economic growth, and interest rates. at 2:00, ask subcommittee on health will he about promoting healthy living a incentivizing patients to make healthier decisions. these events alsotream live on the free c-span a video app and online at c-span.org. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered, we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center. no, it is way more than that. comcast is providing wi-fi for students in low income families. >> comcast supports c-span as a puic service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. coming up on "washington

journal," your calls and comments live. then jim costa on the recent actions by the t administration and the role of democrats in the 119th congress. and former usaid ol jeremy konyndyk. he will discuss trump administration efforts to future of u.s. foreign a the and south carolina republican congressman ralph norma talk about the house gop strategy to ad president trump's leive agenda. later, kent lassman of the competitive eise institute discusse reform efforts in congress and president trump's approach. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: this is the "washington journal" for february 11. as fast as president is attempting to make changes through executive order, he is being met with challenges by federal courts.

judges have put a hold on exams for things such as banning birthright citizenship and efforts to dismantle usaid and other decisions are pending on top of that. the president and vice president are taking the courts to task for their actions. to start the show, when it comes to these efforts by courts to block trump administration actions, do you support or oppose those efforts. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to make your thoughts known, you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook and on x. the washington post is keeping a running tally when it comes to

the court efforts. here's how they currently stand as of yesterday. this severance being blocked in court include efforts by the trump administration to ban birthright citizenship, a freeze on federal grants and loans, resignation offer for federal workers, dismantling usaid, and the transfer of transgender prisoners. partially blocked, the doge accessing american supposed personal data. those still awaiting decision, ban on asylum, expanding fast-track deportations, removing employment protections for civil servants, firing commissioners without cause, ban on transgendered troops, ban on gender affirming procedures, and more. jd vance posted on february 9 on

x, the judge try to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. if a judge tried to command the attorney general on how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that is also illegal. judges are not allowed to control the executive's legitimate power, saying that on x. that x prompted a couple responses. a democratic representative from new york who was part of the first impeachment efforts of president trump posted this, it is called the rule of law, jd vance, our constitution created three coequal branches of government to provide checks and balances on each other, separation of powers. the judiciary makes sure that the executive follows the law. if you do, you will not ha problems. it also prompted a respon fm liz cheney, if you believe any of the multiple federal courts that have ruled against you so far exceeding statutory or constitutional authori, your

recourse is to appeal. you do not get to rage-quit the republic because you are losing. that's tyranny. those are just some responses. tell us if you support or oppose the actions. here are the lines. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. perhaps you would prefer to tweet your thoughts or text your thoughts this morning. you can do that at (202) 748-8003. you can also post on facebook and on x. james in rome, georgia, independent line, on these legal issues in courts blocking the trump administration's efforts. caller: i am a progressive independent, and i believe that trump has the right to do what he is doing. he was voted in as president. just because the democrats are

weak, they are mad because they do not want to do anything for black people. what trump is doing is the reflection of the majority of white people in this country, how they feel. they don't care nothing about the rule of law. all they care about his ruling. they want to rule. the democrats are weak. they are going along with everything the republicans are doing, filing lawsuits. look, they lost. host: what about the courts direct actions against the trump administration? caller: i feel they will go around the court to do what they want to. like i said, i voted for biden. not for biden, i voted for harris. if biden would have been made president, he could have used all those things to do something. trump, i agree with him pardoning those people on january 6. host: ok, stephen lee philadelphia, independent line, you are next up on the courts actions against the trump

administration -- steve in philadelphia. caller: put that aside for a moment, i have -- host: let's start with that actually, what do you think about the courts efforts? caller: it is a political ploy the democrats are using. host: can i ask you to elaborate on that, why you think it is that, especially if it is from the federal judiciary? caller: ok, i will elaborate. trump, between usaid and the department of education and other places he wants to cut the fat, he should take all that monday -- money that he is finding that is disappearing, take that money and shore up social security and medicare with it for the next 100 years. and the democrats and other political opponents will have nothing to say.

and you will not have elderly people taking to the street saying you are taking the social security. host: as far as they courts actions, do you support them or not? caller: no, i do not support them. i think they should give the man a chance to fix what he promised he would fix and he is trying to fix it. and then take all that money -- like i said, take that money he is finding and shore up social security and medicare with that for the next 100 years. host: cassandra in maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning. i am calling because i think it is a shame what is going on in this country. donald trump, i know he was elected, and the democrats tend to be weak. we should have protected the border and everything. but the deportations going on, i

do not think it -- we should be careful who we let into our country, but shutting down federal government agencies and having people going into the treasury and messing with the department of education, i do not think that is right. i do not think trump should be able to do that. host: when the courts step in to intervene, what do you think of those actions? caller: the courts have the right to say, hey, you should not do this. they went to law school, you know. they have the right to say this is not right. you have got to look at people's jobs here and you're messing with people's livelihood. his family is rich and so is the billionaire. look at people that do not have money, you're messing with people's social security. and that is not right. he doesn't know what it is like not to have money. he had money all his life.

host: ok. the latest orders from the courts are being highlighted by the wall street journal. this is from yesterday, saying judge ordered the trump administration to restore federal funding it tried to freeze, saying the white house was not fully complying with an earlier ruling against it. the u.s. district judge in rhode island directed the administration to immediately take every step necessary to effectuate a previous restraining order he issued on january 31. the ruling from an appointee of former president barack obama came in a lawsuit brought by 22 states and the district of columbia. it adds that another federal judge on monday temporarily reinstated the head of the federal whistleblower agency who alleged he was unlawfully terminated by the president. a u.s. district judge in washington ruled that hampton dillinger who was appointed in 2023 to at the office of special

counsel must be allowed to serve in that role through thursday night so she can hear more arguments. these are some issues facing the trump administration, blocking some of those efforts by the trump administration. do you support or oppose that? republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. it was during that super bowl interview when the president was asked about the legal issues facing him in reaction to some of those efforts. some of your plays have raised some questions and have had pushback's. 19 states attorneys general filed a lawsuit, and early saturday a judge agreed with them to restrict elon musk and his government efficiency team, doge, from accessing treasury department payment and data systems. they say there was a risk of irreparable harm. does that slow you down in what you want to do? pres. trump: i disagree with that 100% and think it is crazy.

we have to solve the efficiency problem, solve the fraud, waste, and abuse. if you look at the usaid, the kind of fraud in there, we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of money going to places where it should not be going. if i wrote a list, you would say this is ridiculous. you have read, and there are many you have not even seen, it is crazy. it is a big scam. this is good money, and we can do that -- i think i would rather give it to marco rubio at the state department and let him take care of it. i do not know if it is kickbacks or what. i have had a great help with elon musk, who has been terrific. >> and you say you trust him? pres. trump: trust elon? he is not gaining anything. he is so into it. i told him to do that. and i will tell him very soon,

like maybe in 24 hours, to go check the department of education he will find the same thing. in the military, let's check the military. we're going to find hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and abuse. host: the fox news host mentioning elon musk, the treasury department decision by the courts, and that prompted a response from elon musk. he said a corrupt judge protecting corruption, adding he needs to be impeached now. in response to the back and forths and various x's when it comes to legal issues, it is pete buttigieg saying, and america, decisions about what is legal and illegal are made by courts of law, not by the vice president. you can add your thoughts to the mix, if you support or oppose these efforts, pushing back against the trump administration republican line in oklahoma, teresa. caller: i just have a short thing to say.

i voted for donald trump when he ran and he did everything he told the united states people he would do. he is trying to do it now and everybody is trying to stop it. what about the $14 million for sesame street, the free housing food and education, all this stuff. where is the american people's money? donald trump is a millionaire. he has money because he is a smart man. so is elon musk. host: when you see the courts pushing back against some of these actions, what is your reaction? caller: it makes me very furious. where were the courts pushing back with biden? where were they at when they were funding everything except the united states people's homes, their children, our education, our health care, all this? trump is doing everything he said he would do. i think they should leave him alone i let him do what he is

supposed to do. biden and the democrats need to put a sock in their mouth, sit back. he did not do it, so why can't we do it? trump is the best thing to happen to the united states of america. host: george is next in michigan, independent line. caller: hello? host: hello. caller: yes, my name is george. little bit nervous here. i believe that judges are doing the right thing. we are separated into three equal branches. and just because they get told something by a legal authority does not mean that they should be ranting and raving on media. they should do it according to law and then they do not have problems. it has been that way for

200-something years. why don't they like obeying the law? i have to obey the law. i expect them to obey the law. host: george in michigan. up next, susan in tennessee, democrats line. caller: good morning. i definitely support the legal actions. it is not like they are going to obey them because we have and a talker see blooming right now -- we have an atocracy blooming right now. i am just sick. host: why specifically do you support the actions? caller: well, we have to do something. we cannot just let this 80-year-old man take over our whole country and throw it up. it is really scary. china is mad, canada is mad. all our friends, you know.

and i think now it is time for the "washington journal" to change their name to atocracy unfiltered, instead of democracy. host: democracy unfiltered is the tagline. we're are talking about efforts by the courts to push against efforts by the trump administration to make changes. you saw the list from the washington post on some of those legal decisions. do you support those decisions overall? do you oppose them? you can tell us why. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. the associated press takes a look at the highest court in the land, the possibility of what they will play in the days ahead when these decisions have to be consider, saying president trump only the supreme court, the three justices he appointed, to enable the most aggressive of the many actions he has taken just the first few weeks of the second white house term.

but even a conservative majority with a robust view of the presidential power might balk at some of what the president wants to do. the court gave trump major victories last year that helped clear the way for potential obstacles to reelection, postponing his criminal trial in washington, d.c., that affording immunity for prosecution for official actions. his first term was marked by significant defeats, as well as some wins, by the court. it will be an extraordinary test for the roberts court whether it's willing to stand up for constitutional principles that has long embraced, it is written. some of the things we have seen are so blatantly unconstitutional that i am confident the court will stand up for constitutional principles. you can read more on that story. susan in west virginia, republican line, hi. caller: hello. you was talking about the supreme court giving donald trump basically being a king.

republicans like jd vance did not complain about the judge in florida, whenever merrick garland followed the law with her. she blocked a lot. we still have not had any information about that, when he stole classified documents. they're not complaining about that. with her blocking merrick garland. i don't understand, if you don't have a law in america, you do not have a country. he is running all three branches of government. host: as far as the courts actions, what do you think about them and the role they play? caller: i think we have to have it. they are doing the right thing, they have to block it if he is doing illegal things, and that is what he is doing. the supreme court gave donald trump being a king. host: what do you think about republicans like yourself, hearing republicans like the president and vice president

saying things about the court? caller: that is one thing that is wrong. he should follow the law and follow what the courts are saying. they are trying to do illegal things. host: pino joins us from south carolina, independent line. caller: a lot of lines have been drawn in the sand as far as democrats and republicans. from way back, it seems as though the positions that we take as far as democrats and republicans, we are americans. second of all, a lot of people do not like the fact that trump is rich and has money. he does not understand the poor person. but i want to say that i like the fact that he has motion, that he is changing things.

more has happened and why last two weeks than in four years. host: if the courts try to put a stop to some of that motion, what is your reaction? caller: i want to say this, no one is perfect. but you must know that in the pursuit of perfection, there may be some casualties. host: and what that means about the courts, what do you think? caller: they are there, you have to use some type of a gauge to know when you -- a person going too far, we cannot have a hitler going around, of course. host: linda in mississippi, democrats line, on these legal efforts challenging efforts by the trump administration, whether you support or oppose that. caller: good morning. i support it because we're supposed to be a nation of laws.

