host: good morning. it is sunday, february 16, 2025. negotiations with russia over the war in ukraine will begin, and marco rubio is in jerusalem today. he just wrapped up meeting with prime minister benjamin netanyahu following netanyahu's talks with president trump on what it would take to end the conflict in gaza. this morning, we want to hear your thoughts on the trump administration's foreign policy positions. do you support or oppose them?

our number for republicans, (202) 748-8001. for democrats, (202) 748-8000. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . if you would like to text us, that number is (202) 748-8003. please be sure to include your name and where you are writing in from. and if you would like to reach us on social media, that is facebook.com/c-span and on x @cspanwj. the new york times has been tallying up some of president trump's foreign policy moves so far and some of them include working with russia on ending the war ukraine, working on a cease-fire deal, proposing that the u.s. rebuild gaza and reset all palestinian residents, attempting to freeze foreign aid and dismantle usaid, and pledging to take over the panama canal and acquired greenland. also, withdrawing from the paris climate agreement. there has been quite a bit of

foreign policy news just this weekend. here is a story in reuters that the u.s. and russia are set to meet in saudi arabia over the ukraine war, saying that the u.s. and russian officials will meet in saudi arabia in the coming days to start talks aimed at ending moscow's nearly three year war in ukraine. u.s. lawmaker and a source familiar with the planning said on saturday. ukrainian president of baltimore zelinski who met with vice president jd vance in germany on friday said ukraine was not invited to the talks in saudi arabia and kyiv not engage with russia before consulting with strategic partners. i mention marco rubio, the secretary of being in jerusalem. that was a meeting reported as president trump pushes a plan to expel palestinians from gaza. scholars of international law say president trump's proposal for american control of gaza without palestinians would be ethnic cleansing or a war crime.

secretary of state marco rubio was meeting in jerusalem on sunday with prime minister benjamin netanyahu of israel as political chaos rippled across the middle east over president trump's insisted proposals to seize the devastated gaza strip and force out palestinian residents. the trip is mr. rubio's first to the region as secretary of state and comes as israel and hamas are to be negotiating to turn to a permanent end to their war -- to turn a cease-fire deal to a permanent end to their more. back to ukraine which made news this week and ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy spoke at the munich security conference in germany yesterday. and among the things he said, he called for, as reported in cbs news, the creation of an armed forces of europe amid a by washington -- amid a new line by washington. he called to guard against russia, appearing to suggest the

united states made no look of come to the continent's aid. zelinski speaking on the second at the conference said ukraine is three year vita against an invading russian army has proved a condition exist for the creation of a european army and has long been discussed among some continental leaders. here are some of the other remarks the ukrainian president made at the munich security conference. [video clip] >> ukraine will never accept deals made behind our backs without our --. [applause] and the same rule should apply to all of europe. no decisions about ukraine without ukraine. no decisions about europe without europe. [applause]

europe must have a seat at the table when decisions about europe are being made. anything else is zero. if we are left out of negotiations about our own future, then we will lose. look at what putin is trying to do now. this is his game. putin wants one-on-one talks with america. just like before the war when they met in switzerland and looked to carve up the world. next, putin will try to get the u.s. president standing on red square on may 9 this year, not as a respected leader, but as a prop in his own performance. we don't need that. we need real success. we need real peace. [applause]

some in europe may not understand what is happening in washington right now but let's focus on understanding ourselves here in europe. we must give help to europe first. does america need europe as a market? yes. but as an ally, i don't know. for the answer to be yes, europe needs a single voice. not a dozen different ones. [applause] even those who regularly come to mar-a-lago need to be a part of a strong europe. because president trump doesn't like weak friends. he respects strength. next, some in europe may be

frustrated with brussels, but let's be clear, if not brussels, then moscow. it is your decision. host: once again, we are looking for your thoughts on whether you support or oppose president trump's foreign policy positions. we will start with danny in south carolina on our line for republicans. good morning, danny. caller: good morning. i think jd vance looked like a fool. thank you. host: ok. and washington, d.c. come on our line for democrats, good morning. caller: hi, good morning. thank you for taking my call. diplomacy is always the best option over war, and i think trump has just been in office a few weeks, but i think he is making an impression, but i think he is in a few too many directions. he is talking about greenland and canada as an option for the state as well as the gulf of

america. he is going in directions, but the one thing in washington, d.c., democrat or republican president, to be a nonvoting member in the representative's house, and we have no senators. we have over 100 thousand people that live in washington, d.c. this is going on and on. everybody is fixated under the table. taxation without representation. that is just how i feel. i feel like i live in guam or the virgin islands or puerto rico, which is a territory. host: you might be interested later on in our show today we will be having a conversation with someone who talks about the comparisons between president trump and president mckinley, who acquired some of those territories that you mentioned under his administration. let's hear from virginia on our line for independents. good morning. caller: yes. hi. i oppose president trump's

foreign policy objectives in gaza. trump and the united states federal government has no jurisdiction in gaza. sorry. i'm a little nervous here. host: that's ok. caller: if trump -- he says he will own gaza and he will displace gaza's palestinians into egypt or jordan. he can't do that. to do so would be a war crime. be a war criminal.

-- he would be a war criminal. host: ok. next up is brenda in indiana, pennsylvania, on our line for democrats. good morning, brenda. caller: hey, good morning, kimberly. i love donald trump's foreign policy concerning ukraine and russia because his policy is surrender. when you stop military aid to ukraine and give russia everything at once, that is not really negotiating. that is a surrender just like he surrendered to the taliban when he signed the doha peace treaty with the taliban. it was actually a surrender. the taliban got everything they wanted, including the lease of 5000 taliban terrorists, the same terrorists that ever military personnel fought and died trying to capture, so in donald trump's great peace treaty, these terrorists got

released. the united states got nothing out of donald trump's doha peace treaty. we got nothing. we did not get our military equipment back. we did not even get a peaceful withdrawal, so donald trump with ukraine and russia, sure, it is easy to solve that like i said when you cut off military aid to ukraine. you use the stick on them and give russia everything they wanted. you are giving russia the caret. so where is the great negotiation? thank you. host: david is in indiana on our line for republicans. good morning, david. go ahead, david. caller: yes. good morning. i just have one comment to make regarding the clip you played from zelenskyy. i totally agree with zelenskyy

that europe should take care of their own problems. this has been going on for almost three years now. billions of dollars. even president trump mentioned europe has donated a lot of money to the cause, but they are also giving them loans for military equipment to pay back. so if they are really interested in preserving ukraine, i think europe needs to take over. we need to focus on other issues , and at some point there has to be a negotiated settlement. there has to be one if you want to call it a surrender. you just can't have this carnage continue, continue, and for what? zelenskyy's attitude there i would say shut it all down, go to hell with him. host: ernest is in gregory,

