> we are very dependent now on out of country sources. you see companies of general motors invested in areas and there is a ton of investment into batteries that need a lesson last of these rare earths and things of that nature. but right now we get a lot of those abroad, but a lot of those change quite rapidly. >> to follow up on that if the

president decides to go forward on a certain tariffs he wants to place on certain. >> the market very well could be. it depends on what kind of retaliation there is, what's happening the ev market is also affected by competition because there are a lot of low cost electric vehicles from china that are going into other markets around the world and the tariffs put in by the biden administration before the trump administration have been keeping those out of the u.s. market. if you go to europe you are seeing more and more of the chinese vehicles, there are a lot of them in mexico. i have a supplier recently company that brings in vehicles and tears them down to examine them. they showed the chinese electric vehicles and many of them are quite advanced and again the cost is a lot lower than american-made vehicles, so you've got a lot of moving parts here. host: from vermont, ev owner,

this is larry. caller: good morning. a very cold windy snowy vermont. guest: i am in cold and windy snowy michigan so i feel your pain. host: caller: -- caller: my chevy equinox is wonderful. guest: is it the ev equinox? caller: it does not stop and just roll over and put its tire up in the air and say i can run. i am so tired of the current administration which is only been there a couple of weeks, but the man has been running for four years. he is a dinosaur. he's bought by the energy companies. this ev, electric car that i have bought i charge on my house here in vermont and i'm off the grid. and i charge it up. and if i don't have enough power

to drive down to my little 500 person town and charge it up for $.36 a kilowatt which is a fraction of what gas costs. and i'm not polluting my local environment, i'm driving around with super efficiency, the car runs like a top. i've got brothers who say it is a junker and i've got trump that says it is no good and you know what, it is wonderful. host: just to clarify is that the equinox that is the ev? it is the equinox that is the ev. caller: it certainly is. host: chevrolet in the past six months put out an electric version of its equinox. the equinox itself is a midsize gasoline powered vehicle but it has an electric trim. for the north american car truck it was the finalist this year.

it's really a very good product and the caller bring someone of the points i made earlier. it depends on your lifestyle. for his lifestyle and electric vehicle is obviously perfect. for somebody who drives a lot of miles it may be a different equation. >> and in massachusetts, go ahead you are on with our guest. caller: good morning. the first thing i would like to say is i'm a little bit disappointed that this gentleman refers to president trump as mr. trump ride he is now president of the united states. guest: may i interrupt you ma'am. on the proper reference under associated press rulebook, i did not call him trump, i called a mr. trump because were supposed to refer to the president on first reference as president and then mr. on subsequent so that is proper usage. no disrespect to mr. trump, mr. biden, mr. bush, the president

of the united states. caller: thank you for explaining that people sitting here in tv land don't understand that. i will continue on. i right now drive a gas powered car and i don't very much appreciate somebody telling me what kind of car i am going to have to buy hurried we have china that is polluting the world much more than the united states is but for some reason the biden administration, which -- began screwing everything up then came out with a mandate that we were all going to have to be driving electric cars by 2030, was that the year given? guest: that was in california and several states, it was not the biden administration. and 2035. caller: i don't have any desire whatsoever. we live in massachusetts and we have a house in new hampshire.

i've heard horror stories from women getting lost in the middle of the night driving around trying to find a place to plug in their electric cars. i'm in my mid-70's. i want to be -- there is no way i will be caught on the highway this infrastructure having plugging this car in it's just not fair. host: major point. thank you. guest: we will go back to it fitting into people's individual lifestyles, both great examples of that but it's also an example that elections have consequences. if one side pushes too far, then there will be a response from the voters. so you've kind of seen that with the biden administration transitioning into the trump administration. at the end of the day it is the voters who have the say, the marketplace that has the say. and california may pass legislation that it believes all

new vehicles sold have to be electric by 2035, but if it is challenged in the courts, that could change. if the market is not there for electric vehicles and they are still allowed to do it. you may have to be pushed back. all of these things from the government, we live in a country with choice. >> elon musk owns tesla. tesla is arguably the largest electric vehicle seller in the world. he's intersected with the trump administration print what you think of that intersection. guest: it is very interesting you have two larger-than-life personalities working together and then you have two people working together who sometimes have different goals. for example mr. trump is not a big supporter of ev sprayed elon musk could be called the original electric vehicle evangelist. so there are some differences there. the president is looking to bring more jobs but elon musk tends to be an automation

person. he looks at efficiency so it is interesting to see how that plays out because you have two people with common goals and a lot of differences in between. >> kenny is in florida, ev owner with jeff gilbert. go ahead. caller: good morning gentlemen. i am in ev owner by default. i still have a gas powered car, i love my gas powered car. however, i was given this tesla. i could no longer drive my gas powered car because it was quite the experience. the acceleration, the miles per gallon so to say is just incredible. i don't have to go to gas stations anymore. and it -- she's got until 2035 to move away from california, she's already living in massachusetts.