elon musk is unelected. how can he tell what is fraud and abuse by going to 10 different agencies and doing the same thing? if you don't cut those billions of dollars in government contracts he has, i agree with the laws because without the judges holding him back, we would not even have a country. we would have a dictator. and trump thinks he is a dictator. he sits at his resolute desk writing executive orders like a three-year-old storming to his mama. every time he signs his name, he shows it to the public. we need a president that cares about the rest of us. he cares nothing about the cost of eggs or groceries. that is what they elected him

for. i did not vote for him because i knew he was a creek and a liar. host: the washington post takes a look at statements recently made by the vice president about the courts. headline, trump, vance, and thus compared to laid the groundwork for defining the courts. the first thing to note is that defining court orders is something that is particularly influential figure, vice president jd vance, has been floating for years. in 2021, vance said mr. trump should fire every civil servant in the administrative state and when the courts stop you, you stand before the country like andrew jackson did and say, the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it. vance was asked last year and he said the president should defy such an order, and he told political, yep. in 2022, vance suggested a

president could disregard an illegitimate ruling in which the supreme court would say a president can fire a military general. more there in the washington post this morning. your thoughts on various legal efforts to stop the trump administration. from north carolina, republican line, this is dick. caller: i find it very curious that the democrats are suddenly all upset about something, for doing responsible governing. mr. biden ignored rulings on student loans, did he not? mr. biden ignored court rulings involving the stay in mexico program. mr. biden also took money from cms for medicare and medicaid to find his electrical vehicle initiative. if that is not irresponsible -- we need the same businesslike principles that the private sector -- including the not-for-profit world -- to be

applied by our government. host: how should mr. trump, or president trump, respond to the courts? caller: well, he should appeal them. if we have to, we have to expedite it and get it right up to the supreme court. everybody knows this is nothing more than a ploy to slow down the process. that is what it is about. the democrats cannot defend the fraud. they cannot defend it. they cannot say this is ok that we have given money to produce cartoons about, you know, sex change procedures to countries in south america or central america or that they are wasting money, giving money to publications like politico, which are quite left-leaning. right? that is what is wrong and they should fight that. they are actually doing this, the trump administration, to help americans. let me finish with one thing, who had the smallest delta or cap between the haves and

have-nots? president trump, mr. biden, or president obama? the racial disparity, economic disparity, was at its smallest ever. host: ok. janet next in pennsylvania, independent line. caller: hello, my name is janet. i am not sure where the previous caller got his statistics, but we do not have fact checking on the internet anymore, so whatever. the question is how i feel about the efforts to oppose trump's actions. it is an interesting academic debate. it is already too late. people come on the show and talk about how smart elon musk is. well, he is a shrewd businessman, not a wise political leader. but i will give him credit, he is intelligent. he was able to live in this country 10 years illegally.

he has gotten himself to the point where he can decide what is fraud, waste, and abuse. that is scary. host: answer the political debate of whether you support or oppose these court actions. caller: it is an academic question. host: i assume you called towards it, so what is your thought on it? caller: they can find all they want to come and maybe we will win some, maybe we will not. but you have to consider, anything trump does as president, in the role of president, cannot be ruled illegal. so the people are running around talking about the validity of the supreme court's rulings as opposed to the president's discretion, indiscretion. that is an academic debate because there are a hundred unauthorized people going through our government files. host: ok. david next in south carolina,

republican line. caller: yes, dave here. the republicans are going to win this. i will tell you why. under article two, the executive branch has the right to go anywhere, anytime, to look anywhere. also, they got passes to go anywhere to look. host: if that is the case, why are there so many court challenges to these things? caller: because the democrats wanted to win this, and they are not going to win. when it goes to the supreme court, everywhere you have these little judges, but guess what, when it goes to the supreme court, they will get a slap on the wrist just like they should. relax, democrats, because that is what is going to happen.

have a nice day, pedro. host: ok. people sharing their thoughts on the courts actions against efforts of the trump administration. you can support those, oppose those, tell us why on the phone lines. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us if you wish at (202) 748-8003. as always, you can post on social media platforms come on facebook and on x. matt is in maryland, hello. matt in maryland, hello. one more time for matt in maryland, hello. caller: hey, sir. how you doing? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: just the executive branch, the president, has enormous power. just as was said according to

article two. i just wish that folks would do a little reading. the court actions that are being brought, and it is not only by liberal judges, there's a couple trump-appointed judges, as well, it is to slow him down. and i believe that once this is litigated and it either moves forward upon appeal if he is found not to be able to do it or if he wins, the american people are going to continue to see his transparency. you know, from the lists that are coming out to him signing executive orders in front of the public and explaining what those are briefly. but that is transparency. and i believe that he is well within his right as the executive.

host: so the courts add to the transparency process? caller: no, no, no, no, no, i think a lot of people are afraid at the moment that he is moving too quickly, so things are brought forward to litigation to the courts to slow it down because he does. we seen it in his first term. he is absolutely moving at a pace that no other president has ever moved in. and i believe that this system that we have, whether you believe in justice is served or justice is not served, i believe that the process in slowing things down could potentially

bring better transparency, of course. but the power that the executive has to look into these programs, to adjudicate these programs, is enormous. host: ok. john is next in virginia, republican line. caller: good morning. i thought i would bring a little sanity to the conversation about our politics versus our judiciary. the constitution of the united states clearly lays out that there are two political branches of government. that is the legislature and the executive. and the third branch is one of the judiciary. and the supreme court has said in many different cases -- you can look them up online -- that

essentially the supreme court, the judiciary, will stay out of politics. they will leave political issues to the first two branches. the judiciary will only deal with issues of law, the constitution, of course, and issues of equity under the law. what the people of the united states are responsible for is, i think they are the political power under our constitution. and that is what our constitution requires, it requires a republican form of government. james madison and alexander hamilton and jefferson and so forth understood that. host: so when it comes to federal court actions that you have cynic is a trump administration pushing back on some of these things -- that you have seen against the trump

administration, pushing back on some of these things, do you think that this politics, as well? caller: to answer that question, i read the letitia james and the other ag's submitted their request for a stoppage, and i read the doj -- trump administration's doj response. to me, it seems like the judge in this case is getting involved in politics where they should not. the people of the united states voted for donald trump and certain membership in the house and the senate, and now they are allowed to exercise their political power. host: what is it about the judges response that prompts you to think it is political in nature? caller: it is political in nature, in my opinion, because the judge has said that the

political branches of government have to stop doing what they are doing, and they don't. and i think that will be the resolution when there is a hearing i think on friday. the judge said you are going to stop your political endeavors, and that is where judges are not supposed to get involved unless it is contrary to the constitution of the united states. host: john there and virginia giving his thoughts on supporting or opposing efforts by the courts to block efforts by the trump administration. you can add yours to the mix on the phone lines or text us or post on social media. let's go to rick in washington, d.c. caller: good morning. i am all for what the judges are doing. thank god they are doing what they are put there to do. it is supposed to be about checks and balances.

if they let fillon 47 -- felon 47 get away with this, there will be no need for a supreme court or congress. we will have a ruthless dictator. it is up to the courts to save us. but they have got to slow this guy down, he is on the way to destroying this country. and we will not recognize it. host: rick in washington, d.c., giving his thoughts. yesterday, it was reported that it was the attorneys general and representing 22 states suing the trump administration monday, asking a federal judge to temporarily block a major policy change at the national institutes of health that would substantially limit payments for research overhead to universities, medical centers, and other grant recipients would within hours, a federal judge in boston issued a temporary order halting the controversial policy within those 22 states per the's

is to remain until otherwise ordered in court. it was in oregon that the attorney general gave an interview on local television and talked about why his state joined other attorneys general, fighting the executive order looking at birthright citizenship. here is part of that exchange. [video clip] >> why are we so interested in that issue here in the state of oregon? >> a, every child born in our country should have a home and have a place and have access to services. we need to protect children in that space pete what the president it is with a stroke of the pen, attempting to rewrite the constitution. for more than 120 years, we have had the 14th amendment and consistent judicial interpretation of that, consistent presidential interpretation, different administrations, democrats and republicans. with the stroke of a pen, the trump administration attempted to rewrite that constitutional

provision. if you want to have that policy conversation about ending birthright citizenship, you should do that in congress and among the states. you as the president do not get to rewrite the united states constitution. host: dan joining us from tennessee, democrats line. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. a simple 70 year guy here in tennessee, but this in context before i say i am pro oregon supporting the legal actions. i had a grandfather who served in world war i against the germans, served in world war ii, came back as a lt. col. against the japanese. we study a lot of history back in the 1970's in our high school and college, and what i see are too many similarities between the 1930's germany.

of course, support any legal action on some of his policies. because if you do not take action, silence is consent. i am just wondering, how many people have referred to their trump bible and saw on the eighth day that trump created gossett. host: our next call is from illinois, independent line. caller: 78 million people voted for president trump. we did not vote for these judges. 70 million people did not vote for these judges to make decisions about our president. i totally oppose them. host: why don't you think they have a hold? caller: the man from virginia already explained this. i am wasting my time explaining it again. host: let's get your opinion. why do you think they should not be involved? caller: he explained exactly my thoughts.

and 70 other million of us i am sure agree with him totally. we elected president trump to run this country, do what he thought was right. why are democrats so hell-bent on spending money when president trump is trying to cut money, get rid of excessive spending? democrats want to spend it. why are they so bent on spending this money on wasteful programs? host: let's go to la'shawn in pennsylvania, independent line. caller: good morning. i oppose the supreme court because they do not have anybody to look over them and see what they are doing. they are breaking the law in everybody's face, and they cannot be held accountable. how are they going to hold other people accountable? and why are we listening to them when they are breaking the law? host: let's step back from the

supreme court as far as federal courts locking efforts by the trump administration, what do you think about those actions? caller: they should have done something about trump. they waited and waited and waited, and as per usual, they waited to the last minute to do anything and now everybody is paying for it. host: the washington examiner this morning takes a look at the legal strategy of the trump administration when it comes to immigration policy. this is the story you can find on their website. former president joe biden spent four years suing republican-led states over border crackdowns that defined his federal policy, now president trump is turning the tables, taking sanctuary states and cities to court in an attempt to force compliance with his own federal immigration enforcement. lastly, the trump administration filed a lawsuit against illinois, chicago, and cook county, challenging local laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. the administration argues that

these sanctuary policies obstruct federal enforcement efforts and prevent agencies like u.s. immigration and customs enforcement from carrying out their duties effectively. a former federal prosecutor told the examiner that sanctuary jurisdictions are under a major disadvantage, saying sake sure cities have an uphill legal battle stopping trump or slowing him down, some issues like immigration are exclusively controlled by the federal government, so there is little that states can do to slowdown or speed up immigration enforcement. the conservative supreme court handed the biden administration multiple wins on this issue. that is on the washington examiner website if you would like to read more on some of that legal back-and-forth of the trump administration, challenges or pushback from the courts. we are asking whether you support those efforts or not. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002.