texas, on our line for democrats. good morning, ernest. caller: good morning. host: you support or oppose president trump's foreign policy positions? caller: i completely opposed it -- oppose it. he has given up on ukraine, given to russia. he has -- probably we are looking at taiwan. china can probably have it, just like he will not be told anything about china grab this and grab that over here. you will have no static. it is a free grab for all right now. and also, what business does he have in gaza? trying to make -- we can't even fix our own united states, and he wants to go fix gaza at our expense. when he is out of office, he will have this waterfront

property. thank you very much. host: eric is in antioch, california, on our line for independents. good morning, eric. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i generally support the president's policies. as far as europe goes and ukraine, because of nato, we need everybody to vote together to do something. that is the problem there. maybe america can end up being a nuclear grantor and pulling out of the land forces and let ukraine join nato. also, the fact that we have the russians sitting in saudi arabia, i don't think it is a coincidence. i think we are looking to pump up russia to start exporting as soon as possible into good -- and to get the saudis to go low to get the drill, baby, drill policy. host: pete is in the union,

maine, on our line for democrats. good morning, pete. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say i cannot see any coherent foreign policy position as of yet. just last week, hegseth was slammed down by vice president vance because they had no care. message -- no coherent message. i cannot see any coherent thing here. thank you very much. host: carl is in west virginia on our line for independents. good morning, carl. caller: yes, this is carl from west virginia. i say shut it down. you know, ukraine does not have a central government. we are paying for 57,000 people in the central government. the country is broke.

and we will continue to pay for their government, administration, and all of that. that is where our money is going. most of it is going for administrative purposes. they don't have a government. there might be about 20 people in that government. that's it. and we are cutting them a paycheck and we need to stop. host: all right. kyle is in clearwater, florida, on our line for democrats. good morning, kyle. caller: good morning. i think this kind of leveraging the economic power of the united states by kind of bullying all of our allies is going to have pretty short term benefits at best, and it is pretty concerning when european allies are talking about forming their own kind of treaties and deals separate from the united states. i just wanted to say what trump released on true social

yesterday, he who saves his country does not violate any law . and whatever he is trying to project with that, it is not good. i have never seen this type of behavior before in a democratic country. and i think the people that think they are getting benefits from this kind of tough guy mentality beyond the economic damage is just a united states that can't be trusted by anybody. host: kyle, max boot in the washington post has an opinion piece mirroring some of the points you made, saying trump's tariff tactics are an unpromising foreign-policy anomaly. there is no u.s. president for trump's tariff use.

going on to say since donald trump returned to office, he has repeatedly threatened other nations with steep tariff hikes unless they do what he wants. in the case of columbia, he dropped his tariff that after that country's president agreed to keep receiving colombian deportees from the united states. in the cases of mexico and canada, trump agreed to delay his toy 5% tariffs for at least a month after the leaders of those countries offered assurances they would do more to stop the flow of fentanyl and migrants even though they were already doing much of what they promised to do. and in the case of china, trump imposed an additional -- imposed additional 10% tariffs up early for that company not -- that country not doing more. china retaliated with its own tariffs. expect many other countries to face similar threats from the self-described tariff man. now then, another big story on the foreign policy side of things has been the efforts by the trump administration to

dismantle usaid. and a judge has extended a pause on trump's dismantling of that agency through february 21. this is reported in cnn, saying a federal judge has extended the pause on the trump administration's dismantling of usaid for another week after an extensive hearing on thursday. the case is one of the most significant early tests of president donald trump's power to reduce the federal workforce and shutter and agency -- an agency. some reactions from members of congress on the ongoing disagreement about whatoo with usaid. representativeya zinke, a republican, posted on x, usaid spent your tax dollars on one poin--$1.999.9000 sex change rgeries in guatemala, more an $11 million to measure effectiveness of the efforts to

promote d.e.i. in nepal, and more. it i a longer list. on the democratic side, congressman gabe ramos says trump's illegal foreign aid frze is a disaster for manitarian relief efforts, farmers, and our partners expect america to keep our word. this ruling, the judge's ruling on thursday, confirms the haphazard decision needlessly put americans in harm's way, wasted taxpayer funds, and hurt our national security. at a house foreign affairs committee meeting focusing on usaid, ranking member gregory meeks, the democrat from new york, spoke out against the administration's actions towards the agency, and he made these comments last week. [video clip] >> we don't have anyone here today from the administration to explain, to appear, and to explain their actions before this committee. it should not be just private

sector individuals here. we are the oversight of the u.s. government, and we should have members from the state department, the secretary of state, rubio, present. my democratic colleagues and i have asked the chairman to have a committee hearing with secretary rubio, and i urge that to be done as soon as possible. the american people deserve to have their elected representatives question the ministration about the decision to shut down a government agency established in law by congress. we don't have a king. we have a system. if the administration believes what they have done is legal and

merited, they should be before congress. they should be here. they should be talking to the american people directly. we should be summoning them here. i also want to do away with the myth that this exercise with doge and usaid is about addressing waste, fraud, and abuse. because if you really care about waste, fraud, and abuse, you don't illegally fire 21 independent inspector general's in the dark of night. you don't fire the head of the government ethics office. just this week, president trump fired usaid's independent inspector general, just one day after he issued a report showing the administration's own effort to dismantle usaid is wasting

taxpayer dollars and putting our national security at risk. that is what is happening. i would national security is at risk. host: back to your calls and whether you support or oppose the trump administration's foreign policy positions. we will go to fill in new jersey on our line for republicans for your good morning, phil. caller: good morning. how are you doing? i am just a little tired of everything trump does. democrats complain about everything he does. i am wondering, what is congress going to do something about it? and then they say they fired all of these attorney generals. they were not doing their job. all of this has been going on for years. i just don't understand it. thank you for the call. host: ok. bruce is in kingston, new york, on our line for independents. caller: yes, good morning.