don't buy an electric car. i don't understand before elon musk became the >> luther of institutional politics, he was the most innovative human being on this planet, taking electric cars and bringing it to the next level. this level is incredible. i also drove the electric, or. which is another incredible vehicle. it went from being of seen gas guzzler to now a car that's environmentally secure. i just don't understand what the big deal is in looking in the future. host: thank you very much. guest: a couple things we haven't talked about yet. electric cars can be a lot of fun to drive. last week g brought me to southern california drive their first ev, i drove it around a bunch of canyons. it's a large vehicle that

handled nimbly paid the batteries give it a great set, they handle quite well. this particular jeep is the fastest ever. faster than what they called the tri-car which was a very fast v-8. this one has a zero to 60 and 600 horsepower. he mentions the hummer. it's interesting is a hummer brand from general motors was originally based on the old military humvee and they were big gas guzzling suvs at around 2008 2009 they really fell out of favor. ge couldn't give that brand away pride they wanted to give it away to a chinese company and they could not make it work so they discontinued it but they kept the name so they have now brought it back as a gmc vehicle. basically the gmc hummer ev. and it's meant to show how fast and powerful, it has 1000 horsepower.

in the midst of all of this you have a lot of ev's that are a lot of fun to drive. host: i think i saw vw introduced a vehicle that's reminiscent of the vw bus. guest: north american utility of the year, that's a vehicle that edged out the chevy equinox ev. the volkswagen id bus. it looks like the old microbus and i have driven the old microbus. it's one of the scariest i ever drove. there is no protection in there or power. while this vehicle, a lot of protection and power. it is electric with sliding doors like a minivan, all-wheel-drive like an suv. a spacious interior. doesn't quite have the range of the others do but it will be interesting to see how that does long-term in the marketplace because everybody who commented

on that vehicle was a gasoline powered vehicle aficionado and it would be interesting to see if it gets some of them to move over to ev's just because it's cool looking. host: john is here not too far from here in virginia. go ahead. caller: thank for taking my call. i love the debate, one of the points i don't really see mentioned very often is environment, in terms of where you live. i definitely support ev's for urban environments, i think regenerative braking is really the main selling point for them. if you stop and go a lot you are not wasting energy to do that in an ev. also if you live in a hilly environment with a lot of hills, internal combustion just isn't very economical.

i would like to get an ev. i do not have one, but if i did end up moving to the countryside i probably would stick with internal combustion. i'm tired of sort of the black-and-white we need to go all ev or all internal combustion. i just wanted to get your thoughts on that of maybe just looking at where people live and if you live in the city, i think it would be better and if you live in the country i think internal combustion is better. guest: as mentioned, it is your own lifestyle, living in the city it is better if you have a garage. if you don't you have to go the public infrastructure which can cause some issues. it depends on your lifestyle. i working on the assumption we will have a mix of vehicles for a while. that will have choices. that total ev mandates based on what we are seeing in terms of recovery, if they are not eliminated they need to be

pushed back. we might see 2035 is unrealistic. and realize that even if california gets its way and 2035 you cannot sell a new gasoline powered vehicle in california, we will be a lot of used vehicles and you will still be able to buy a vehicle with a gasoline engine for a long time. host: how prohibitive is the price of ev's these days? guest: that's a big question going forward because if the trump administration gets its way and the $7,500 rebate goes away then we will see them be more expensive. if sales go down, carmakers may have to sell at a loss. it depends on the marketplace. as it always does and carmakers are making progress but it is still a new technology. it still cost more money and vehicle to vehicle an internal combustion vehicle will be less expensive. host:ff of text this morning,

what's the difference between the cheapest price of the chinese letter vehicle versus an american electric vehicle. guest: it could be tens of thousands of dollars. they have some in line with what gasoline powered vehicle would be in the united states. but you have to add these companies are subsidized by the chinese government. ford does research, but it is paying the bill paid if general motors does research it is paying the bill. if the chinese carmaker does research and development often the chinese government is paying the bill these companies do have a lot of government backing so that is another one of the reasons their vehicles are less expensive. another thing we are seeing in terms of ex-pence, globally, is carmakers finding ways to cut expenses elsewhere with vehicles using less expensive materials just so they can offset the high cost of the battery.