let's hear from marcia from washington, d.c., democrats line. caller: hi, i am not going to waste time talking about the merits of what trump is doing or the lack of integrity he has. but what i want to say is there has been no talk about the congress. he has not followed one congressional rule. when you're talking about the power of the purse, which he is talking about for almost everything he's doing, including the kennedy center, he has not put one thing to congress. he is able in a china shop and is absolute -- he is a bull in a china shop and is breaking the law. host: what does that mean for the courts, in your opinion? caller: it means he is doing it wrong and he should be tried for that. he is but they are barking up

the wrong tree. i have not heard one person talking about congress. most everything he's doing must go through congress. host: it is the actual court system that is pushing back, that is what we're talking about, their efforts and whether you support or oppose those. caller: they can push back all they want, but the fact of the matter is congress has a role in this. he is snowballing congress, and congress is going along with him. i cannot believe how complacent my own party is, and i am furious at them. however, trump is distorting our constitution. he took an oath on that, even if he did not put his hands on the bible. every one of those people take an oath before they are placed in their position. every congressperson takes an oath, and now they are sitting back and letting him do this. host: joel in north dakota,

republican line. go ahead. caller: hey, i oppose this only because i know the outcome of it. i can also support it because it is calling out these judges and what they are doing, and i cannot support them. there's millions of people -- host: let's start with you opposing it and knowing the outcome of that. what do you mean? caller: how many judgments have gone against this administration and succeeded? let's start there. host: and to your idea that you support it as well, can you elaborate? caller: because it will call out all the judges that are putting forward that policy. i do not know how you would say it, but they are not supporting

the people, i guess you could say. host: when you say it will call out that judges, what do you think will be the end result? caller: hopefully -- are these judges voted in? i don't think so. i think they are nominated. maybe they should be removed. if they are just there to delay a process and get in the way of progress, then i do not think they should be in the position they are in. host: ok, joel in north dakota giving us his thoughts. you can do the same. this is from larry in arkansas, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. i oppose the efforts. the question should be, why are the democrats against

transparency, cost savings, and services? host: when you say you oppose it, elaborate. caller: i would like to see the democrats joined in and try to get the transparency, reduce the size of government, and make our country more efficient. host: you said that. but when it comes to the courts actions, why do you oppose it? caller: because it is just a ploy by the democrats, that's all. host: can you elaborate on why you think that is? caller: because trump wants to do something that is right for the country, and the democrats, guess what they want to do. host: larry in arkansas. i couple things to keep you around. at 10 :00 this morning, the deral reserve chair gives an update on the economy and monetary policy. he will testify before the senate banki, housing, and urban affairs cmittee in front

of lawmakers since the 119th congress. that is on c-span3, c-span now, and c-span.org. 2:00 this afternoon, a hearing looking at ways to modernize american health care, focusing on prevention, flexible insurance, and technical technology innovations. there will be test of occasions before the house ways and means committee -- members will testify before the house ways and means committee. 2:00 on c-span3. the early hours of wednesday morning, the nominee for the director of national intelligence tulsi gabbard is expected to get her confirmation vote. there is also set to be a vote forwarding the process of approving robert f kennedy, jr., to health and human services secretary. stay post to c-span in the days ahead as that plays out -- stay

close to c-span. lopez in alabama, democrats line. caller: hey, this is lopez calling from birmingham, alabama. with this issue, i am just a listener this morning, but i want to say this, with this president trump, i just want to call him tricky dicky, and he is so unpredictable. i think every day we wake up, there is something new. what we have to do is just go day by day with this guy. i am starting to have a little faith in trump because he is our president. host: we're talking about the courts involving itself in the trump administration efforts at what do you think of that? caller: the court involvement, i do not think the trump is going to let the court decide. he wants to be in control of everything. he wants to corrupt everything, don't want to let the process go through like they are supposed to. he wants to just say, hey, i

wanted this way and that way and the way we do things in america now. he don't want it, he want to happen where he just says it and it is done. host: john is from tampa, florida, republican line. caller: good morning, pedro. how are you? host: well, thanks. caller: it is a glorious day in this country not the president trump is back in office, and i am glad to say i am one of the 77 million people that did vote for him. also, i would like to remind listeners out there about executive orders. i did not hear a lot of people crying when mr. biden executive ordered me and our country out of billions of dollars in student loan debt. in the keystone pipeline, that was an executive order. 40,000 americans lost their job with a stroke of a pen.

as far as the courts getting involved, i would like to remind the people that president trump has beat every court case that has ever come up against him. these are all democratic states, seattle judges, new york judges that have tried to do this again, they did not learn their lesson in the election. i would like to remind everybody it is only the fourth week of this presidency, and you guys need to chill out and let the man do his job. i elected him for exactly what he is doing. everybody i know elected him for what he is doing. host: when it comes to the courts actions, do you think they are appropriate? caller: i do not. i think it is vindictive. i think they are grasping at straws. i think everything president trump is doing -- i voted for him and 77 other million people voted for him, too. it is a great day in this country. god bless president trump. host: the new york times looks at doge and the records they're

keeping and whether there is transparency. this says that the white house making that decision to designate mr. musk as an entity insulated from public records requests are most judicial intervention at least until 2034, by declaring the documents it produces and receives presidential records. that designation has a special legal meaning under law called the presidential records act. it shields from public all documents, communication trails, and records from the president, advisors, and staff until five years after the president leaves office. it still requires presidents to keep a broad set of written materials created or received by them while executing their duties. nonetheless, presidents can also dispose of their records after getting a written approval from the ark if -- from the archivist at the national archives. on friday, mr. trump fired the nations archivist.

this is from willy from mississippi, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for taking my call. i have to say, i remember when he first started, and it took a couple of years but you are one who challenges folks. this is what i would like to say to c-span, when you hear outlandish misinformation, please, other hosts, challenge it, give it a good, educated challenge. i am surprised people in tampa, florida, and in alabama do not understand our cities, basic cities. three branches of government, and all of them have equal, equal, leverage under the law. we all put each other in check.

that is checks and balances. i am happy that these courts are doing what they're supposed to do. and if anything would happen where they allow the supreme court to lose their power, it will be chaos in this country. and these idiots do not know. the conservatives or the republicans, they know that half the country don't know. they know they are miss educating these people. it is very, very sad. thank you for taking my call. host: this is leslie, democrats line, north carolina. caller: yeah, i do not support the efforts of the courts in battling trump and his initiatives. i feel like a lot of people do not understand that there is no executive, judicial, it is all

the trump bunch. host: the three branches do exist, but what do you think of the judicial role? caller: the judicial role, that is trump right there. he has got, what, three supreme courts that he put on the supreme court, stacked? host: but the pushback, some is coming from the lower federal courts. what do you think of those actions? caller: i think they are great. they should push back more. i think the republicans ought to stand with the courts and grow a backbone and stand against trump, because trump is not good for this country. i don't care what nobody says. a guy saying he is one of the 77 million who voted for trump, all i say is thank you for ruing the --for ruining this country. host: carol is next.

caller: i oppose it, because i think what is happening is is the courts is being used to keep people from doing their jobs. and when biden was in, when obama was in, when bush was in, nobody was running to the courts. there were executive orders written by each one, and the opposite did not like it but there was not court running and judge shopping. they need to let the president do his job, quit court shopping, and see what happens. i did not vote for biden. but was he a good president? he had his moments. but i would not think that everything he done would have to be challenged and pushed into the court system. the court system is being used as a weapon. that is just my opinion.

thank you. host: that is carol in west virginia giving her thoughts on the issue of the courts and the trump administration. thank you to all of you who participated in this last 55 minutes. joining us to end this hour, representative jim costa from california, serving the 21st district and the foreign affairs committee, talking about efforts on capitol hill, and one of the efforts is taking a look at usaid in the future of foreign aid. you serve on that committee. what is the possibility of democrats having some say as far as what happens to that future? guest: i hope we do. i hope my republican colleagues who i have worked with over the years, who i have traveled with in developing nations, who have applauded and supported usaid in terms of the smart power it provides and the counterbalance to china and russia and other

adversaries that we deal with remember the incredible work they have done in republican and democratic administrations alike, putting america's best foot forward. it has supported a lot of american agriculture in terms of the products we grow, those purchased by usaid, and have been dealing with people who are food insecure. this executive order from john f. kennedy was inserted into law by congress over 20 years ago, and to end government entity that has worked so hard and done so much good makes no sense. host: there is talk of the possibility of voting some of the aspects of usaid within the state department, if that were to occur, could that be something that works, in your opinion? guest: possibly.

secretary rubio, when he was a former senator, he saw the positive impacts of usaid around the world. it is not only in places you might think of, in certain continents it has been very effective. president bush established it during his term, but also in places like armenia. the armenia community and california that i represent, the aide as they have dealt with hostile neighbors, it has been very important to the armenian communities and the government there in turning to the west and to try and have better opportunities. we have made commitments and promises to friends, and they are now wondering what is going to happen to that commitment. host: because of your work on the committee and how usaid works, if the program is frozen

as we know it, what is the immediate effect, the short-term and long-term effects have those who it foreign aid across the world? guest: i think it could be very harmful to our support around the world. and if secretary rubio wants to look at reforms and bring together a bipartisan effort on how we can improve usaid, i think that would be welcomed. there are certainly things we can do that would improve it, and i hope he wants to support efforts that are not efficient. but let's do it that way. i hope that secretary rubio will understand the good that has come from usaid. we will do just that. host: representative costa, there is reporting when it comes to those hostages that were supposed to be released in gaza saturday, that seems to be on hold. the president commenting on it yesterday. what does that suggest about the future of this cease-fire that

was decided a few weeks ago? guest: i think the cease-fire is very delicate. the biden administration worked for months with our arab allies in israel to bring about it. there are still over 70 hostages yet to be released, a second and third phase towards this cease-fire commitment. and we need to make sure that hamas, a terrorist organization, and israel hold to it and that all the hostages are returned. but the comments made about there's a second and third phase to the cease-fire agreement, and we need to make sure that hamas, who is a terrorist organization, and israel hold to it, and that all the hostages are returned. but the comments that are made

about taking 2 million people who live in gaza i don't think helps the cease-fire progress. host: other issues here in washington, d.c., sam -- several democrats expressing concern about the doge committee, their access to treasury data. specifically, what is your concern? >> no one elected elon musk to any office and his individual citizens privacy in which there's been no case made on why elon musk ought to have access to those records. and so therefore i think we've got to try to come together. i would think that my republican friends were very protective about privacy and security for all american citizens would be as concerned about this as i am. host: do you see anything within

the actions within the treasury department that suggest to you that those leaks of data, those compromised data might concern any specifics? guest: this just happened in the last couple weeks so we are trying to get a handle on just exactly what information they are accessing, and why. because clearly, there is i think a report that has been written with bipartisan support on how to curb the waste and inefficiencies to the tune of about $500 billion. why don't we work on that together, it seems to be, because i think we all share those concerns. as opposed to having some group of folks who have no oversight who answer to elon musk, i guess. and i think that creates alarm bells for many of us. host: i suppose you've heard the republican response that elon musk works at the request the

president which gives them the right to access these things. guest: the president is a very busy guy. he's got a lot of challenges he is facing seems to me elon musk is going to tell him whatever he thinks will sooth the president's concerns and i don't think that is sufficient to meaningful oversight of congress. what is really here is checks and balances when we are talking about the executive branch, a legislative branch, or judicial branches of government being tested today as we speak. host: representative kustoff, --costa, you and our audience talking about these efforts to streamline the federal workforce. what is that mean for those who live in the district that you represent? guest: they work for the department back in culture, protecting our food supply, and

focused on veterans hospitals, providing care for those men and women who serve our nation. these 5000 plus federal employees are very concerned. they dedicated 15, 25 years or more. they have experience and expertise of the people who work in the veterans hospital, forest service, the people who protect our food supply. and why we would do that without any sort of reflection or focus on how we deal again with government efficiency, but at the same time, not going to the core of this, folks who have dedicated their lives to making sure that we have the best people working on federal government that we possibly can. and by the way, the port but laws on this i think with justification. congress hasn't even provided any funding for this federal

order to take place that the administration is offering. so i think there's a lot of laws and there's better ways that we could work toward government efficiency. host: before we let you go, republican leadership trying to determine what course of action will be when determining a budget. what do you think the role of democrats will be as far as the process of coming up with that and whether they will support it? guest: i think it begins with reaching out to a bipartisan agreement on the budget. that has not happened at this point but the speaker, with a very narrow margins that we have, we are going to see if they are going to be able to deal with the budget debt ceiling and avoid government shutdown all at the same time with narrow margins of maybe one or two votes in the house and senate. if recent history is any proof, it has only occurred will be of

work together in a bipartisan fashion. it's irresponsible to ever be unable to reach an agreement that to have a government shutdown that harms all americans, but it is out of the republicans at this point to have the majority in the house, the senate and the white house. if they think they can do it on their own, we will see. host: jim costa serve the 21st district of california and also a member of the foreign affairs committee. thanks for your time. we will continue on in our discussion afford affairs joined by a former official usaid. he will talk about the current efforts to wind down the agency by the trump administration and later on, south carolina freedom caucus member ralph moorman and what the freedom caucus was to see from that budget -- ralph norman. those conversations coming up on "washington journal." ♪ ♪

>> john dickinson is one of the most significant founders of the united states who is not well known by all the american public. author jane e. calvert is trying to change that with her new biography "pennman of the founding." john dickinson is known for his essays under the title fabius published anonymously during the time that the states were deciding on whether to approve the new constitution. dickinson of maryland, delaware and pennsylvania is the only founding figure present and acting in every phase of the revolution. >> author jane calvert talks about her book, a biography of john dickinson on this episode of notes+.