very thankful you did take my call as well. i want to point out that i agree with the fact that trump does not actually have a for an agenda. what he has is a 2025 agenda. that is both domestic and foreign. for the most part what he is doing to zelenskyy i think looks more like revenge, and that has a history to it. we have all seen that, at least people who have tv or who are not just living off of the cell phone. there is some question about history in the united states of being isolationists. and i think some people may be listen to one speech and get an impression and get on the phone and say we should dump nato and we should side with this so-called rationale about so much injury. have the actually been following the destruction russia and putin have done to the ukraine over

the years? this has been barbaric. he is a war criminal. trump is talking about bringing him to the white house. again, this is not the first time he talked about that. putin is definitely a guy with a lot of bird feathers in his mouth. he is a cat with a lot of things to be smiling about because putin is basically playing his game, if not actually being an unwitting or a witting puppet of him. a bit of revenge involved here. they call it transaction. trump likes to speak to his audience the way they speak to him, but his actions really betray that. the bottom line is whether we are betraying the ukrainians who have all acted in good faith, not corrupt as in the past, and the fact of the matter is we had a treaty with them when they voluntarily surrendered their nuclear weapons that they were

holding under the premise and promised that we would defend them if they needed defense. host: next up is melvin in fort lauderdale, florida, and our line for democrats. good morning, melvin. caller: good morning. you know, it is really pitiful. this is the same thing he did to afghanistan. he made a decision with the taliban. he had afghanistan's back. never had any kind of conversation with the leadership. i don't understand why these people get short memories about what is going on. this has been going on with this man ever since. him and his administration. whether he made those agreements with the taliban to take over in afghanistan without even talking to the government. the people keep overlooking it like biden did something. it was not biden. you have the secretary of state released 5000 prisoners who were part of the situation with the

military. you better start waking up and bring this stuff to attention. and then you have musk, who is supposed to be such a genius. the man paid twice as much money for twitter than he should have. what are you saying about that? get some sense in there. they are really going crazy. trump, he is the worst person in history when it comes to any type of laws when he gets through all the stuff he has done. let's get serious with this. host: next up is rick in ohio on our line for republicans. good morning, rick. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good, thank you. caller: ok. i just have a basic question. everyone figures their taxes. i have a big question on the front of the 1040.

why would we sit there and donate three dollars to a presidential campaign? and where does that money go, and who does it go to? host: and do you support or oppose president trump's foreign policy positions? caller: do what now? host: do you support or oppose the president's foreign policy positions? caller: i support the right now. host: ok. caller: i think there should be something done getting our money back sent over there. host: over where? caller: over in ukraine. on both sides. thank you very much. have a good day. host: mike is in philadelphia, pennsylvania, on our line for democrats. good morning, like. caller: good morning. excuse me. thanks for taking my call. i oppose the foreign policy of the sitting president now. foreign policy as far as i'm concerned with donald trump is

nothing but deals that he continues to make. i believe most of his process is to keep him and his family and others in the real estate business throughout the world. i also think that he along with the technocrats are looking to privatized as much of the federal government they possibly can, and i think the russia and china connection with trump is a conspiracy to work with the richest people, the technocratic people, the financial people through foreign policy to restart what is now being called the new world order. very concerned about the world . very concerned about the policy in israel. to do with 2 million people, to remove them, and they have the audacity to call it "a wonderful

real estate dream," and people have died, no water, no toilet facilities, no food, and someone like ryan zinke, when he was question, when he was interior secretary, to question the money that usaid was doing throughout the world, making sure that people have the means to wash themselves, to send kids to school, i believe that his foreign policy is nothing but a money grab. he's a guy from queens. he's an organized crime individual, and he only knows how to think as an organized crime individual. his foreign policy is to do nothing but to increase his wealth and those around him by go along with him. and i really don't think that he's really in charge of anything other than taking the consultation of the people that want to control the world. that's what i think of mr. trump's foreign policy. thank you. host: mike mentioned the

president's statements related to gaza. there is a post on x from representative mike quigle five of my colleagues in sending a letter to president trump, condemning his reckless remarks calling for the u "own gaza." he should focus on creating a sting peace in the region, not permanently displacing the over 2 million palestinians in gaza. it was at the white house where both president trump and king abdullah the sec. of jordan responded. >> i think we have to keep in mind that there is a fight for egypt in the arab countries. i think the point is, how can they do it in a way that is good for everybody, obviously. we have to look at the best interest of the united states, people in the region, especially

my people of jordan, and we will have some interesting discussions. i think one of the things we can do right away is take 2000 children that are either children of the failed state to jordan as quickly as possible, and wait for the egyptians to present their plan on how to work with the president to work on challenges. >> [overlapping questions] pres. trump: i do not know that, what he just i, two thousand children with cancer or other problems. that is really a beautiful gesture. i really appreciate it. with egypt, i think we will see some great progress. with jordan, we will see some great progress, the three of us, and we will have some others helping, and we will have others a very high level helping. it's not a complex thing to do. and with the united states being in control of that piece of

land, a fairly large piece of land, giving out stability in the middle east for the first time. and the palestinians or the people that live now and gaza will be living beautifully on another location, and they will be living safely. they are not going to be killed and murdered and having to leave every 10 years. i have been watching this for so many years, and it is nothing but trouble. host: a broader view on president trump's foreign policy strategy, the "wall street journal" has commentary, saying trump buries the old world foreign policy. the old rules of in voluble state borders don't apply in a world of trade wars and terrorism regimes. in foreign policy, mr. trump is undoing the work of woodrow wilson. the general understanding after world war i was violations of national sovereignty and borders constituted and borders

constituted an key threat to global peace." moving on, "meanwhile, diplomats have been drawing new borders throughout the globe. in the middle east, they established jordan, lebanon, iraq, and syria. they spoke of self-determination in africa. decolonization did not begin until after world war ii. in europe, borders were redrawn to divide empires into nationstates. mr. trump is rejecting that vision. according to him, the primary a danger to global peace is not the infringement of state sovereignty but the actions of authoritarian terrorist regimes. borders drawn in the 20th century have not provided security or self-determination, they have led to armed conflict. syria has evolved into a brutal multiethnic dictatorship. jordan's majority palestinian population is ruled by an authoritarian monarchy with bedouin roots. gaza started as a territory under egyptian control entered

into a vicious terrorist state. the panama canal has become a chinese outpost. those shocked by mr. trump's simile imperialist threats to take over greenland, intervene in panama, unilaterally relay name the gulf of mexico, and build american hotels in gaza are using 20 three principles to interpret 21st-century policy. mr. trump recognizes that the old rules don't apply in a world of trade wars and terrorist organizations. what he propose it is not imperialism but a new line of western defense against insidious forces." back to your calls and whether you support or oppose the trump administration's foreign policy. wally is on our line for republicans. good morning, wally. are you there? caller: yes, i'm here. good morning. my name is wally lopez. i'm native from puerto rico. i've been living in the united states for almost 35 years.

