side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on the points of interest. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered and we are funded by these television companies and more including wow. >> the world has changed, today a fast and reliable internet connection is something that we cannot live without. wow is there with speed, liability, value, and choice. now more than ever it starts with great internet. >> wow supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. continues. host: lisa gilbert is the copresident of the group known

as public citizen here to talk about the agenda of the trump administration a little more. how would you describe your group to other people? guest: public service it is a consumer watchdog. our focus is to, corporate power on behalf of regular american and we do that in many different areas. protecting the environment, to improve democracy, working to improve health care and so much more. host: how are you funded? guest: very diversely but primarily by regular people. we have individual members across the country to give us $15, $20 to support. also grant funding, occasional awards, that kind of thing. but certainly we depend heavily on regular supporters across the country. host: you said you fight against corporate power. a lot targeted at the trump administration. what is the goal overall? guest: unfortunately our mission has never been more important. this is an administration that is coming in full of people who got rich at the heads of

corporations, and so corporate power is taking center stage in terms of what their goals are and urgently, as often opposite of what regular people need when we think about fewer regulatory protections on the books. that means less clean air, less clean water, a less tsay financial system. those are things that if you are ceo of a company it makes sense, you don't want to be regulated and have to do things and have guardrails in place. but if you are a regular american citizen that is exactly what you need and what government should do for you. so we are in a much more adversarial posture than we have been in a while. host: specifically how? guest: looking at some of the folks were coming in, for example, elon musk. coming in as literally the wealthiest person in the world. he is being tasked through this external entity to give recommendations to government. so those recommendations are going to be things like slashing programs and policies and agencies that people depend on, which may benefit him, may

benefit other corporate cronies, one thing we are sure of is it won't help you and me. host: the idea of cutting or at least decreasing the amount of government, is that a fundamentally wrong approach in your mind or is there some value to it? guest: i think it depends i you talk about it. certainly most regulations the goal of that is to help people. they are the endgame of legislation. if you're passing a bill, it goes to an agency and the implement it and those rules are how government goes out to the world and protects us. so generally we think that is a really good thing. that's not to say there is no waste, no fraud, no inefficiencies, there certainly are. there are a lot of ways we could save money and streamline processes if we wanted to, but is not the same sorts of policies that must and his folks are putting forward. we think maybe we could cut the pentagon budget. there's a huge amount of waste in defense spending. we could save millions of dollars really quickly, that

give final back to help regular americans. that's not the type of expection we're -- suggestion we are affecting from doge. host: if they all get appointed than others previous, fundamentally what is wrong with that? guest: you are right, 13 billionaires chosen to be part of the cabinet, that is unprecedented. someone was tallying up the wealth, it is more than the gdp of 172 individual countries, so a serious amount of money we are talking about. it's not that there is something inherently wrong with the rich or wealth, it is what it changes about your incentives. if you are thinking about government and thinking about the role of government from the posture of someone who hasn't had to see how much eggs cost right now, you have different incentives and different ways of thinking about the role of what your agency should actually be, so that is what we are concerned about. host: if you want to ask questions about her group's efforts, (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans.

independent, (202) 748-8002. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. public citizen making an effort to have a seat at the table, so to speak. what is the ambition there? guest: myself and my copresident, we sent a letter to the trump transition before they were inaugurated saying we thought that we should have a seat at the table as a part of doge. we believe it is a federal advisory committee. the way it is constituted and has been reported, that means there are certain rules that apply to it. one of them is that there should be balanced representation. people who are on both sides of the aisle, people thinking about rulemaking from different perspectives. as we were just talking about we have the perspective that rules are very important for the american people so we should be a part of this effort. we don't think that the sole perspective of tech titans and crypto bros is what we need as we are thinking about what regulations and budget lineups we have. host: what response did you get? guest: we've not gotten a

response yet, we expect to be denied but certainly we think we should be seated. we have a lot to say. host: what would be the fundamental guidance you give to those on that board going forward with whatever recommendations they have to make and whatever congress decides to approve? guest: we would say that there are ways to make government more efficient, but it is not cutting programs like snap, like meals on wheels, like the funding that goes to support national parks and teachers. it is that things like fossil fuel subsidies, things that are helping massive corporations, but not really helping regular american for the environment things like cutting back on privatized medicare so that more americans get the care they need. there are a lot of things we could do to improve our government and it is not really what we've heard they are thinking about. host: this book about rules. one of the issues concerning rulings in the last couple of days is the idea of the inspector general and the rules they had to follow. that they should have followed leading up to that.