it is available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you your podcasts. announcer: 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. >> democracy is a process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few regarding its basic principles. 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: joining us now, the former usaid executive director for covid-19 who also put in the agency under the obama administration joining us to talk about the future of the organization. welcome. guest: my pleasure. host: from your perspective, expand on your role and how it informs your knowledge of the discussion currently taking place. guest: i've worked with two largest part of the agency. the head of response during the obama administration, and then i worked leading the covid-19 relief effort in the first two years of the biden administration, so those are the two biggest things. disaster relief and global health. but the agency does a range of other things as well. education, economic development, poverty reduction, water and sanitation, agricultural development, a whole range of

things that aim to bolster american security and share american values with the world by supporting people around the world to improve their lives. host: i suppose in the last couple of days you for a lot about the agency. you would think there is a perception of what the agency is, and you have the reality of what it is. how do those matchup? yes: they are not very well aligned. hurtful doesn't really capture it. it is deeply offensive and disrespectful to the staff of usaid to be called things like criminals and terrorists by the president of the united states. i worked with many of these people, in 2014 i deployed colleagues into the bowl a hot zone at the peak of the ebola epidemic in west africa at a time when people will remember in this country we were kind of freaking out over that disease. usaid personnel were running straight in there. over the years, usaid personnel have been deployed on the front lines in the reconstruction effort in very violent postwar

afghanistan and iraq. they have deployed to other crises, they have deployed to famine, earthquake. several times i deployed disaster response teams in the immediate aftermath of huge natural disasters under hazardous circumstances. these are people who have really put their safety and their lives and their families on the line to serve their country by helping some of the people who most need it on the planet. said to be called that feels like a betrayal. host: some would estimate about 10,000 employees at the agency, $40 billion budget. how would you justify that? guest: it's a tiny portion of the budget. u.s. foreign aid is a little under 1% of total u.s. budget outlay. if you poll americans, they tend to think less than a quarter of the u.s. budget that goes toward foreign aid. when you ask, is appropriate you will get an answer like 5%, 10%.

you tell them it is 1% uc support dramatically increased. the misinformation or disinformation that we are seeing now about huge, huge spending and wasteful spending, that really is intended to distract people from the reality which is we do a tremendous amount of good with this very small proportion of the federal budget. host: i suppose you've heard about the specific programs coming into question. when you hear those lists, what are you thinking, and are all the programs, are they necessary, truly necessary? guest: it varies from administration to administration in judgment and what priorities are and that is natural. i was part of the day one team for biden administration. we saw some things that the trump administration had been doing that we didn't agree with, so we put a stop to those. we saw a lot of things that we thought made a lot of sense and we continue to them. that is normal. every other minute trigger transition in history has gone

through that sort of normal process. you see continuity across most of the work and then some things begin in some things and as policy priorities change. what we are seeing here is not that. what we are seeing is really the reckless destruction of the entire agency. elon musk has been leading the charge on this, aided by a state department official. he said over last weekend that he would put the agency through the wood chipper. so i think that will be underscored that this is not, in his mind, a review effort, this is simply an effort to destroy the agency. host: you probably heard some station why don't you just folded into state and operate that way? guest: that is a valid debate to have. i would disagree and i could get into why, but that is not what is happening here. they are trying to take an agency with a workforce depending on how many contractors you count,

10,000-40,000 people and shrink that down to about 600 people. that is basically the elimination of most of the mission and the other point i would make their if the president doesn't have the authority to do that unilaterally. congress established usaid as an independent agency, so if you want to have a debate about folding into state, the place to do that is not mean tweets from elon musk over twitter, the place to do that is in policy debate with u.s. congress and i think all of the so far is being done outside of the law right now. host: jeremy is a former usaid executive director. if you want to asking questions about the agency and things that have been set about it, (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats, and independent, (202) 748-8002. if you want to text, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. for congressional research service said this, pursuant to

congressional notification procedures the adminisn can't proposed and execute structural changes related to usaid including shifting certain functions from usaid to state as usaid internal organizations administrations have sometimes change the internal structure, often reflecting a president foreign policy priorities and foreign assistance initiatives. does that give the president standing, so to speak? guest: that allows him to do what he did during the first administration. that is talking about internal reorganization, not shutting down the agency but reorganizing internally. so yes, if they are going to do that, they don't need to change the law, but they do need to consult with congress, and they did that. there was a significant restructuring under mark green during the first trump administration. i agree with a lot of the changes made. one of the things that they did was create a elevated humanitarian response bureau which i thought was a very good move.

and in doing that, they consulted extensively with congress so i think it really shows how differently they are operating this time. they are completely cutting congress out with no serious consultations so far, and meanwhile you have multiple senior officials saying already we have prejudged the outcome and we are basically shutting everything down before they believe you got any meaningful discussions. host: one of those critics is the director of the national security advisor to the white house who was on sunday shows talking about specific programs. i want to play portion of what he had to say. >> all too often these missions and these programs number one are not aligned with strategic u.s. interests like pushing back on china. they are doing all kinds of other things that frankly aren't in line with strategic interests or the president's vision, number one. number two, all too often only cents on the dollar actually makes it to the people in need between the big contractors,

subcontractors, the local contractors. the dollars aren't being used wisely. we need to take a hard look at it and would quickly, and that is exactly what is being done. host: so that was just a portion of what he had to say. guest: there's two basic falsehoods there. the first is that somehow what usaid is doing is not advancing strategic opposition with china. actually, usaid has extensive work, i could talk about a few examples for my own career where we were able to kind of block out maligned chinese influence through the strategic deployment of u.s. foreign aid. when we were disturbing vaccines around the world, china had been in the practice of charging countries exorbitant cost to buy their vaccines and as part of the deal, they would demand political concessions like refusing to recognize taiwan. when we were able to provide our vaccines to those same countries we get it for free. they were better vaccines, and

we were not attaching these political strings because fundamentally we were trying to work with these countries to bring the pandemic under control. china suddenly couldn't get that deal anymore. they could not extract political concessions because we were putting a better alternative on the table. what we are seeing now is in multiple countries at the u.s. draws back, china is leaving in to fill the gap and we see reports of that in nepal, in a strategic island chain in the pacific, in columbia, and papa new guinea. we are going to see that all over the place if usaid is pulled back. nothing creates a bigger opportunity for china than pulling the u.s.-back. on his claim about cents on the dollar that is a complete misunderstanding of a report that found that only 10% of usaid funding is implemented by directly locally-led organizations that is very different from saying most of the aid doesn't reach people. it does reach people, just mostly through americorps. host: david, new jersey,

republican line. caller: yes, good morning. i'd just like to ask, this is a classic liberal. he feels that he should be able to operate in the government, that elections don't count, and they have their own little fiefdom. this whole idea of it is only 1% of the u.s. budget, well 1% is a lot of money, and we are $37 trillion in debt and the left doesn't seem to even care about that. when is it going to stop? what about these programs in kenya and columbia dealing with transgender and other things that are completely against the culture of those countries? so 1%, this is what the whole left is saying, but that adds up to a lot of money. host: david from new jersey. guest: so a couple of pieces

there. first off, if you are trying to balance the federal budget deficit or eliminate the federal budget deficit on the back of foreign aid, you've already lost that fight. if you are trying to balance the budget you got to look for the money is, it simply is not for the most part in foreign aid. it is an entitlement and defense spending which is 20 times larger than foreign aid spending. so when you hear a politician saying we need to target foreign aid because of the budget deficit you automatically know they are not terribly serious about actually finding the money to found the budget. on some of the other programs that you are referencing, the white house had put out a sheet of claims of programs that it said were indicative of wasteful usaid spending including not exactly the ones you referenced, i think you are skipping a few of the things i referenced, but many including the ones that were more in there for the dia and transgender related which were not usaid programs, they

were state department programs. host: washington, democrats line. caller: hi, thank you so much for appearing this morning. i just want to ask if you could speak a little bit more about the role of congress in authorizing or getting rid of agencies. i think there's a fundamental misunderstanding with the public and many people who have called and about who can create and expand federal agencies. if you could speak on that and also about all of the losses the biden administration faced for many of its action even though they may have slow down progress, they might have had to take it different avenue to achieve their goals where presidents use their executive authority and then have to have the courts tell them that they don't have that authority. guest: they do so much. guest:that's a really important question. there was an elon musk tweet a few days into his assault on usaid, something to the effective list by executive

order die by executive order, implying that the president could just unilaterally get rid of usaid. that is a complete misreading, perhaps a willful misreading of u.s. law. originally back in 1961, president kennedy did first established usaid by executive order, but congress in 1998 passed a law that permanently and tried usaid as an independent agency under the policy of the secretary of state. you need to change that law. the president can't just unilaterally undo that, he needs to work with congress on that, and he should. our system of government is such that if you want to make major changes, you need to work between the executive and legislative branch. it's also congress that appropriates the budget, and something people don't understand very well, congress writes the usaid budget. usaid does not sit there and decide how much they are going to spend on health him human carry response and education, it's actually congress that decides that.

every year when congress does the appropriations process, they give a very detailed guidance sometimes down to the country and program of how much usaid gets to spend on different priorities. host: as a program director, what controls are there to make sure the money is being used in the most efficient way possible? guest: it starts with that appropriations process and a lot of consultation over how that money will be spent. when we were spending the covid money, congress appropriated that to us. after getting it from congress we needed to put together a proposed work plan of how we intended to spend that money that would go back through the state department and through the white house office of management and budget, and congress we need to sign off on that before we could proceed with that. so there were a lot of checks at that level. it's not usaid just deciding on its own how to spend the money, they are doing that under a great deal of congressional and white house oversight and with a lot of consultation. and once the programs are underway, usaid has some of the

most soup -- state doesn't have that. they don't manage large-scale foreign assistance in the way that usaid does, so it moves a lot of oversight and effectiveness expertise that has been built up over the years, often through congressional requirements. and then there is an independent inspector general and government accountability office oversight if something goes wrong in a program. there are investigative mechanisms to fix that. host: up next, linden is in ohio, independent line. linden. caller: good morning, gentlemen. can you hear? host: go ahead. caller: all right. i just wanted to say that this update with the usaid was very expected considering that elon musk was already promising a lot of influence with usaid and just

in general, trump and his team including mask i wish they would focus their attention toward better things like, for example, the cost of housing. i haven't heard a single thing about that, nor a single thing about skibidi toilet. host: before that the washington post highlights the fact that the 1% of the congressional fiscal 2023 to foreign aid, about $210 a year for the average taxpayer. guest: yeah. that is more than a 10 fold difference between defense and foreign aid spending. it's also important to understand that small investment in foreign aid also takes burdens off the defense department. so when we have to a robust usaid, they can respond to crises and deal with the civilian aspects of crises.

our disaster response teams have a lot of civilian capacity. occasionally they need to draw on the defense department for airlift or things like that, but that are able to excuse them back out of that mission very quickly. if you take away that civilian capacity, every time there is an earthquake for ebola outbreak, that is more burden that is going to land on the military because we got rid of the civilian capability to deal with that. one other piece here, during the ebola outbreak we talked about how much it would take to run treatment years -- usaid vs. do d. host: jeremy used to work at usaid, now with the president of refugees international. what is that? guest: refugees international is a humanitarian advocacy organization. we specifically focus on the humanitarian refugee sector. we work with refugee activists and leaders around the world and we work with allies and supporters of refugees and

humanitarian response here in the united states to advance policy and uphold in a moment like this, uphold the effectiveness and the rights of foreign aid and humanitarian aid and the rights of people. host: if usaid funding is cut, is your organization affected and are similar organizations affected? guest: we don't take u.s. government funding because we always maintain a lot of independence and that is one of the reasons i'm able to gather talking about they are afraid of retaliation from the government. obviously the mission and the things that we care about will be devastated by this. this will have huge devastating impact on people and crises all over the world. host: las vegas, democrats line. caller: hi, i have to agree with jeremy on that.