i was in the army, a former green beret, and, look, watching the news, you know, and all these policies going on, we should worry about the united states first. i mean, i don't criticize other countries, but we have to concentrate on our problems that we have inside the united states, and then after we get the problems squared away with the united states, then we can help another country. another thing i've been noticing is we help the western side and the eastern side, we left the, you know, in the air. like we got maduro. maduro could be another fidel castro in our lives, ok? so, even that we have a lot of immigrants, we've got a lot of immigrants that they are working for so many years, way back in 1945, when world war ii, they

opened the front tier, so they can let the mexicans come and do the crowds while the people was fighting in world war ii, see? i'm 75 years old, right now, ok? i got out of the army in 2006. but what i've been observing, you know, even that we are the biggest nation in the world, with a lot of power, but we decline, slowly, we decline, and we come back up, you know, and be the united states that we are supposed to be here so we have to fix our problems inside. all this ganging and all this fighting, we should be united. we should be united to fight, because this is our country. and when we finish our time, we

go back to the normal life. we become lawyers again, you know, so we should be even that we are against each other, we should be together, so the united states becomes more powerful than what it is now and leave the fighting between each other. host: wally, a point that you made at the beginning of your statement about needing to pay more attention to what is happening closer to the united states, secretary of state marco rubio had a commentary in the "wall street journal on january 30, making a similar statement, an american -- and america's first policy. when donald trump his sweeping victory in november, he received a mandate to put america first.

in the realm of diplomacy, this means paying a closer attention to our own neighborhood, the western sent hemisphere. for many reasons, u.s. foreign policy has long focused on other regions while overlooking our own. as a result, we let problems fester, missed opportunity, and neglected partners. that ends now. president trump's's foreign policy agenda begins close to home. among his top priorities in securing our borders and avoiding a desk does that -- a disastrous invasion, invented by the previous administration. we need to work with countries of origin to hold and deter further migrant flows and accept the return of citizens present in the u.s. illegally. back to your calls and whether you support or oppose the trump administration's foreign policy position. let's go to barbara in illinois on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning.

i have been an independent my whole life. i voted democrat and republican. i'm very disturbed by everything that is going on with our foreign policy. israel and palestinians created the war. i don't think the american citizen should pay for the rebuilding of gaza. i don't think they should be displaced, the palestinians. i think russia is still our enemy, even though donald trump is thinking that he is our friend. and i think that ukraine should be foremost in the negotiations of the, any kind of peace treaty. as far as usaid is concerned, maybe there were some parts of it that they should be able to, you know, take away fraud or

spend less, but completely shut down an agency that was created by congress is against the law, and i hope that all of congress, republicans and democrats, will stand up together against trump when he decides that the judges are not ruling in his favor. thank you. host: millard is in philadelphia on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: why are you putting this on to me? host: all right, let's go to kathleen in maryland on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: hi. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to call in and say i am in support of trump's

foreign policy. the world was a safer place during his previous administration, and under joe biden, we saw so many conflicts break out that i think would have been avoided if we'd had a stronger leader at the head of our country, and i absolutely believe in peace through strength, and i think that it is time to consider some new ideas, you know, as far as a two state solution between palestine and israel, you know, that's not going to happen. they've been trying that for decades. it's not going to work. i think taking a new approach, even though it seems unusual, i think it is worth it to try something new, and i support what he is doing so far. so i just want to encourage people to keep an open mind, and look at the reality. what we have been doing is not working, and it is time for a change. thank you. host: michael is in seattle, washington on our line for independents. good morning.

caller: hello. let me just say that president trump and copresident musk, both of their foreign policy could be summed up by the four c's, cold, callous, cruel, and a compassion free zone. the policies remind me of a quote from shakespeare, a head that speaks without a heart is not worth listening to. president trump is completely untethered, on more, and unhinged to anything resembling reality, ethics, or compassion, and he literally, by stopping usaid come that has today come as we speak, $492 million, and

warehouses that should be going to see starving children. women, children, grandmothers, grandfathers them as i'm speaking come are literally starving to death because of the disastrous, catastrophic, and dastardly actions committed by this orange fellow. and it's also putting our farmers here at home, it's costing jobs at home. his camps will be catastrophic, and we can see the effects. prices are soaring. and we right now are headed for an epic disaster at every possible multiple level. i know that fox viewers are receiving massive megadoses of

misinformation and disinformation. finally, there's a special place in hell reserved for trump and musk for today literally taking moves from the mouths of starving infants for their own petty vindictiveness and ideological obscenity. host: michael mentioned food rotted -- writing while aid is being withheld. there's a story about that in cbs news could almost 500 million dollars of food at risk of spoilage after usaid caused. almost $500 million of food is at risk of spoilage as it sits in ports, ships, and warehouses after the fund for the u.s. agency for international development, or usaid, was caused by the trump administration, according to a february 10 report from a government watchdog. the report from usaid's inspector general highlighted the risk of safeguarding and distribution of $8.2 billion in unspent humanitarian aid after

the trump administration ordered almost all staff to be placed on leave and ordered a review of foreign assistance programs. at a congressional rally outside the u.s. capitol, delaware democrat chris coons, who served on the foreign relations committee, made a case for why he says foreign aid helps the united states. here's a portion from early february. [video clip] sen. coons: when president trump ran, he said he would make america safe again. nothing about this makes us safer! there is an ebola outbreak in uganda! helping it uganda fight ebola makes america safe. there's a marker -- marburg outbreak in tanzania. helping tanzanian's fight marburg makes america safe. there's human trafficking in new mexico, persuading young people not to be traffic, makes america

safer. working to slight landmines left behind by a conflicts, working to rebuild economies made unstable and unsafe by conflict makes america safe. so all of these illegal actions of recent days will be challenged in court, will be challenged on the floor of the congress, and will not stand. [cheers & applause] if doge wins and our foreign aid is completely shut down, if elon musk wins and our foreign assistance completely ends, who will cheer and who will win? the cartels will win, terrorists were won, russia will win, china will win. this effort is not efficient, it is not saying, it is not -- sane, it is not respectful, and

it does not make america safe. so let's pull together and tell the real story of foreign aid and the way that it saves lives, advances our values, and makes our world a better place. host: back to your calls on whether you support or oppose the president's foreign policy positions. jenny is in whitefield, maine on our line for democrats. good morning, jimmy. caller: i am in whitefield, maine. i am in support of ending the ukraine nonsense, but for the rest of it, it is just bullying, it is just trump bullying everybody, and it is not going to work. and the usaid thing is quite sad, because we are not supposed to make any distinction between babies and bathwater.

host: ok. mark is in virginia on our line for republicans. good morning, mark. caller: yeah. i just want to say, i support what the president is doing with doge. the amount of waste is unbelievable, but i really just have to note that i had listened for about three minutes, from one of the previous callers going on and absolutely unhinged, demonizing attack toward president trump that is out of his mind come and then you plug two articles, and you have little quick, what, another minute of chris coons repeating it? you guys will be coming to an arm of the dnc here. this is ridiculous.