fundamentally, what did you think of the action itself? guest: incredibly problematic. the idea that in the dark of night they would let go inspectors general across government, and actually flies right in the face of what they claim to be doing with doge. inspectors general came into being after watergate. it is a bipartisan reform, still is, to think about fraud and waste of taxpayer dollars and deficiency. so the idea that we will let these people go, it proves that doge is not what it is intended to be. it kind of pulls back the curtain on what the goals of the ministration actually are and it is scary because we need those folks in place. host: does the president ultimately have the right to take the action to remove them, even if you broke the 30 day resource rule? guest: one of the things we are thinking about is what you just said, that there is new legislation that says you have to notify congress if you're

going to remove inspectors general. in some agency seek and remove for cause, some without. we are worried that rules were broken here and we are figuring out what we can do legally and also just continuing to talk about the process. host: i want to play the response of senator lindsey graham asked directly about the inspectors general being let go and get your response. here is what he had to say. senator graham: yeah, he should have done that, but the question is is it ok for him to put people in place that he things can carry out his agenda, yeah. he won the -- he won the election, what did you expect them to do? this makes perfect sense to me, get new people who feel like the government hasn't worked very well for the american people. those watchdog faulted a pretty lousy job. that makes sense to me. host: so there is a response, what is your response to that? guest: it is not untrue that a new administration can bring in their own people. i think there is a real difference between a friday

night firing of 17 people without warning and illegally without informing congress and changing pieces of government. so if there was some indication that one in general or two of them particularly need to be replaced for a certain reason and there was a plan to put someone new into place quickly, which showed the importance of inspectors general, we would be any different posture. but this is a huge number of folks to move to play such an essential role in government i don't really by what lindsey graham just said. host: this is lisa gilbert. our first call for you comes from new york state on the line for democrats. you are on, go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i'd like to know what is the agenda for shutting down the fbi see? guest: well certainly referred from folks within the trump administration as they start to come in that there are many

people they don't like across the financial sector. that includes the fbi see, the ftc, treasury. we don't know the timeline for many of these appointments and changes, but certainly we are nervous about that. it is a good question. one of the places we watched is the cfpb, the consumer financial product bureau which absolutely matters to regular consumers. we've been surprised that the head of it has not been removed yet as he is one of our biggest consumer champions. i think we are watching all the agencies to pay attention to when and who. host: we saw the decision by the trumpet ministration yesterday, federal-aid is being frozen in some aspects. as far as the move itself, what do you think about it and what is the long-term and short-term damage? guest: that is a pretty scary move. there's a lot of confusion about the freezing of federal grants. real people are going to be impacted. this is money that goes to

universities, to nonprofits. these are the paychecks of regular americans across the country that are certainly -- suddenly uncertain. we are incredibly concerned. if it moves forward it will be effectuated tonight at 5:00 and just throwing us all into turmoil. certainly yet another instance like you discussed with the inspectors general where things are happening fast and in ways that feel very chaotic. host: one of the things that your organization has launched is a conflict of interest site. what is it and what led to its luncheon? guest: we have a new tracker on conflict of interest. what led to the launch is what we were talking about earlier, the fact that there is such a concentration of wealth and potential conflicts from the folks were coming into this administration. take pam bondi, nominated to be attorney general. she worked as a lobbyist for ballard partners representing 30 major corporations, many of whom had business in front of the doj. they are being investigated.