people understand there's a lot of diseases and stuff that we don't want to have come over here and i think if they really look back at deals with companies like tesla and who you think that is going to benefit what we are doing is generating a gap for places like china to fill. guest: one interesting to to stay, in the period since the presidential election, elon musk's personal wealth has increased by several times more than the annual budget of usaid. on your point on diseases, that

is a really important one. i helped to lead the u.s. government response to ebola outbreak in 2014 and we mounted a really robust response in west africa because we were very concerned for the help of those countries but also to prevent that from reaching the united states. so we zoomed forward to today, there was a very frightening outbreak of ebola beginning right now in uganda. and the u.s. is pretty much missing in action. cdc is totally muzzled, they are not allowed to talk to other organizations. we pulled out of the world health organization. normally cdc and who would be joined at the hip any response like this and usaid can't deploy. host: this is from james in virginia, republican line. a little short on time so jump in with your question or comment. caller: when i'm confused by, there's 10,000 employees that have a blank checkbook to write a check like sesame street in

iraq for $20 million and they don't answer to the state department. i don't understand. why is politico getting eight million dollars in subscription fees? c-span could probably use that money more helpfully. i mean, why is congress and people that are here not looking at the books? guest: thanks for raising a couple of those points. you have been lied to, none of those things are true. the sesame street thing is true but valid. the politico thing is totally untrue and has been debunked. that there is a politico pro subscription that is a news service that usaid subscribes to. a lot of the public and offices on capitol hill subscribe to that as well. that subscription was $44,000 a year, not $8 million a year. that was some people at doge who didn't know how to reexpress properly. in terms of the sesame street example, that is actually a really important type of

intervention to rebuild cohesion in a wartime country after a conflict. it may sound a little bit trite or a little bit not serious, but you think about the kind of profound effects that sesame street has had here, and i grew up watching sesame street, and for many people in my generation did, it gives us kind of a basis for a common bond as a country. iraq really needs things like that right now so there are a lot of -- i see that as a really innovative way and a pretty low cost way relative to deploying u.s. troops to try to rebuild some social cohesion after so many years of war. host: jeremy giving us perspective on usaid, his work at refugees international. thanks for your time. guest: my pleasure. host: joining us now from capitol hill to talk about the latest when they come to the budget and other things, represented of ralph norman, republican of south carolina and

also a member of the budget committee and the house freedom caucus. representative norman, good morning. guest: good morning. host: there reporting this morning that the house freedom caucus has its own vision of a project, can you tell us more? guest: we have two resolutions that really were bored because we haven't been able to get together. i am on the budget committee but we had been able to put anything out. i think that may change, there is a meeting going on now, but the bottom line is the freedom caucus putting on paper in the first is the addresses the deportation and the fact that our military is just way underfunded and the things that are going to the military are not what we need. spending of $200 billion, offset with $486 billion in cuts. cuts like the giveaway student loans. cuts like the mandates.

cuts like funding that is illegals can take advantage of now. as a result we are saving 286 billion dollars instead of spending. so the great part about what we are doing is we ought to be able to do this, it increases the debt limit to $4 trillion to the president has leverage of his own and not chuck schumer. that is the first one. the second one we just got last night is a thing that covers what the president wants it no tax on tips, no tax on social security if you wait until you are 70. in the big thing is the tax cuts that president trump had during his administration. it started in 2017 and extended for 10 years. that's the good news.

also additional savings and cuts, things that should have been five years ago. those are the two, and we shouldn't need any democrat support because it is not like they would support it anyway. host: our guest has to go to that meeting but a little short segment. if you want to ask them questions about these efforts, (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8002, independents. we will show you that outline of what has been introduced by the freedom caucus when it comes to their approach to the budget. representative norman, what reaction did you get fm leadership of this? guest: we will find out at 9:00 this morning. andy harris, the president of the freedom caucus has had some conversation, and i get that it is like herding cats with all the different mindsets that he has to put together, but this is bare-bones.

we are running out of time. we wasted a lot of time talking about it. we had a retreat. it's time to put it in action and do what we say we are going to do to the american people, which is cut the deficit, but unneeded programs as doge is showing, and let's get the job and move on. our plans are pretty simple but they have numbers and it makes sense. host: you said you were waiting on reaction from house speaker, do you think he will meet you all the way on this? guest: no, i do not. i don't know what figure he has. he's trying to get the 218 as i mentioned, so we will see what comes up. the bottom line is we can't keep going like we are going. we've heard the figures, $37 trillion in debt, that's a real number, something nobody can disagree with. so how did you get back? it's not by spending more. you have to have offsets and that is what this intends to do. host: it was on the senate side

that the senate chuck schumer talked about republicans, their effort on the budget, particularly when it says the larger issue of tax cuts. i want to play you a little of what he had to say and get your reaction to it. >> it could be 50 bills, i don't care. it all comes down to the same thing. the end goal for republicans to pass gargantuan tax cuts for donald trump and their billionaire friends. cut the daylights out of everything else. medicaid, medicare, school lunches, prescription drug reform, medical research. the american people are going to learn this as we move forward and i don't think they are going to like it. host: saw representative, that is how he characterizes your efforts. how would you respond to that? guest: that is hogwash. here is better -- well, maybe he doesn't know better than that. his plan is to spend this

country into oblivion and have the kind of rhetoric that he's always had. no, it's not cutting medicare, it is reforming it. obama had the largest expansion of medicaid in history. and work requirements. he's opposed to that. he's opposed to anything that is not spending money. we just have a philosophical disagreement, which is no secret to all of us who are trying to put this country back on the fiscal path of sanity. what is his plan? spend more, and that doesn't make sense. host: medicare, what would that be envisioning look like? guest: it is about granting dollars to the states to let them decide how it should be allocated. getting illegals off any federal program including medicaid. and i would say that the ones that really help put some dollars to good use is getting people who can work off

medicaid. we have a lot of able-bodied adults who are audit and it is just taking it, let the states decided, but having outlines that says what they can and can't do, if you are able-bodied, you shouldn't be on medicaid. it is not that complicated. host: representative ralph norman, this is dave in new york, independent line. caller: good morning. my comment is this is all about government spending and about waste. but recently, back when they issued those ppp loans, i saw in pro public a list of all the people that got these loans. people that really i don't think need them because they do it by zip code. and they all got forgiven. and i'm wondering what is the

strategy there? they say something like less than 23% of them were actually used for payroll protection, and they bought avionics for jet planes and things of that nature. host: so what would you like the guest to address specifically? >> why do we address collecting some of that money? guest: great question. there is money that is unspent from covid that we are going to try to call back and quit paying the debts. covid is over with. you are right, a lot of them did have strings attached to it. a lot of the banks that have the authority to issue the money, it was made to customers. not being paid back is something that should not have been tolerated. a lot of it went to workers. we got a small part with the hotels in south carolina.

but overall, the money needs to be called back on anything left over and i think that would be on the president's agenda as he moves forward. host: michigan, sam, democrats line. caller: hello. you seem to be pretty concerned about clawing back money, wasteful not eating spent. maybe you could take into consideration the $250 million that trump's friend golfing at mar-a-lago and around the country. 80 you could claw back some of that money instead letting them ride around in golf carts? i know you are pretty worried about the money so maybe go after trumps money. keep the hell out the golf course. guest: it's amazing you say that, you are a typical drum hater. trump has not taken a salary. the reason he got a 77 million votes that is country went to

catherine donald trump is because he delivers everything he says. he loves america unlike the other president and the doge commission, he is finding things they should have been examined a long time ago. and he had the forethought to get somebody like elon musk one might add is kinda successful in the private sector, unlike a lot of politicians. he's done a great service to this country. you and i just have a philosophical disagreement on donald trump. he could spend his money like he wants to. he likes golf. what about joe biden, he couldn't even do a press conference. he took more days off sleeping and away from the job, what about that? host: when it comes to elon musk, what i can ability should he have directed to congress? guest: elon musk is unpaid. i look on him as an investigative arm. he's not making laws. what he doing that the democrats are so mad, he is uncovering fraud and abuse. and i was listening in on the $20 million spent in iraq for

sesame street books. is that really a priority? what about the $16 million for inclusion in vietnam? is that a priority? the analogy the democrats are using is, if the make sense. the priorities are missing. all of your listeners, but we all have in common, we examine our own budgets. what elon musk is doing is uncovering fraud and abuse and letting the american people decide. and the biggest thing, it is not their money. the taxpayers money. let's uncover it and let the american people decide and they will render a verdict and i think he will be in agreement with donald trump and elon musk. host:'s investigation as you talked about directly affecting usaid and workers. that goes back to the question of who checks his power. guest: the only power that elon

musk has is his brainpower to be able to go into these agencies and find out where the money was actually spent. the algorithms only he is able to do. a politician doesn't have the wherewithal or really the mechanism to go in and examine it. elon musk does and guess where he is going next? the department of education. this is just one agency. usaid is one agency right now, the staggering part, the $154 million that they found that went to other countries, to other things, that is completely insane. america is on a financial cliff and for anybody to think any differently, i don't understand their logic. host: this is on the republican line, north carolina, sandra, hello. caller: i have a question for the representative.

i'm confused about no taxes on tips and overtime. you saying that a waitress or someone who makes $100,000 in tips pays no taxes while a firefighter, teacher, secretary or a lawyer does? and then no tax on overtime, most people want overtime because they get double pay. so are you saying that those who get the opportunity to make extra don't need to pay tax, but those who don't get that opportunity do? guest: good question. the no tax on tips took off when donald trump said that some of those hardest hit in the u.s. economy were during covid, people didn't go out to eat and every waitress i've ever known as one of the hardest working people that i know of. they are on their feet all day, they are at the whim of people who decide to give or not give. it is going to have to be fleshed out in the details which we don't know yet, but it is a

starting point at least, and it is a slippery slope. where you stop it? that will be born as we move forward. each one of you can judge if it is fair or not. host: this is from ralph in d.c., independent line. caller: you know, we've got guantanamo bay open and now we are talking about fraud. i've got a good thing for waterboarding and guantanamo bay. these people took hundreds of millions of dollars that you want to claw back. i want to put these people in prison. i want to take the u.s. citizenship and make sure that we take everything they've got. but that is just one thing. and in all this complaining that elon musk has got access to our social security numbers, elon musk is worth $1 trillion. he's taking no money for this. do you think he really wants to take your social security check? the media is feeding the fear

machine that elon musk is going to take all your money and he's going to take the country's money and everybody is going to be poor. no, he is trying to save the country because we are going on exponential lies in our debt. for those folks out there who don't understand what that means, that means in about 5-10 years we are going to be paying so much in interest we are not going to have room on the budget to pay for anything else. and if we don't stop it and put the brakes on hard, this country is going to face something that is much worse than the great depression in the near future. host: that is ralph and washington, d.c. guest: is worse than that. interest alone now we approach the entire military budget of $850 billion. what elon musk is doing is just presenting it to the american people. let them decide. if they want to spend money on sesame seed books in foreign countries, if they want to pay

for condoms and other countries, let the american people judge. but so far from what i've heard is just what you said. people are excited. finally government has got -- and is exposing them. elon musk is just putting things on the table and it is not the government's money. he doesn't need social security, he doesn't need anybody's money. he loves america is the bottom line. he loves freedom. host: remind people in the deadline is for funding and your concerns leading up to that deadline. guest: the 14th. that is why we've got the raising the debt ceiling with cuts to give the president leverage and not have to deal with chuck schumer. when march 14 comes, which is sooner rather than later and we haven't done anything. that is why the freedom caucus put our plans out in two steps and all makes sense and puts money back in the treasury. host: let's take one more call from katrina in georgia,

democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'd like to state that the representative truly has a great bit of audacity to be on tv speaking like this party does not have wasteful spending. it takes both parties to sign a bill and pass funding, and my question to him is how far would he let elon musk go into a senator's pocketbook to find out exactly where they are getting extra money from since you allow it to everyone else's personal information. guest: katrina, tell me where he's getting into personal information. is he going to go into saturn's money this? any american that took money from usaid is going to expose. let the american side. it is the government's money.

it is taxpayers money. that is what the left doesn't understand. he doesn't care where it leads to, his investigations are enabling us to have a front row seat of your money is going on april 15 when you pay taxes, or my money is going. and every state ought to be doing with donald trump is doing for the country. host: talk about is meeting you have to go to, what is the nature of the meeting? guest: the meeting is the budget committee is responsible for putting out a resolution, reconciliation and what we are coming up with is baseline dollars to put on paper and jodey arrington, who's doing a good job, we are going over numbers. host: what is your ideal version of the reconciliation bill? guest: that a baseline of $2

trillion to cut with an aspiration of tube one $5 trillion, my aspirations are to have meaningful cuts and usaid which should have been cut a long time ago. you go into student loan forgiveness, work requirements, that is all basics that i think the american people agree with regardless of whether you're are democrat or independent. we are americans. the debt numbers don't lie. host: representative ralph moorman of south carolina, thanks for your time today. coming up at about 40 minutes we we are from kent last sermon at the competitive enterprise institute, discussing recommendations they are making in congress about reducing the amount of regulation that takes in washington, d.c. but first, open forum. (202) 748-8001 republicans.