ford was to the point where they were counting the number of brackets in vehicles trying to eliminate as much cost as possible just so they could keep the cost of an ev lower. >> jennifer in california, and ev owner. caller: good morning, we just purchased an ev, trying to get ahead of donald trump taking away the rebate. guest: what did you buy? caller: we bought and ioniq 5, the 2024 because the 25 was already out but it was more expensive. and we ended up paying about 40,000, which is about what cars seem to cost now anyway. and we love it, it has a 300 mile range which is fine for us, we are senior citizens, we can really sit for more than that long anyway.

the charging was a little scary at first, we drove down to l.a. to get it and i came back earlier and he was having trouble finding a charging place, they did not charge it fully before we left which was disappointing. but we made it and now we have a power wall in our garage so we just charge it there and we are looking forward to a nice long trip here. it is beautiful. i cannot say enough good things about it except i am going to go buy a smaller one. guest: i will tell you, hyundai and kia are among the leaders in electric vehicles. they make a number of very nice vehicles, winning a number of awards in the marketplace. host: bob in virginia in percival, hello. caller: good morning.

i just have a question with the disposal of the battery after something i understand it's six to years, the battery -- the lithium battery cars are somewhere between $8,000 to replace. secondly the disposable is the concern of where you put these batteries and what kind of research is being done to use the minerals that are in these batteries for recycling purposes environmental issues. guest: it certainly has become an actual industry in trying to recycle some of these batteries. a number of companies that have come up in terms of the recycling. and now that ev's have been out a decade or so, the early ev's it will be interesting to see how long the batteries to last. i've been told anecdotally of extensive battery replacements.

in batteries that last a lot longer than expected. that is going to be an issue and we will start seeing more of that in the next couple of years as we see more and more of the older ev's on the road and more and more people who are buying used ev sprayed but theoretically the car company says you shouldn't have to replace the ev in your vehicle, but it is probably mean you're not going to be able to milk 20 to 25 years out of an electric vehicle like some are able to do with a lot of gasoline powered vehicles. host: when it comes to the trump administration, how does the auto industry writ large look at the incoming administration. what are their concerns or desires perhaps? guest: at this point it's more about reaching out to the new administration to let them know the concerns and desires. they were obviously worried about in particular tariffs on canada and mexico. that is something there is a lot of parts that go across the

border on a daily basis so they are a little but worried about that but they are also staying with the wait and see to see how much of this will be negotiated long-term if there are tariffs, how long they would be in effect because these tariffs have been threatened to try to get changes on the part of the behavior of canada and mexico. so a lot of carmakers are taking a wait and see attitude about that. so they do like the idea of the incentives on electric vehicles, but i think they are starting to realize that those will probably go away. there was a meeting last week were a lot of dealers were saying if you're going to get rid of them, at least phase them out so you can help us sell down our electric vehicles. there was a little caution on one side reaching out on the others to try and tell the trump administration these are some of the issues that we have and this

is our input, if you make changes, at least take that into account. host: our guest covers the automotive industry for wwj news radio. the website you can see his work. jeff gilbert as always, thank you for your time. guest: it was a pleasure, thanks. host: the house leaders meeting with president trump in florida expect to hear from them later this afternoon. stay close to c-span for their responses on what's being discussed in florida. another edition of washington journal comes your way tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m.. we will see you then. [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]

>> tay house speaker mike johnson, majority leader sve scalise, and minorit whip tom emmerlong with other republican leaders will be spking at the annual party retreat at the trump national doral trump golf club in miami. you can see that at 3 eastern on c-span. >> democracy, it isn't just an idea, it's a process. a process shaped by leaders, elected to the highest offices, and entrusted to a select few with with regarding its basic principles. it's war debates unfold, decisions are made, and 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. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered, we are funded by these television companies and more. including mid co- midco.

>> where are you going? or maybe a better question is, how far do you want to go? and how fast do you want to get there? now we're getting somewhere. so let's go. let's go faster. let's go further. let's go beyond. >> midco supports c-span as a publ service. along with with with these other televisi providers. giving you a ropbt row seat to democracy. >> after a senate confirmation and a 51-50 vote, u.s. defense secretary pete hegseth was sworn in by vice president j.d. advance. a look at his swearing-in ceremony and remarks to reporters upon his arrival at the pentagon.