legal action against them. she takes the helm of that agency, suddenly she has major conflicts with former clients. it's hard to believe that she won't take that into account when she is up there, and i think that if the kind of thing we are seeing replicated over and over again with the choices they've made to have these agencies. guest: we need to see where comforts are happening, we need to see if they choose to recuse themselves from engaging in business with companies that they formerly were part of or invested in or ran. and potentially if we see conflicts, if we see violations of their easel agreements, there will be space for legal action. it's not the kind of thing we can usually game out in advance that we are watching very closely. host: pennsylvania, democrats line, you're next. caller: when trunk breaks needs

and laws and traditions, you guys don't have an immediate reaction. we have to see what we are going to do. you're not prepared for what goes wrong. and you know something is going to go wrong. i just don't understand why you were not prepared for immediate reaction. guest: i think we are but it is a really great point. this is a moment that feels very chaotic. there is every single day. it is surprising to realize it's only been a week and a half, not even quite and we've already seen this massive amount of executive orders and actions would have real consequences, and so we are prepared and ready to do everything we can to organize, to take legal action, to be out there talking to the media about what needs to happen. but it's not something we can be ready in advance for literally everything. we are just doing all we can. host: when it comes to doge, as far as what you're watching for specifically, he said elon musk

at the head of it. if congress ultimately have the power to decide or to take the advice or not, why not wait until congress decides and then concentrate on the work itself of the organization itself? guest: there's a lot to be concerned about. we are worried about it being illegal federal advisory committee, so that is why we've moved forward with the suit which i'm sure we will talk about more. but also the fact that it is so easy to think about musket enriching himself through recommendations that he will make. he has government contracts, a huge amount. we are looking at the possibility of spacex making $20 billion additionally. there is a huge amount of potential benefit if he makes call that impact that. he's also being investigated by the doj and other entities across government, so we didn't think we could wait. we thought there's too much potential for corruption, there are too many impacts regular people, and we think it is an illegal entity so there is too much to do. host: so the focus of the suit

is what? guest: we believe that doge is a federal advisory committee meeting that they have outside persons were advising inside government, in this case making recommendations about cuts and regulatory changes. to us, that is a textbook federal advisory committee governed by a law, the federal advisory committee act. that means they have to abide by the good records law, they need to have balance presentation, open meetings. none of these things are they currently doing and so the suit is about that. host: what do you think about the certain congress and committees to work alongside them as they move forward? guest: in some ways that is a credentialing exercise, members of congress saying they think it is a legitimate entity that is going to be doing things that matter. on the other hand is important that we are speaking out about the real ways to improve government and deal with fraud and waste. i think it kind of depends which member you are talking to have the feel about, but certainly we are worried about it. host: let me show you the

comments of texas republican pete sessions was going to lead a subcommittee to work with the committee. he had these things to say about that and elon musk so i will play what he had to say and get your response. >> i have no doubt that elon musk is an expert among experts at understanding not just organizational efficiencies, but better ways in which services can be provided. he has invested billions of his own dollars and has millions or tens of thousands of employees, and he has made his organizations spectacular. we believe that the federal government has the opportunity to help himself, and i think that i have very few qualms with him advising, whispering in the era perhaps of the president, but helping us to sell the inefficiencies. he takes a huge viewpoint of making sure we are challenged

and i think that is good. guest: i have huge forms, so i disagree. one of the biggest concerns is that he has no government experience. it's not untrue to say he has run successful companies, but that doesn't necessarily translate to understanding how government works, and this particular task, running an entity that is intended to improve government, without that experience seems incredibly problematic. that is aside from the bigger worries we have which i mentioned before that he would be able to profit personally from choices he makes. he might be able to stop investigations, the 11 criminal and civil investigations into must companies happening right now across government, and that of things he wants to cut, the types of choices that we've heard rumored, they are all things that regular people really depend on. it's not the kind of choices you would be making if you are thinking about americans or how they interact with government. all of that just gives us huge paws, lots of bombs.