(202) 748-8000, democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues. >> john dickinson is one of the most significant founders of the united states who is not well known by all the american public. author jane calvert is trying to change that with her new biography "penman of the founding." john dickinson is known for his nine essays under the title fabius published anonymously in newspapers during the time that the states were deciding on whether to approve the new constitution. john dickinson of maryland, delaware and pennsylvania was the only founding figure present and active in every phase of the revolution from the stamp act crisis to the ratification of the constitution.

>> author jane calvert talks about her book "penman of the founding" on this episode of booknotes+ it is available on the c-span free mobile app or wherever you podcasts. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's 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. 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 few with guarding its principles. it is where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the

nation courses charted. democracy in real-time. this is your government at work. this is c-span. giving you your democracy unfiltered. washington journal continues. host: this is open forum and if you want to participate you can call the phone lines. as always you can send us a text and also post on her social media sites throughout the day on facebook and on xp. washington time highlighting an event from yesterday late in the afternoon. the president saying that he will put a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports. this is the headline, here is the president from the oval office yesterday talking at his action. >> and we are going to also be talking about things over the next three weeks that i think will be amazing for our country. amazing for our jobs.

that will bring us to a new level of prosperity. and i think frankly our allies and our enemies all over the world expected this. they really expected it for years. they really expected sometime during the biden administration but they didn't do anything. as you know, i put tariffs on china. we took in hundreds of billions of dollars for this tariffs and bite and wasn't able to get them out. he tried to, but couldn't do it. and we are going to be doing a very concise and it's going to be good. and i don't think if done properly, and we are going to try and do that, we don't want to hurt other countries, but they've been taking advantage of us for years and years and years, and they charged us tariffs. most of them have charged us, almost everyone of us without exception. they charged us, we haven't charged them. and it is time to be reciprocal.

you will be hearing that word a lot. reciprocal. if they charge us, we charge them. if they are 25, we are 25. and if they are much higher than 25, that is where we are. that is having to do with everything. that is not just steel and aluminum but we will be discussing that over the next couple of weeks. but we will be looking at ships, and we will be looking at cars, and we are going to be looking pharmaceuticals and the couple of other things also in addition. host: democrats line. caller: i've been watching this program since it started years ago. for everybody to stand back and take a birds eye view of our

situation and our country. everybody is focusing on insignificant stuff. elon musk wants to get in there to hide all of the corruption and scamming he has already done. he is going to hide that and he's going to set it up to do more. president trump is dictated by stephen miller, people like that. project 2025. that is what is going on. so let's start worrying about this stuff. the pentagon, the government, that is where the money is. that is what they want to do. he's not going to mess with our social security or none of that.

they are hiding money up there. host: ohio, republican line. caller: hello, i'm calling here today, i'm on a business network that gives $50 million to new york to keep the illegal immigrants often luxury hotels. i think they just slipped it through. host: ohio. things to watch out for in the next day or so, tulsi gabbard the nominee to become director of national intelligence is one step closer to confirmation after the senate crossed a procedural hurdle monday. senators voted 52-40 six to approve a motion on her nomination to vote on the confirmation as soon as late tuesday on most members agree to shorten the time for debate. john thune praised her on a speech highlighting her plans to focus on identifying and eliminating redundancies and

inefficiencies to prosecute leakers to the fullest end of the law and also highlights the fact that republicans move her through committee on a party-line vote. senator john fetterman of pennsylvania and thom tillis, republican of north carolina missing to vote. let's hear from florida, independent line. caller: good morning, c-span. yeah, i'm calling because that first caller had it right on the head. he wasn't articulating himself for the clearly, but the big money is up in congress. at senator that you just had on, he didn't answer the question about what is going into his finances. i think elon musk should have started with the irs and other tax loopholes because that is where all the revenue is. if they got all the revenue, everybody is getting away without paying their taxes.

they actually have commercials on tv to show you how to get tax breaks down and not pay your full expenditures and taxes. so yeah, go after the money, but go after the big money. what they are going after right now was hurting all the people who don't have the money to defend themselves and help themselves. so yeah, why go after the little money when you could go after the big money? elon musk, he doesn't want to have the irs searched by himself. he's not going to search himself for all the tax loopholes he's been getting. so yeah, i think the first guy was right. go after the big money. host: ok. new york, democrats line. caller: morning. this is so unbelievable because i get that you guys are going crazy. the gentleman said before that elon musk doesn't need a paycheck. of course he doesn't but he made over $1 billion in the space of

a month. what is he going to do next? nelson mandela is rolling over in his grave. elon musk is from south africa, he doesn't need his money. what is he going to do next, implement his language in our school system? you need to talk about this man because he doesn't need a paycheck, he's already making it. and if he wants to cut money or save money, what about the governing contract? is he going to cut some of that money from the waist and his company? how is that going to work? host: robert, republican line. caller:caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. c-span shows the truth of who is shooting what. basically, our whole nation, in a matter of party, hello? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: wherever we are, the

mindset we have, we need to figure out the part of agreeing to disagree. the things we agree on our what we need to deal with. we all agree that we are in death. i learned as a youngster to balance out life's finances with what i need and what i want. i take care of my needs and my wants have to wait. i haven't had a vacation in 10 years straight. but i learned to pay my bills. now i don't have to worry about a mortgage payment, because i took care of the need. that is what america needs to do. that's what every citizen needs. to get a response from the congress. host: charlie, new york,

independent line. caller: hello? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: just a couple of things. i mean, it's like a whirlwind of things going on from trump every day. couple of things i'm wondering about. you see him writing all the time. i'm wondering if he is writing to annex -- writing x because he can't sign or if it represents mr. musk. gaza, the thing with gaza, some people are wondering what the heck he's talking about in terms of he's ready to buy it. i guess he wants to put up a trump tower east, maybe, in there. i have heard on the news, so much news coming out with what he's doing, this that in the other and what he wants to do.

i heard pbs and npr are being basically, because i'm not sure if they get some money from the government or whatever, but they have some issues where i heard a little bit in terms of that they may be affected by what he wants to do. i'm just wondering, where does c-span stand in relation to anything that trump might want to do which might affect negatively c-span? that's my question to you, because you are one of the more independent entities that is out there to listen to. unless you go on the bbc or npr. for the bbc. host: i appreciate the question, thank you for it. as far as c-span is concerned,

sticking to the financing, we've said this over the years ad nausea, probably, we don't take any federal funds and we are funded by the cable industry. cable operators are ultimately, the people with cable support us and what we do and in these times we are looking for other means of revenue. you have probably seen us talk about direct donations, things like that. that's where it 62 with the funding issue. caller: in light of what you just said, can i ask you a follow-up? in terms of the zuckerberg's, bezos changing direction, the cable companies possibly could put pressure on c-span from the president and his minions putting pressure on them to basically say -- hey, c-span needs to do this or do that. host: thank you for the question as well and i will say our cable

operators support us and thank us -- and we thank them for it and allow us independence in terms of programming and what we do and what we air, with no influence or interference. thank you for the questions, for both of them. let's go to maxine in maryland. democrats line. hello. caller: it's hi -- hi. i was just wondering, when trump took office and he was saying that he was going to do this and do this like -- hi? host: let me tell you, you are probably listening to yourself on television, you will hear a delay. go ahead with your comment. caller: when trump took office, he was saying that he was going to do this and do that. you know, i hadn't heard anything on matters around what we need to be focusing on. host: such as what?

caller: so -- supposed to be focusing on childcare, food care and whatnot. it's why can these two parties not get together and work together on this and get these matters straightened out? everyone is bickering. so. host: ok. maxine, maryland there. a couple of things you might not have seen in the trump administration coverage. the former governor of illinois, rod blagojevich, issued a pardon five years after his sentence was can admit -- commuted. he was convicted of trying to sell the senate seat of barack obama, had his prison sentence commuted in 2020, and other president has gone a step further and granted him a full pardon, saying "i determined to

do what i can is a private citizen to fight for justice and do what i think is right. out for liberty -- fort liberty is changing its name again. the secretary signed a memorandum declaring the army would rename it back to fort bag -- fort bragg. according to hegseth, it will be named after private first class roland bragg who served during the battle of the bulge, who drove a stolen german ambulance 20 miles to get a wounded soldier to an allied hospital in belgium. he was stationed at the installation. let's go to marshall, florida, republican line. caller: what i'm wondering about is why are the democrats and republicans both worried, are

they worried that elon musk is going to find out what they have done wrong or where the money's going? this is what we need to find out. the democrats or the republicans, if they have committed fraud, ok, and took money and put money where it don't belong, they should, they should be, they should been tried and made to pay it back. what be convicted. i can't understand why the democrats, to be honest with you, is so afraid of this, of trying to block trump from having all this stuff done. i don't think it's just the democrats. i think at some of the republicans, too. i really believe that.

thank you for your time, you have a good day. host: joseph, maryland, hello. caller: why not look at these congressmen and senators who come in as middle-class people and then leave as billionaires after 30, 40 years, manipulating stocks, hiring their mothers, their cousins, their fathers as staff. how much waste is that? that's the question. host: darlene joins us from florida, hello, you are next up. caller: i have a couple of comments, i guess. regarding musk and the usaid, i think it's all smoke and mirrors. i have been reading articles that the usaid inspector general was investigating musk's spacex star link satellite terminals

regarding russia and ukraine. the other thing is, have you ever noticed when you ask a representative a question, they can never give you a straight yes or no answer? my last thing is, didn't obama have doge? my concern is that these people are not vetted, they should do it up and above board and not close all of these departments. they should do it well these people are still working. host: darlene in florida. several democrats gathered in front of the consumer financial protection bureau to express their concerns about its future in light of what's going on in washington. the hill reporting that elizabeth moran slammed the efforts to shutter the bureau as another scam. you can see the whole event that took place on c-span. here's a portion from elizabeth warren over concerns of the cfpb. [video clip]

>> donald trump and elon musk have told the financial cops at the cfpb to stand down. now, think about this. i want you to think about this for a minute. no matter how big the scam, no matter how bold the trap, they have said -- just stand by and let the wall street boys take your money. [crowd boos] we are here to fight back. we want our financial cops back on the beat. yup. this is a fight. i want you to watch to the fight is between. this is a fight between millions of hard-working people who just don't want to get cheated and a handful of billionaires like elon musk who want the chance to cheat them.