thanks for what you are doing, but you are really not helping america. you are just further dividing us. appreciate it. host: next up is larry in oregon on our line for independents. good morning, larry. caller: yes, and thank you for taking my call. i do support president trump's administration on foreign policy, but more importantly, i see president trump as not a republican but a populist. and as a populist, he is trying to bring our country back together through foreign policy and through his business sense, he's adding value to our country, through business procedures. and, you know, he did create the opportunity zones, which raised the lower income people up 9% in this country. that is a good step in the right

direction of bringing people together. part of the problem is, from the right and the left, we've got the right that, those people, the middle class people, paying a lot of taxes. people on the left of receiving that tax money come and that is where the conflict is coming. it's not necessarily republican, democrat, it's an economic situation. we have a populist president that is trying to lift the lower income people up through opportunity zones, and that is the right direction. this country needs to go in. it will bring us together. thank you for your time. host: kim is in columbus, ohio, on our line for democrats. caller: yeah. look, trump got in with the republican party taking 3.5 million people off the polls, to so to sit back and act like he is supposed to be in office,

that is quite a joke to me. but i want to say this about the foreign policy that y'all are talking about. i don't even know what foreign policy he has. it makes no sense, his foreign policy. they are just going to take over people's land and name it after americans. no, we don't own that land, and you know we don't! and we are the only was acting like we own it. nobody else is recognizing what trump is talking about. so all these people acting like trump done came in, and he's doing it, he's doing nothing. you guys have missed what all the other presidents are saying. that donald trump is lying. host: bruce is in sunnyvale, indiana on our line for independents. good morning. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call.

on the budget and a lot of these cuts that's being done, i think one of our biggest problems is the fact that the democrat and republican parties are allowed to come in until the congressmen and senators how to vote on stuff. we did not elect that party. it was not on the ballot. you can vote for everybody in a party, but the party itself is not elected. just like they complain about people that's appointed by president trump. host: bruce, how do you feel about president trump's foreign policy positions? caller: mostly i like it.

on the food that they say is -- possibly might spoil, this is something that has been going on for a long, long time. i grew up on a farm, and this is nothing new. people just don't know it. host: ok. lee is in buford, georgia on our line for republicans. good morning, lee. caller: yes, good morning. i want to agree with the caller from virginia that just called. it is unfortunate that c-span is very democratic. they have been for a long time. and, unfortunately, so is the pbs stations and the news. and i do wish that you all would have more republicans on, so

that you would get the other side of viewpoints, and that people would educate themselves more, when they complain about executive orders and things that president trump has done, if they just look at history, they will see that other presidents have done the same thing. like the use of, it was an executive order put in place by john kennedy. so they are complaining that president trump cannot take away usaid with an executive order, that is not constitutional, but it was implemented by an executive order. thank you. host: william is in north carolina on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. hope you are doing ok, kimberly. this is my first time, so i hope

enough americans will speak out against president trump's policy with ukraine, and also his gaza policy is only need to make he and must extremely rich people. and i hope that congress can get trump and musk before them to answer questions about what they are doing, especially with the treasury department. that's all i have to say. thank you. host: jim is in winter park, florida on our line for republicans. good morning, jim. caller: good morning. you know, a couple callers back, a gentleman called and talked about the waste and stuff that is happening with the food in the warehouses and stuff. i got a novel idea. the food is already paid for, obviously, because usaid bought it and is supposed to be shipping it. why don't we get those foods out of the warehouses and distribute

it to americans who are needing food? we have homeless shelters where they need food. we have areas where people are living on the streets. they need food. we also have north carolina and los angeles, these people have been blown out of their houses, and they need food! and what do we do? nah, we will let it sit there and rot. because we are the democrats. you people just sit in the corner, pay your taxes, shut your mouth, because we need our kickbacks. i'm sick of this government. i think doge is the best thing in the world. i saw something, i hope it's going to happen. they talked about looking at like nancy pelosi, whose worth $252 million on a $200 -- $200,000 paycheck per year. and elizabeth warren, worth 12 million-dollar zone a 200,000 dollar paycheck. the numbers don't add up. the money just does not fall --

if they have a money tree in their backyard, they should sell it. sell some of the droppings to people who could really use the money. but now. we've got to cover this all up. and chris coons is just an outright jerk. thank you for listening to me, and have a good day. host: jared is in wilmington, delaware on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. the question is about trump's foreign policy, and someone said he's doing policy strong. letting food and take over ukraine is not strong. taking over gaza, kicking people who have been really demolished the last couple of years, kicking them out of their homeland, keeping it. he said he's going to keep it. and all this money that

republicans want to cut through doge, he wants to reinvest that to build of gaza? to build greenland? come on. what happens to lowering prices, lowering gas prices? gas is not going down. groceries are not going down. greenland, the panama canal, let's make canada the 51st state. those things aren't free. those are not going to be cheap. so all the money he is supposedly fighting with doge, and hopefully aren't lying, foreign intelligence, come on, guys. he's posting no intelligence information on the public website for his knots were, not intelligent, not strong, it's done. you guys voted for a dummy, that you saw he was a dummy when he lost a million people during covid. host: we are just about out

of time. mike is on her line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. hi. why are the democrats so tore up about doge? because you think about it, it was a democratic slush fund. when it first started, it was people displaced by massive earthquakes, hurricanes, starvation. host: you mean when usaid was first started? caller: yes. but after years and years of abuse and not overseen, now it has become an arm of the democrats crazies, you know, transgender in these foreign countries. the foreign countries don't do that. the democrats are trying to pass their agenda in other countries, but these other countries don't even believe in that stuff come and they don't need to. it is just crazy.

and look how much, in the slush fund, you've got $15 million going for condoms in mozambique and stuff, i mean, the last thing, you can go in one of the gas station restrooms and get one for a dollar, but it is coming back to a slush fund, probably in the cayman islands or somewhere for these democrats. and they always talk about the billionaires, the billionaire musk and all that, zuckerberg, but you don't never hear the democrat callers calling in about george soros, michael, those billionaires that are funding their programs and their side of the party. and they was all in for the zuckerbucks in a 2020 election, but now he's on the d list like musk. one more thing before you cut me off, the speech that jd vance done over in munich hit

it right on the money. and you see these people's faces from the mass immigration, trying to silence their opposition. overthrow the romanian election. and look at this, the party that is coming up real close in germany, the european union. host: we have to let you go. we are out of time for our segment. thanks for calling in to everyone. coming up james antle, editor of "washington examiner magazine, will talk about divisions within the gop and the opposition strategy. later, author jason steinhauer will discuss similarities and comparisons between president trump and president william mckinley, and served from 1897 to 1901. we will be right back. ♪ >> commemorate president's day

by shopping online at c-spanshop.org, where you can save up to 25% on apparel, accessories, and drink where. there is something for every c-span fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprot operation. scan the code or visit c-spanshop.org to shop our presidents' day sale. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio is easy. tell your smart speaker, "play c-span radio," and listen to "washington journal" daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern, important public affairs events throughout the day, and weekdays, catch "washington today." listen anytime to adjust tell your smart speaker, "play c-span radio." c-span, created by cable. >> tonight on c-span's "q and

a," former mafia associate louis ferrante on his book. he gives a history of the mafia in america, discusses robert kennedy's war against organized crime, and the involvement he says the mafia had in the 1960 election in 1963 assassination of john kennedy. louis: that he comes clash of the titans. as the first time there is a massive, concentrated attack on the mafia from someone who holds the almost unlimited resource of the of the united states government at his disposal. that is when the mafia finally feels threatened. it's a life or death situation. >> louis ferrante with his book "forgot i: -- "borgata: clash of the titans" on c-span's q&a.