i'm very worried. host: bruce in kentucky, independent line. caller: yes, miss gilbert, just because mr. muska doesn't have any experience in the government doesn't mean he can't come in and cut waste. where were you during the last four years? guest: where were we? thinking about these same issues. caller: how much money did the bidens rake in? guest: great question. to your first half of that, we were thinking about these exact same things. public citizen worries about waste and efficiency no matter who is at the helm. i think our concerns when we think about the types of programs and policies that we have heard rumored are on the chopping block, we get really nervous. you might have seen the cato institute give recommendations to doge. what they suggested our cuts to social security and medicare. that's not the kind of thing that we think regular people want so we are really worried.

all people who are looking at the possible cuts should be as well. host: you mentioned a conflict of interest previously, did you have a similar set up for the biden and obama administration, previous administrations? guest: absolutely. we look very closely a topic of interest across the board, filing complaints with the office of government ethics, sending them into congress, the office of congressional ethics. we are not partisan in our attention to ethical concerns. but i will say that the folks were coming in now give us far greater pause for the reasons we talked about at the top. we have never seen an administration with this level of concentrated wealth, former corporate ties and the ability to benefit personally from what they do. for choices they make. if you look at trump himself, on sunday just before his inauguration he launched a nema coin. he was able to rake in billions just as he was coming in. people are able to directly influence politics by giving money to the president.

that's nothing we've ever seen before but it comes to conflict of interest and ethics. so we are buried. it is a different scope and scale now. host: can you elaborate how that specifically is a competent interest? guest: usually presidents distance themselves from their assets and their interest but he is not this time around. there is no ethics executive order governing processes and if there was, we are worried he wouldn't follow it. the coin is something that is being sold on the market, and people can invest in it. that is something that if he can pay attention to and actually see how individuals, how potentially foreign nations, how other folks are investing in his new product at the same moment as he takes the helm of our country, that is a conflict. that is a real ethical problem. host: the website s trump memes are intended to express as engagement by the symbolized d are not intended to be or

subject of an investment opportunity, investment contract or security of any type that is the boilerplate. i suppose you have a reaction to that. guest: the first part of that sentence of the most important where it is talking about support of president trump. so you are buying something and you are supporting the president while he is president, which is something he can see and make decisions based on. that is the perception of a compliment or an actual comfort of interest. it is a problem for a nation being governed ethnically. host: is a technicality, but does it matter that it happened the day before he became president? >> it certainly became a business before he was president . host: let's hear from ron in pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro and her desk. this i got from c-span, we are

the best economy under biden in five years. in immigration, the lowest amount of immigrants to come into this country under biden and harris. so as far as that goes, low unemployment rates, high wages and lower debt prices. that is all going to be gone under the guy that is in there now. what a disgrace. pardoning all those people on january 6. i tell you what, that is really disgusting. that is all i've got to say, thank you. guest: thanks for that comment. unrelated to what we've been talking about today but we are very unhappy with the pardons. just the idea that violent offenders are back out on the street to attack police officers. that's not something i feel like the rule of law and i think particularly sad to see with an

administration that has come in and talk a lot about cracking down on crime and violent offense in particular. so certainly we don't think it speaks well to the pursuit of the rule of law, and we are glad you raised it. host: karen is in california, independent line. caller: yes, good morning. i just had a comment. i think that is nice young lady is regurgitating nearly every talking point of the very reason why us independents and former democrats voted for donald trump. blaming people because they've accumulated great wealth. that is what we are all trying to do, i hope. trying to be better, be our best. these are the people we would like, not the parasites that are professional politicians. that is really all i have to say. god bless america and thank you for c-span.