host: again, the full event is available on our platforms. bonnie, ohio, republican line, hello. caller: nice to be with you. hi i was listening about what the last you just showed, warren, giving that. if the democrats knew what they are doing, they are making fools out of themselves. getting out there like a bunch of fighting little kids. i'm so proud to be a republican now. i used to be a democrat. trump is doing exactly what he ran on. he is showing all the waste in our country. elon is not even charging anything and he's an honest man pulling the dirt out of what's going on. he's saving the country money. they are worried that he's going to get in on their money coming in from corruption. so, they are just having a fit. well, they are never going to get themselves back into office

acting like that. it's stupid, not letting him put the people through on nominations. houtman, doing a sit in for 30 some hours, just being like babies. it's disgusting. i am so proud of our president, i'm proud to say he's our president. i didn't say that about the last president. i was embarrassed. thank you for letting me speak my piece. host: bonnie, ohio. stephen, independent line, hello. caller: good morning. i did some research into the stuff going on with elon musk going around, deputized by the president and as a deputy he has the powers of a sheriff in the united states to interpret the constitution. the executive branch in 1963 created that usa building in the

workforce and established other non-elected by the people institutions that run government and shuffle the money around. the judges have no legislative right in the u.s. to block any type of closures or seizures of information that lead to fraud. the people who have been defrauded, i was born in 62, so do the math. there's a lot of stuff that's going down that's got to be corrected. millions and millions and millions of dollars was taken from us. when i was a junior in high school. they closed the bank. my dad had to close the bank account saving for college because it automatically taxed as income. so, we liquidated our accounts so that they couldn't take the tax money out of our child savings. now, this has been going on for

how many years? the judges stepped in, block to this. they have no right. they didn't create these institutions. the executive branch did. host: ok, that's stephen in pennsylvania. jd vance making his appearance on the world stage, outlining the intelligence policies of the trump administration. prioritizing deregulation, protection of free speech and u.s. workers, calling at the dawn of a new industrial revolution. he made the comments in paris saying that he's not here to talk about safety, which was the title of the conference, i'm here to talk about opportunity. the trump administration believes ai will have countless revolutionary applications and economic implications for job creation in national security, health care, free expression and beyond, restricting the benefits now will mean paralyzing one of

the most promising technologies we have seen in generations. this administration will make sure american ai technology will be the gold standard worldwide. we are the partner of choice for other foreign countries and businesses as they expand use of ai." there you see video of the vice president's travels. ron, south carolina, democrats line, open forum, hello. caller: good morning. i have a couple of comments. i have no fight in this battle. i see elon musk as having a job to do. i want him to complete the job. just because he says he finds fraud, we don't know, it's an allegation, he needs the doj to come in and get lawyers involved and put these people on trial if there is something illegal going on. instead he just starts another fire somewhere else, making people more upset over different

things, saying there is fraud and theft and everything. he needs to finish one job before he goes to the next job. the doj is open, they ain't doing nothing else. i want americans to quit looking, have one job completed before they go to another job. thank you. host: iowa, republican line, let's hear from mike. caller: good morning, pedro. yeah, i would like to see the republicans maybe get a couple of democrats and put them with elon musk to help him go through all of the wasteful spending, just to see how the democrats react about that. if they get a couple of people in their own party in there to help assist musk.

maybe that would calm them down a little bit. so. it would be interesting. all right, thank you. host: this is from the hill, president hosting the king of jordan today as he escalates pressure on arab nation to taken refugees from gaza permanently as a part of his audacious plan to remake the middle east. ongoing cease-fire in gaza. pausing in the releases of hostages, of all of those remaining in captivity, look for that from the c-span networks later today. bill, michigan, independent line, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. thanks for taking my call. i've been watching this program for years. it's upsetting to me the way the people are, the government and

the individuals, they don't believe what they see. starting with afghanistan, starting with the border. the chaotic stuff, it's like the american people are blind. you watch it and don't believe what you see? believe what we tell you. president trump telling you what you are going to do? can't pay nothing. now he's doing it and these people can't believe it. like you said, common sense. he showed you. he didn't tell you what he was going to do without coming back out and showing you like biden did. he did. ok? he said that if he got to be president, he was going to show the american people and every day he would tell you what he's going to do and it's common sense. if you don't want to save your

tax money, you know, he won't do it. he can only get away with so much. all he's doing is showing you where the government waste is. these people don't want to know and don't believe in it? i just don't understand why they can't see something and try to believe in it. he's not going to get away with doing something illegal that he can't get away with. host: ok. that's bill in michigan. one more call from john in new york, democratic line. caller: i'm a democrat who voted for trump for one reason. the democrats open to the whole mass. if they didn't do that, if they were smart on immigration, if they were correct on immigration, probably wouldn't have trump today. i called up c-span. i was warning about these caravans of illegals. caravans. it's going to come back to bite

the democrats. and it did. now, elon musk, i tend to not trust him. he looks like a psycho to me. but i'm going to let him kind of go and, you know, keep an open mind about it. but he just doesn't seem trustworthy. lastly, the congressman that you had earlier, when he was mentioning that they were going to reform social security and medicare? whenever you hear republicans talk about reforming social security and medicare, that's cuts. they are looking at cuts. wake up, people. we didn't all go to trump university. wake up. host: ok, john from syracuse, new york, thank you to those who participated. one more segment to go, we are taking a look at the amount of regulations made by the federal government and particularly what the trump administration should

be doing in that space. joining us for that discussion, can last min --kent lassman, the president and ceo. that's coming up next on "washington journal." ♪ >> nonfiction book lovers, listen to best-selling authors in interviewers on the afterwards podcast. hear wide-ranging conversations with nonfiction authors and others who are making things happen. book notes plus episodes are weekly hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors on a wide variety of topics. find all the podcasts by downloading the free c-span now after four wherever you get your podcasts, our website, c-span.org/podcasts >> listening

to programs on c-span through c-span radio is easy. listen to washington journal daily at 7 a.m. eastern with a -- for public affairs events throughout the day. listen to c-span any time, tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio. c-span, created by cable. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find anything on about work. he is hearings, debates, and other markers got moved to really highlight the points of interest markers are on the right hand side of your screen you hit play on the selected videos. the timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. school -- scroll through and spend a few minutes on points of interest.

>> democracy 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 regarding the basic principles. it's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the course of the nation 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: kent lassman this is -- this is kent lassman, how do you explain your institute to other people? guest: at the competitive enterprise institute we are focused on economic regulation, primarily things that come out of the federal government from bureaus, agencies, departments, regulations, rules that tell us how to get along and run our

businesses. host: how does regulation determine all of that and how the federal government operate? guest: it's about how businesses do their job, their work, how they interact with customers, how they purchase, sell, and advertise. where they can locate will not locate facilities. all of that is the regulation created here in washington and it affects the rest of america. there is also very process. how do we go about creating those rules? how do we change them? how do we adjudicate when there's a conflict? the bureau of land management at the department of the interior says you are not allowed to do such and such on your land if you disagree and think it's not a problem?

those procedural norms are created through regulation. we have studied and made decisions on both sides. host: the biden administration, i imagine you compared and how are you seeing that in comparison to the first couple weeks of the trump administration? guest: the first few weeks into this four-year administration, we are watching what we see every four years or every time there is a changeover from one president to another, which is to say there is a pause. every time there is a new team, they come into town issue an announcement to agency heads and they say put a freeze around what we are creating an what's moving to the system. overall when we look at the last four years, there was a great degree of growth in the rate of new regulation.

last year we had 26 new regulations from every law passed by congress. previously, that sort of index has been as low as 19. so, when we are looking at 100,000 pages of regulation coming through the system and asking the american people to know it, to understand and how it affects a today lives, my sense is that that is too much. too many regulators doing too many things, telling us how to work our lives into many ways. host: the topic of regulation can feel more for us. give us an example of how it can impact someone's life. guest: congress has established a goal for connectivity to the internet, telecommunications. we have a series of programs across the federal government, a dozen of them, to provide connectivity, access, subsidies, all sorts of different ways to

increase americans access to the internet. well, at the federal communications commission, they have to not only manage the program, the principal program is the lead program, but they have to set the rules for how you apply and what you will receive. there are schools and libraries across the country that are, according to congress, then granted the privilege of having subsidized service and they then need to follow large manuals of rules about how to get the service. on a day to day basis we have seen schools hiring people to administer to the subsidy grant program rather than hire people to teach or instruct children. that's the sort of thing where it doesn't take many steps to get from the objective of congress all the way down to real life affects for cities and towns across america. host: that all being said,

what's your philosophy on how an administration should handle regulation? guest: at the top level it's to allow more people to live their life in their own way. that means all regulation doesn't have to come from the government. we regulate every day through purchasing power. when you decide to subscribe or not subscribe, when i picked out a diner to go to this morning, do i go to the neighborhood coffee shop or do i had downtown or go to the office here? that's a form of regulation. there are other forms that include private standard settings. we like to see rules that are broadly were generally applicable. it's not political considerations. a broad rule applies to all and

it becomes easier to administer. lower costs. also easier for people to understand. when it is easier to understand, it's more predictable, they can make better investment decisions and everything comes along much better. host: the discussion here with kent lassman of the competitive enterprise institute. you can call in by using the lines, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can text us, (202) 748-8003. on your website, there's regulation on the agency level. the most recent posting said there were 29 issued in the last week, 28 the previous week. that's on pace for over 3000 in this year. and then adding that when it comes to 2024, 3200 plus on the

agency level, is that rate concerning at this point? guest: absolutely, you're putting your finger on not just of this flow we have every year of 3000 new regulations to digest by the american people, but we also have a stock of regulation. all the regulation that has been built up for a little more than 100 years now. one feature of our regulatory state is that it is much easier to create new regulation than it is to either amend or repeal an existing rule. as a result, we just keep accumulating and accreting more and more of these obligations for people that all come with the force of law. host: when it comes to advising congress on the amount of regulation or advising the white house, what conversations have you had with this congress and

its leadership and what has been the response? guest: the very first thing we did was create an agenda for congress, it's on our website and its progrowth. we took a look at 15 different categories of economic activity and regulation and we made proposals for congress using the following criteria. we ask ourselves not what would be ideal or perfect from our analyst point of view, but what could possibly attract support from across the aisle. we have 51 proposals here for congress that we think should engender support from across the aisle and each of which would do something positive for economic growth and prosperity and to help make america and our economy a bit more dynamic. host: we just heard from capitol hill this morning, congress on the republican and senate side are trying to come up with a

budget. that is there space to limit the amount of regulations involved. guest: absolutely. first and foremost, this isn't a joke, it's axiomatic. regulators will regulate. fewer regulatory agencies with less legal authority would be a good thing. as i mentioned earlier, we have 460 rulemaking bodies. these are bureaus and offices, departments and agencies. that is not the path towards a healthy economy. the first thing that they can do with their budget process is look at the scope of all the different places in ways that we regulate and pull some of that back. host: it'shost: if your concern -- some of that back. host: if your concern is on the agency level, what do you make of the elon musk work? guest: it's not a short answer. there's something interesting that the president put his finger on with the distaste for

the way that our government operates. so, the doge activity started as a line in a speech in early september and it transformed itself into some sort of meme campaign and it's now at the fairly early stages just a few weeks into some sort of operationalized program. that program, what we can say about it is that it's moving quickly and it's not clear what standards and legal protections and whatnot apply. those things are being sorted literally day by day. i'm overall quite optimistic that that project doge, this project of elon musk and others is something that has done at least one very good thing, it has captivated the attention of capitol hill, where the attention should be focused, on how the government operates.

the constitution puts congress in article one for a reason. it's the primary organ of our government. we are asking congress to take more care and be more deliberative and do a little bit more work organizing the nature of our federal government. doge has been a spot light, if nothing else. host: would you say that congress should be doing the work that doge is currently doing? guest: as a general rule, oversight is the job of congress. they are to pass laws that says what government does and make sure that the executive branch does those things. for a long time, we have had a very unhealthy relationship where congress says we will pass a law, empower the agency to do something, then look away and not pay attention. if something ever goes wrong, if there is ever a scandal, if a goal is not met, we will blame the agency.