you can listen on all of our -- to all of our podcast on the free c-span now app. >> all this week, watch our new members of congress series what we speak republicans and democrats about their early lives, previous careers, families, and why they decided to run for office. on monday at 9:30 p.m. eastern, our in interviews include democratic congresswoman janelle bynum, the first african-american ever elected to congress from oregon. rep. bynum: my mother graduated from one of the last segregated high schools in the state, in the country, south carolina, and i think about what was not afforded her, coming out of segregation, and i bring that perspective to oregon, saying, you know, my mom was a rural kid who did not have a lot of opportunities, but i will make sure to bring that forward for all of the kids in oregon. >> watch new members of congress all this week starting at 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are doing now by jim antal, the executive editor of the "washington examiner" magazine. welcome back to "washington journal." guest: thanks for having me. host: what are some of the major accomplishments you seen the first month of the trump administration? guest: well, they've done this marathon of executive orders. they've done all of this executive action. i think they came in much better care than they were in 2017, so a lot of things that they tried to do is, one, there is things to roll things that the by demonstration achieved during executive orders. change a series of things that are implemented by the executive order, and on the other party comes in and reverses all of those. that is one of the things they've done. the diversity, equity, inclusion

initiatives by the biden administration have all been reversed. a lot of the abortion-related executive orders of the biden administration have been reversed, and some executive orders imposing restrictions on taxpayer-funding of abortion has been reinstated. a lot of things are being done to freeze foreign aid, freeze various spending that they argue is within the purview of the executive branch of government and not things that are statutory, required, such as entitlements, and, you know, doge, the department of government efficiency, has obviously been a pretty big flashpoint, a source of controversy but a source of enthusiasm for a lot of people who voted for president trump. and what they are trying to do to highlight waste but also sort

of cutback various agencies that they don't believe aligns with the trump administration's agenda, is a pretty big part of what they are to do. host: your recent piece in "the washington examiner," the headline, "lights, camera action, trump and his tv savvy team blanket the airwaves." can you talk about what you are referencing? and do you see this team is more media savvy than the first term and what are some of the differences? guest: yeah. i think obviously president trump come from a television background himself. he is reality tv star. even as a real estate developer, his relationship was part of how he built the family brand. his personal brand. so he's always been a pretty big tv presence, and he has always valued that and the people working for him. but if you look at a lot of the

people that he has put into senior positions, they are people who share that background. they have extensive experience on television, many of them are fairly skilled communicators. i think that showed in their confirmation hearings. and, you know, it's also a source of criticism for some of these people. are the people who are good at speaking on television necessarily equipped to run these massive bureaucracies? these are very big, bureaucratic operations that require a certain level of managerial skills. i think there were a lot of tv people in the first administration, but i think there's a lot more now, and i think there is a strategy of sort of flooding the zone, of flooding the airways, of getting the message out there, and also

making it very difficult for their critics and also for the press covering them to really hone in on any specific targets, because there is so much going on. host: one of the many things you mentioned, doge, getting so much attention. he wrote last week, "president trump did a remarkable thing earlier this week. he let elon musk take reporter'' questions about the department of government efficiency, live from the oval office." what's your opinion on trump's relationship with elon musk and the appeal of this dynamic? guest: well, it is interesting, because, you know, the perception has always been that trump does not like to share the spotlight with other people, that this is the donald trump show, and he is the star, and everybody else is sort of a supporting role. and elon musk is not the only person who has sort of related been out front, vice president jd vance and others also have been pretty prominent, but must

has definitely been allowed to be a very public face of the trump administration. he has been given a policy portfolio that has gotten a lot of attention. and the question has been, is there going to come a point where, you know, as democrats focus on musk, really more than they are on the president, the base of a lot of criticism of this in administration, is he the real president, the copresident, the shadow president? there's going to become a point where that creates a rift in the relationship between trump and musk. we have nothing that happened yet. host: -- we have not seen that happen yet. host: that has been a strategy. guest: yes, i think democrats would like to get trump upset with must come of it because it is such an intentional strategy, i think trump is aware of it.

all of the reasons why the a disproportionate attention with musk has not raised trump's hackles, but it is something to watch. at the moment, there are certain things that musk is doing that don't poll well. that must himself being a billionaire, the richest man in the world, focused on this spending, you know, there's a possibility, with trump having some of the best poll numbers he's had since these international politics, there's a possibility that musk is taking all of the hits right now. host: you mentioned some of the things about musk do not poll well, but they been challenged legally as well appeared last week, musk and several allies attacked several federal judges, including on citizenship, spending cuts, and

freezes. in some cases, in questioning the independence of the judiciary could do you think federal courts are overstepping their limits and their reaction to halting trump's initiatives? guest: i mean, i think whatever you have lowest courts doing nationwide injunctions on federal policies, you are going to get questions about whether they are overstepping their jurisdiction, but some of this is quite simply, you know, the constitutional design is for the various branches of government to want to protect their powers and their, sort of, their priorities. and the judiciary is going to try to contest anything that the trump administration is going to do that they feel is pushing the envelope and how far executive powers are going to go. the trump administration is going to defend his most expensive use of executive power that they can.

the sort of institutional incentives are held checks and balances work host:. on friday on "washington journal ," we had on david stuber, from the george university law center, and we want to play a clip of him talking about protections for civil servants as well as must's access to sensitive personal data. let's listen. [video clip] david: the career civil servants who have managed the checkbook, as it were, for decades and decades, including under the trump administration -- first trumpet administration, are subject to extraordinarily severe checks, and are heavily trained in cybersecurity. the people being brought in, we know nothing about them.