host: the viewer from california. guest: thanks for the comment. as i said earlier, we are not against wealth. the problem is not being rich, the problem is whether you continue to benefit from those connections and that wealth while you are coming into public service. in one of the things we are most concerned about is that there is no ethics executive order currently government -- governing government. that is a change from the last 30 years. every administration republican or democrat. we don't have one now. in addition to these folks being more connected, they have no particular guardrails keeping them from profiting now off of you, also taxpayers in off the choices they make. host: this is a viewer this morning saying to you that you are advocat increases in entitlemen goaof proven efficiency. the fact that entitlements are the main cause of our debt. paying people not to work killing the country. it's not about compassion or politics but about what we can afford. yes there is waste that must be

addressed but we do not survive as a welfare state. guest: thanks for that comment. i think what we are looking for are things that help regular people. we may disagree on that front with the basic need for entitlements are. i think most people would agree that social security is a benefit that they care about and want and depend on, so certainly we don't want to see that cut. and i think there are many other things that people don't really realize they rely on. not just those poverty programs, but many other things that we need and depend on that i think people would be unhappy to see because. one great example is what we saw last night, the pause in france. their neighbor who works at university, many institutions and people depend on federal grants around the country. those are all suddenly paused and thrown into chaos. host: the work of doge not only looks at the organization but the federal workforce overall. what do you think about the amount of federal workers currently employed by the government? guest: i think it's a little bit

of an arbitrary could teach, the idea that there is a perfect number of federal workers or regulations. i think expands and decreases based on need. this event of red herring argument to talk about some number when instead we should be thinking about what the country desires, what laws we pass and what we need to have in place to implement them. host: the recent order by the president to return federal workers back to the office, what do you think about that? guest: i don't have a strong position in or out of office but the reason for it, at least some would say the underlying reason for it is that people don't all want to go back to the office or have figured out ways to work that are different than before the pandemic. this is intended to cull workers, to make people leave agencies. if that is the goal i think we are worried about it. when it comes to in or out of office i'm agnostic.

host: j's from florida, republican line for lisa gilbert, the copresident a public citizen, hello. caller: hello, good morning. good morning to both of you. the more i listen, the more questions i have for this person. to begin with, do you receive government funding at all in any way shape or form from any type of a grant that got cut off? the other thing is your title says challenging the trump administration agenda. so it sounds to me like you are just another resistance program and anything that he does you are not going to like. what is the main thing -- function of our federal government, isn't it just to keep people safe and to make sure that things are being handled properly, but our country was based on competition. competition, that is what our country was based on. not handouts, and everybody

needs to be equal. i'm not equal to you, i don't make what you make but you don't hear me complaining about it to anybody. have a good day. guest: a couple different things. first, no, we do not take money from the government or any corporation, we do everything we can and have a firm redline about not taking those funds so we can remain independent. wanted to address that directly. in terms of some of what you were saying, we actually agree. it is very important that government function to protect regular people. that is what we think as well, that is the role of government. certainly we are doing everything we can to try to make sure that it does that so we are

color: they are trying to rip the american people up. if you have a convicted felon running the government? the man has been stealing all of his life. he has brought more people in there to steal and comes up with this raising myths about immigration that are not -- that are nothing but a smokescreen. host: ok. thank you. guest: thank you.

i think we are worried about some of the things that you raised, the idea about what doge is going to do is to make recommendation that hurts us all. when we are thinking about the importance of regulations they set up the guardrails to protect our air and water and protect -- that encourage competition and will make our financial system say. it is drug labels and making sure that food has -- if food has an outbreak it is recalled. it is the things we interact with day in and out. we are very worried that changes will impact us all. host: i want to ask a few things, this is from yesterday the senate confirming scott bessent. guest: so, we are again worried that he is one of the billionaires we have talked about who has potential conflicts of interest coming into the cabinet and he will have postures that are not best for regular americans. the treasury plays a huge role

and also in dealing with systemic risk. the idea that there could be a crash like back in 2008. the treasury is monitoring what is happening and we want to make sure the incentives are correct. we are worried about what kind of positions he will take. host: specifically positions that benefit him? guest: we cannot prejudge and we will see what he puts into place and how he divests from his companies. i am hopeful he will do the right thing but it is something we are watching closely. after that it is policy perspectives. we are not aligned to how we think about the economy so it is's -- possible that he will take postures but we differ great -- we differed -- disagree with. host: a viewer asked if you specifically "which of the former president's agenda or nominees that public citizen pushback on?" guest: i got a chance to testify about pam bondi. as we have been doing that