this sort of spotlight is stripping away that negative relationship we have had in the past and letting congress say -- wait a minute, we don't actually understand how all these agencies operate. host: as far as the frito prosper message for congress that cei has, you can find it on their website. jason, texas, independent line, you are up first for our guest, kent lassman, of the competitive enterprise institute. caller: well, thank you for taking my call. the question i have is that right now around the country there are many software technical workers whose jobs are being outsourced overseas. you don't hear a lot being talked about that. that's a case where regulation can help the, the, the average worker. so, what, it's talked about that

it's america first. so, how can we help our technical workers not lose our jobs? guest: i think the most important thing that can happen with a portion, a sector of the economy, a type of job undergoing rapid change is to allow those people and to those employees to have opportunities to get reestablished. so, there are two basic methods. you can try to protect and hold on to something slipping away because it is moving in this case, certain tech jobs are moving overseas, or you can create an environment where for every job going overseas, we have 10 new ones created. it's the latter approach that is the most important. and it's not just for tech jobs. it's the same as we have four steel tariffs and the same discussion that we have

year-over-year when it comes to dynamic change. host: georgina in miami, florida, republican line. caller: i'm a democrat, actually. host: i'm going to stop you, there. please call the line that best represents you. independent line, louise, hello. caller: hey, good morning, pedro. i appreciate you cutting people off when they call the long line. -- the wrong line. you have your opportunity. i think i like the doge a lot. what's the chances of us being able to keep this going? i really appreciate it. i retired from the government. i know exactly where we can cut waste. i see it. i know they have so much money that they can spend before the fiscal year and they have to use as much as they can to keep the budget high and i really appreciate seeing this going on. what are the chances it's going to stay, that's my question.

guest: thank you, louise. i think you are tapped into something that both ramaswamy and musk talked about early in the process, which is they wanted help and insight from people working in these agencies and in these programs, those are the people who know best how they operate, where they work well and where they failed to get the job done. what's going to be most important is not all of the excitement about naming the problems and the spotlight effect i referenced a few minutes ago. but in the coming months, to make this durable or really make this keep going, as you said, we are going to see that there is a problem presented to congress. the problem is will they take a vote that might imperil some portion of an agency that is favored at home? in order to tackle waste or

duplication or problems across the board, they are going to have to, probably, take votes that also grow their own ox -- gore their own ox a little bit. that collective action problem is something congress has done before, but it's rare. my hope is that all of the energy and activity of the past few weeks can get them excited enough that they are willing to do something serious about the way the government operates. host: you put the onus on congress, but to what degree do you think that congress will say, particularly congress -- republican members, that doge doing that, let them do it. guest: they might do that, but it's irresponsible, congress is responsible for the government is structured and if they don't want to take responsibility for that and write a law that authorizes or does not authorize these programs, then our next

available opportunity is to vote them out of office. host: the president in one of his early executive orders at that for every regulation put into place in his administration, they are going to dismiss 10 of them. what challenges does he face on that front? guest: as i said, it's difficult, more difficult to remove a rule that it is to put one in place. what he is describing here is a kind of acceleration of something that worked quite well during the first presidential term. he had a rule, rule of thumb, not a regulation, it called for two regulations to come out for every regulation created. it will put a lot of pressure on agencies to look at that stock of regulations that they have. it's from over the decades that

they need to start repealing aggressively these old rules. host: andy, democratic line for kent lassman. guest: guest: thank you, andy. generally these should be handled in the state capitals. i don't think it's a question for the department of transportation or the white house. it is something for the folks in washington or oregon, california, to handle individually. as a result, we do see

different, have seen different seatbelt laws and helmet laws over the years. host: there were two specialists at the broings institution who put out a paper finding that "regulatp institutions safer, environment cleaner, financial markets more transparent than they would otherwise be because the ma can fail in various ways. ate companies do not fully internalize the costs of activities and may impose on others and without regulation consumers may not be fully informed about the products they buy. private markets alone are likely to underinvest in so-called public goods and if you take away regulations, how do you ensure safety concerns that they have to the american public?" guest: we could tackle any one of those. it's probably too much to do it all at once, but let's talk about food safety, right? groceries, restaurants, things of that nature.

first and foremost on the front line we have something called reputational value, right? no grocery store wants to be responsible for selling bad eggs . it's bad for business. it's bad for their customers. frankly, the people that run those grocery stores, they are good people. they shop at them. they don't want contaminated food on the market. the relationship between the growers or producers and the shippers and the retailers of our food supply is something where there is a lot of interdependence. it has an interest in high quality. it's absolute the case, when most states and the federal government through the congress have said that we ought to have some standard. we ought to have a standard for terry, for eggs, etc.. if that is the case, we can

separate safety standards from the economic cooperation of how you ship. how you sell. what information can you present? do we need a regulation saying eggs are large, extra-large, aaa? all of those things guided by the department of agriculture i think and go by the wayside because consumers and grocers can figure out how to best sell their eggs. we don't need a department of agriculture to sort that out. even if there is a standard for safety. host: it's better for an industry to police itself, in your mind? without some type of outside force looking in? guest: i think we get halfway there. the self police, focus on the policing, right? no entity operates autonomously. as i was describing, the grocers are competing against other grocers.

they are also competing against alternatives. we can buy our groceries in many places in this country. all mine, have been delivered so you don't even go to the grocery store. in addition, they are dealing with all of the vendors and suppliers and on the other side of the break ways in, they are dealing with all of their customers. it doesn't take much for a handful of customers to say i don't like the look of this. it smells bad, we won't shop there. suddenly, the business tanks. it's not self policing so much as policing within an ecosystem. let's hear from jared -- host: let's hear from jerry in pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: how come the democrats are down trump and elon musk for taking over them buildings where they found out all them democratic people were cheating the people?

then democrats should be investigated themselves instead of investigating elon musk and dolly trump. host: jerry in pennsylvania. guest: i think the key word is investigations. what i would like to see and what i think is available to us is to have congress take a closer look at what these agencies do and how they fulfill the mandates given to them by law. it's really important that we don't have agencies setting their own course, deciding for themselves what to work on and prioritize and coloring outside of the lines of the statutes given to them by hour, by our bicameral system. host: the trump administration has been focused on the consumer financial protection bureau. what's your opinion when it comes to regulatory efforts of

the bureau? guest: i have something of an outsider view and i don't think we need the cfpb, i think it should be shut down and never should have been established. but here we are. there are a couple of steps that have been taken. the first was the interim administrator, similar to a past effort by an interim administrator, turned to the federal reserve in said i do not need more money for the next quarter. the cfpb is insulated from our traditional accountability measures for spending in that they don't go to congress for appropriation. meaning that their checkbook is filled simply by sending a one-page letter to the fed saying i would like more money. they have a fund balance of 700 million dollars in the interim administrator said we don't need money for the next quarter. i think it is right and proper and could probably be extended. the big point is that the cfpb

was set up to do specialized regulation, consumer finance products and services. these are credit cards, loans, and other consumer finance activities. my sense is that the american people are quite smart and we don't need special regulation on a sectoral basis anymore than we need special regulation to tell us we ought to look for a job that suits our interests or educate our children or that we should buy eggs that are not fouled by contamination? -- contamination. these are the things that people can sort out for themselves. we can enlist. we can go to war. we can buy a house. we can decide whether or not to get a credit card. host: elizabeth moran came to the defense of the cfpb. we want to play a bit and get your response. [video clip]

>> if they succeed, ceos will be free to trick, trap, scam you. the cfpb looks to shut down fraud on payment apps. it's the agency that steps in when the big bank trips up and repossess is your car. the agency working to cut the crazy fees that banks and credit card companies buried in the fine print and you have to pay for them. already, this agency has forced giant banks and corporations to get back more than $21 billion directly to families that they cheated. that includes hundreds of millions of dollars back for veterans who got cheated by predatory lenders. so, why are these guys trying to gut the cfpb? trump campaigned on helping working people but now that he's in charge, this is the payoff to

the rich guys who invested in his campaign and who want to cheat families and not have anybody around to stop them. it's another scam. host: that's her assessment. what do you think? guest: i think she has a great instinct to help people. but she's got this entirely backward. the cfpb that she has just described, scams, problems with fraud, all of these things are already illegal. we already have recourse. in fact, consumer protection in every single state nests within the attorney general's office and most have a consumer advocate that takes up this sort of issue. i tell you, they do it. they do it over and over again. we don't need a special federal agency spending hundreds of millions of dollars per quarter in order to do the job already being done close to where the problem happens.

so, when it arises, people turn to the state government and say look, i was defrauded, someone broke the law. it gets reconciled. the notion that this is a payoff for corporate ceos or something of the sort, i think that is a little bit beneath her in the sense that she is attacking people and motives rather than really looking at the outcomes of the agency and the way it is structured and the way it fits, in my view, or mostly does not fit within our constitutional order. it was by design, in her own words, and her testimony in 2020 nine, subsequently as a senator, designed to be insulated from politics. as nice as that sounds, it's actually the opposite of what we want. we want agencies accountable to the political actors, the political bodies in the constitutional order, including congress. host: let's hear from jean in

arizona. thanks for waiting on the independent line go ahead. caller: i would like to know what that, what they investigate regarding the lies that are spewed by the news stations. by the online communications that people go to, like twitter and whatever. basically, are they looking for the bad at all? where they should hold them responsible? there are so many people exaggerating and repeating the lies. as an aside, the gentleman stated that most people are able to judge for themselves about what's going to matter. people who are poor, who don't have the time to study, they

just pay it. the amount stated. it takes a lot to fight everything, that's a fact. host: jeannie, thank you. guest: fortunately or unfortunately, lying is not illegal. traditionally, what we have said, a phrase that comes from the supreme court is that the response to bad speech, lies or innuendo of this sort, is more speech. we want more people out there correcting the record. i think that is true. in the current environment, that probably doesn't go far enough. we also need to ask ourselves to be better consumers of information. to improve the quality of what we expect in terms of where we turn to for news and sourcing. when it comes to, to quickly address her last point, when it comes to the difficulty of working your way through, for example, some of the financial service offers, perhaps

referring to what senator warren talks about, it's absolutely the case that the reason when you go to buy a car or an automobile that there are dozens of pages in a form of very small print is because of the regulation. it's not the other way around. regulation doesn't protect us from all of that, it causes all of that. the ability to go to a bank or a credit provider and say that this is what i'm willing to pay for such and such a service is well within the means of everyone. host: leo joins us from south carolina, democratic line, you are next up. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is why are we totally relying on a person that hasn't been vetted on the issues they are investigating and are now being put into the service around our vital files? also, why didn't they keep the ig?

the ig had that overall responsibility to make sure things were done correctly. another thing is, she invested $270 million into the presidency. it looks bad. he may not have bad intention, but we should have, i think, congress have oversight responsibility. they should be a part of the team. there shouldn't be -- there should be a team doing this. it should be above board. what's done in the dark, its overall net bad. it's being done without interaction between the agencies. these things are already law. these institutions have been put in place and need to be vetted. not vetted, but investigated, you know? host: got the point, thank you. guest: leo is spot on about perhaps the most important thing happening right now. the increase, the overall

increase from all different vectors of transparency. that we are better understanding and developing new information about the way our government operates. to the question about putting people in sensitive positions, vetting and whatnot, it's simply something i can't speak to. i know that the president has signed some 75 proclamations, orders, executive orders in the last three weeks. there are now at least, "the new york times" reported, 40 lawsuits about those executive actions. those lawsuits, the very first thing they do is find facts. that's really important. it's difficult for us to be patient. to understand who is going anywhere and getting what information with what sort of vetting or whatnot, but it is something we have to rely on a

system, a system of laws and institutions of liberty, like an independent judiciary, rather than rely on the word of one or another politician. host: barbara, republican line, georgia, short on time, jump in with your question or comment. caller: ok, thank you for taking my call. i wanted to back up a little bit. so, he said that congress should really investigate musk and the group going through right now trying to find waste in our spending. my understanding is that they have all passed the background required and then hired as federal employees? so, why would it be different for them to be investigated versus every single federal employee hired to be investigated? and the fact that they are dealing with our money, we have had federal employees dealing

with money. host: barbara, thank you. guest: i must have miscommunicated. what i meant to get across was that it is very important for congress to look at the behavior, programs, and operations of the regulatory agencies to the specific activity of cei and elon musk-- of doge and elon musk. i don't have facts about whether these people are vetted or not. that's being determined. host: in the regulatory world, i don't know if it exactly fits, but the presence of the new tariffs are coming. what do you think of that idea? guest: bad idea, pedro. thank you for asking. look, the taxing authority rests very clearly in article one of the constitution. even by proponents, the president's team, the president himself, of these new tariffs, they say that this is in order to raise revenue. to do this so that