they are quite young, they are quite an experience, there's no indication that they have received training and data security, and this makes many people very much afraid. would anyone feels about the policies that mr. trump and mr. musk are pursuing, they don't need access to sensitive information to do that. knowing my bank account number will not help them resolve anything about government spending. if there is a program that needs to be shut down, asked congress to shut it down, but don't go into their personal information. there is a privacy act that provides some protection against mishandled data that's given to the government. i certainly would not presume to offer any individual any advice about that, but in some instances, there may be litigation. host: i would like to get your response to that idea and whether or not you trust elon musk and approve of his and having access to that kind of data. guest: well, the government already has access to this kind of data, so the question is, i

think there's some benefits to, when you are trying to audit with the government is doing, to having outsiders, people who come in from outside of the federal institutions, doing that kind of work, but, of course, there are obviously risks. even beyond personal data, you know, when they are looking at the grants, when reviewing the grants, do they have enough background in how they are written, in how they are structured to really know what they are looking at? those are the sorts of things come of the questions that i think people are raising about doge. i, you know, do think, you know, you have to, on some level, this was something that was promised on the campaign, the elected officials have to hold the appointed officials accountable, and if the voters don't like what they are doing, they can make a different choice. host: speaking of promises on

the campaign trail, president trump pledged to rapidly reduce prices, but inflation rose in january. i'm looking at the cbc article, consumer prices up half a percent in january, higher than expected as the annual rate rose to 3%. much of that in housing and food prices, though much of the food prices is basically just eggs. what now? this is one of the many reasons people voted for trump, was concerned about inflation? guest: yeah. i don't know how much you can hold trump responsible for january's inflation, given that he was not president for much of it. but ultimately, yes, he was elected in large part because inflation was so high, that the cost of living during the biden administration gotten so high, even after the inflation rate began to decline from the 41-your high. and he's made fairly explicit

promises that he was going to provide some relief. there's going to become a point in time worked voters either feel that or they don't, and that's one of the source of promises that is very difficult to message around the prices either go up or they go down. the trump administration believes there are various things they could do to increase the energy production, that will lower energy prices and therefore lower the cost of other associated goods, but energy is a good driver of why certain things cost so much. the other thing that they are running on is a certain degree of spending restraint. the major driver of inflation, inflation is largely a monetary and fiscal policy problem. if you are not spending at inflationary rates, that should come over time, also provide some level of relief. but by virtue of making really

specific promises around prices, you know, you are putting yourself at risk of not being able to keep those promises. host: let's get to callers. our number for republicans, (202) 748-8001. for democrats, (202) 748-8000. and for independents, (202) 748-8002.let's start with marian in georgia on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: thanks. good morning. i have two things to say. i just put in my tax returns, and it will be, you know, i'm supposed to get a refund. and i heard elon musk has just gone into the irs on thursday. i don't like the idea that the trump administration has made so many of us feeling so scared, for what is going to happen to

our money. it is really concerning. another thing that is a huge concern to me, and has been ever since i heard about this, the kids who work for elon musk, they have, i mean, we know nothing really about them other than one of them has been fired for leaking information where he worked before. but what is going to happen in a few years, since we know nothing about these kids, you know, they are being defended, and we are not allowed to know anything, apparently. what is going to happen in two years if one of these kids, one of these 19-year-olds, 20-year-olds, has copied this information, holding onto it, and in a couple of years and sells it? i mean, we are going to be screwed. this is my concern. they subpoenaed elon musk, and the republicans said no, they would not let him come and answer questions. host: they did not actually subpoena him. there was an effort to subpoena him to appear before a

committee, but that effort failed. . i want to let jim respond to this idea of what will happen if some of the data that elon musk and his doge team will happen is leaked and the fear that people have that this information is not being taken care of securely. guest: well, obviously if that happens, there will be political accountability for that. we've had government agencies, you know, attempts to hack government agencies in the past. information has, you know, been compromised in the past. this would be something that is very closely tied to the trump administration. these are trump appointees, so, you know, it would be difficult for the administration to escape accountability for that, if that were something that would happen. host: let's go to. another call. . tom is in florida on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning.

i just want to say one thing. people complain about inflation and prices, but what they fail to realize is that these bills that are put on the house and senate are going to have to pass, like more petroleum, oil, fracking, you know, the transportation, goods answer, it will be all on these bills come if they are able to pass them, to lower the prices for consumer products and all that. first, you've got to lower the energy costs, the gas prices, more drilling, more fracking, which biden refused to do. don't worry about these tariffs, we've been getting ripped off for years with these tariffs. you need to focus on these two bills that need to pass the house and senate. you will never get cooperation from the democrats, but hopefully republicans should stick together to get these two bills passed. another thing, they want to keep

on kicking on elon musk and all these people working for trump. they fail to realize, a rich man, basic economics 101, a rich man will always put people to work. a poor man won't do anything for anybody. you've got to let these men do their job, what they are assigned to do. too much government waste, all these handouts need to stop them and they need to stop now. host: your thoughts on tom's points? guest: the trumpet administration has come out very quickly with a lot of executive orders, but they will come a point in time where legislation needs to be passed, and legislation, both to get the government funded and running, the debt ceiling, but also in general, if you want things that you are doing to remain in place and not be so easily reversed by the next democratic administration, a new democratic president can reverse much of what is being done by executive

orders, by issuing their own executive orders. so there's going to have to come a time where there is some legislation that happens, and the question will be, with such a narrow majority in the house, i think the senate with a somewhat larger majority has already delivered on a number of trump's confirmations, so there seems to be enough unity there. with that small margin in the house, will he have the unity that they need to actually get things done? that remains, i think, an open question. host: jim is in indiana on our line for independents. good morning. caller: hello. i see two parties constantly in a fight, and being an independent, i think what voters should be questioning their previous congressmen and representatives, everything that doge is doing was available before donald trump got elected.

and if you don't like donald trump, then you should be asking you representative, why are they telling you about wasted the government? which, to this point, admittedly, everyone seemed to know about it, but no one was doing anything about it. so it is not necessarily that i like the process that is going on, but this was a job congress should have been doing but for decades had not done it. so now, both parties own this thing, yet no congressmen or senators have come out. educate america. it's been a party thing. guest: yeah. the golden geese awards, senator tom coburn was the last one who did those. host: when you explain that? guest: william crack myrick, a democratic senator, the golden

geese award, he would identify extravagant or wasteful spending, maybe that on its face would seem absurd, and he would designate one of these wasteful spending projects, and it would get this award. it would get a lot of press attention, and people would know about certain wasteful spending initiatives that were going on inside the government. i mentioned earlier the different branches of government to hold the power, that's an important part of the system, checks and balances, one of the reasons that has failed in recent years was that the legislative branch of congress has not really been very dedicated to safeguarding the powers. it's been the executive and