tracker we have been uncovering particular conflicts in places where we are worried that people will not be able to remain unbiased. i had an opportunity to talk about her specifically and the legion of interconnected conflicts and things like the work she has done on behalf of private prisons where we see a lot of damages in human rights abuses. her work on behalf of immigrant -- amazon which has been investigated and sued. things like that make us worried. host: which of former president biden's agenda or nominees? guest: got it. apologies. thinking about president biden were worried about a number of things. one thing that comes to mind quickly at the very end of the administration, we were unhappy with an executive order calling for increased data centers across the country with less guardrails. data centers were to create more energy for artificial

intelligence purposes. we were worried that they wanted to do so with less environmental standards and with an expedited process for permitting. we were allowed in out there with a letter in the very final days saying this is a problem. host: we heard this president talk a lot about ai and we have seen a lot of tech people like mark zuckerberg and the like being at the inauguration. what you think about this idea of technology? guest: we think that innovation and technology is important. we are not against technology, the concerns we have are about conflicts and the people coming in and having the ability to influence the benefits of the as we think about the concentrated power in certain companies, in meta, in amazon, these companies have different power and potential than small companies come into the marketplace and the ability to

have even more power, even more contracts with our government is on the line. that is one of the reasons they come as you say, give huge donations to the inauguration, are pandering in ways that make us nervous. disinformation requests and guardrails. they have had in place for years. all of that is intended to get in good with the administration and get some of those benefits. host: let's hear from john in seattle, washington. democrats line. caller: hello, pedro. longtime listener, first time caller. just have a couple of comments and then i have a question, if that is ok. i just wanted to point out that i have been a lifelong democrat. i don't even know if i'm going to change to independent. i might go republican when i go into town to re-register this week.

i can't believe what i hear and see anymore, so i will quickly get onto my comment, sir. this lady is saying she is independent, or her group is, is very questionable. i don't believe i have ever seen her or her group talk about kamala and their reckless policies and spending the last four years. host: color, you are on with her, so if you have a question, go ahead. caller: ok, great. i do have one question for her. big news in this area is there was a video put out about a medicare immigrant that left their receipt at one of our local grocery stores and the ebt card they used, the receipt that came out that was left said over $1400 in benefits, plus up to i think it said $800 in cash

benefits, so if people really want to know where they're medicare or medicaid and their state money goes, that is just one person. host: ok. that is a viewer they are. goes back to what he thinks is the waste, fraud, and abuse of programs guest:. your comments? guest:as i said at the top, and is it -- and it is a helpful thing to raise -- we don't think there is no waste or fraud across government. and there are bad actors and individuals who abuse any system that is set up. her concern is much more high-level. that for every person like that that you raised -- and obviously i do not know the instances of that particular situation. there are friends and neighbors who depend on those programs and policies. a wholesale cut of something like i'm a say, the department of education, is very different than thinking about individual waste, fraud, and abuse. and of the things to go back to an earlier discussion we had

that worries us about the firing of inspectors general across government is that that is their job, to look and find individual instances of fraud and abuse, so we need them in place. host: jamie is in pennsylvania. hi. caller: hi. during nice to speak with you. first time caller, longtime watcher. i have a comment for this guest. lisa, you are a citizen of the united states, as is all of us, correct? guest: correct. i understand you have a group and it is supposed to be independent. true independence means that you do not look at democrat or republican. ok? trump has said repeatedly, including yesterday and today, he is not going to cut medicaid, medicare, or social security.

the biden administration actually took all this money and gave it to the illegal people who are crossing, ok? pennsylvania has continually cut since governor wolf. my statement is that trump is notorious because he has a business and everything else. george washington, adams, jefferson, they all ran businesses while being the president. that is historical. it is really important not to continue to just bash trump. he is firing people, which obama did the same thing. he was not aware in the first presidency and he was told not to do this. every president has the right. they are not voted in. they