judicial branch to serve a lot of legislative powers. it seems that many members of congress either want a lifetime membership, you know, are not necessarily that interested in protecting the powers of the institution. they want to run for some other higher office, or they come even at this point, aspired to internet or media celebrity, as that has, that is really a part in our constitutional system that is not working the way it was intended, because congress is not really safeguarding its powers in a way that i think the founders expected. host: last week, republican senate leader john thune was asked about the legal actions against the trump administration that we've been discussing and whether or not the trump administration should comply with future legal rulings. here's that exchange. [video clip] can i get >> your reaction to jd vance >>'s comments over the weekend that the judge is not allowed to control the

legitimate power of the executive? do you agree with that? do you think the initiation should comply with federal court rulings? sen. thune: i think what you are seeing now is a give-and-take between branches of our government. we have three branches of government, as you will know, and the courts have a way of mediating or refereeing, if you will, some of the disputes between article one an article to branches of government, and i think that's what you are seeing here. this is a process that will continue to play out. i believe the courts have a very valid role and need to be listened to in that process, yes. host: what is the role for congress in this ongoing debate? guest: well, one, i mean, congress really is the branch of government that spending is entrusted to under the constitution. so, you know, congress should be playing a leading role in getting spending under control, identifying whatever waste is going on. host: this is some of the

questions and some of these legal challenges that the president is, according to some of these challenges, trying to stop legally authorized spending appropriated by congress. guest: well, that is one of the legal questions. is he doing that? to what degree are statutes that were passed limiting the president's empowerment powers come about were fairly well accepted until 1974. to what degree was that constitutionally balance? there's lots of stuff that one runs on autopilot and two has been created by executive order, but really congress itself should have been trying to contest and trying to maintain its control of the spending process, and congress has generally been willing to punt all of these questions to the executive branch and the judicial branch. host: let's get back to your

questions. terry is in california on our line for independents. good morning, sherry. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: please go ahead. caller: i was wondering if if there is a simple answer to all the cutbacks that are happening, the amount of money, millions of dollars that they are saying they cut out of this, they cut out of that. and that is supposed to be a good thing? that is what everybody wanted, cut back on these things, billions of dollars. where does all that money go if it is now gone from these things they wanted cut? i hope that makes sense. host: this is an interesting question. if they do indeed make all of these because they are asking about, where does the money go? guest: there's a possibility congress passes packages in this

money is actually cut out of the federal budget. there's also the possibility of the money, if they allow them to do some version, there is a possibility that this money just sits out there unspent, and so congress would then have to try to identify or the executive branch, and they would likely be legal challenges about that if you executive branch tries to spend the money in ways that differ from congressional appropriations because at this point -- a big question is how much of what doge does will be identifying things for congress to act on vs. how much does the executive branch based on doge's recommendations or even doge

acting in and of itself, how much of this is really done by the executive branch? i don't think we know the answer to that. legally and constitutionally the correct course of action is for most of these decisions to be made by congress, but we've had executive branch, there was a grace commission under the reagan administration, there was al gore's reinventing government project, there is a commission under the obama administration. so it's not unheard of for there to be some kind of whether it is a blue-ribbon commission or a congressionally created task force or a presidentially appointed group of people to go in and try to find things that they don't want the government to spend money on, but the role of congress in actually making those decisions is really part of the constitutional design. host: nicole is in new jersey on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you

for taking my call. just two points. very quickly, there's a lot of fire about the young people that work for elon musk who are going through and auditing the government, including places like the treasury and the department of education. i just want to point out that january 9, it was reported that there was a data breach which affected the student information and staff information for 60 million people and we don't necessarily know whose possession that information is in. there are a number of breaches that happen and either on december 29 we learned that china hacked janet yellen's computer. there doesn't seem to be a big outcry about that. i appreciate that we have the washington examiner on.

i'm hoping that this more investigative journalism that follows these leaks and takes a different stance. i think many people are frustrated with the strongly worded letters of the people who are committing crimes in congress and we want to see people really, something potentially a little bit more just than just being censured or called out for their behaviors, the crimes they are committing. thank you. host: any thoughts? guest: as i said earlier, i think we've seen data breaches in government before and they are often isn't any real accountability for it. it's not necessarily tied to any specific administration. i think that if the people elon musk is hiring to do doge work mishandled any data, i think the

connection to political actors that we can hold responsible is pretty clear if some random agency compromises some data, maybe we haven't had accountability for that in the past. host: louisiana, line for democrats. caller: yeah, i'm an 82-year-old veteran and i think we've spent too much time trying to -- it sounds like. the fact that -- got sent overseas, it ain't nobody's fault. that's my piece. host: i don't know if you had

any follow-up points to what he said come or should you go on? guest: i think that is one of the things that president trump was elected to do, to try to -- more american jobs. that is part of what he is intending to do with the tariffs, with his negotiations with foreign governments. i think there is a general view that portions of the american industrial base have shifted overseas and while there might have been some price benefits to that, there are obviously some costs associated with it as well. host: you have a question who asked on xiven that project 20 w crafted by many former like the heritage foundation,ks how do you ree it's more radical proposals? these measures not risk centralizing power contrary to conservative ideals of checks and balances? >> it depends on what

specifically you are talking about. -- was their version of this for a potential and now actual trump administration. i think given that you have a lot of people who are serving the ministration involved in that, it is certainly valid to look at those proposals as possible things that the trump administration will do. already in some cases there are things that trump administration has done and i do think they are going to pick from, lockhart -- a la carte rather than this is just a list of stuff we have and we are going to do it. certain things are going to get plement defense or things won't be. host: congressman greene has brought up a desire to impeach.

if the president doing anything that could be deemed impeachable? guest: technically anything that you could get a majority of the house to vote for an article of impeachment on is impeachable. but the constitution says high crimes and misdemeanors are impeachable offenses, but that does not go on to define what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. until relatively recently in u.s. history, we thought that impeachment was for particularly extreme cases and we don't do it very often. since house republicans impeached in the late 90's come impeachment has become a much more common thing, but we've never had an actual successful impeachment in terms of getting a conviction in the senate. so right now i would say that there is no article of impeachment against president trump that could even get to the house judiciary committee most

likely, but certainly not get a majority in the house and they would be no hope of convicting in the senate. host: richard is in augusta, maine on the line for independents. caller: i'm glad you took my call and i'm glad that you showed that dye that was on here friday because i tried to get through their and he was talking about how all this stuff should be going through congress and stuff like that. when biden was in office, all the people were on the mexico side of the border and when he took office he opened the border and let all these people come across the border and flying them all over and we spent billions of dollars on these people. congress didn't approve that. he did all kinds of stuff without congressional approval. in one of the things that guy also said was he said well, that inspector general whose job it is to do that and trump fired

him. of course he fired him, he hadn't been doing his job. you've got to expect if you are not doing your job you are going to get fired. elon musk is doing what these people should have been doing all along and now they are criticizing him. we've got to cut waste no matter what. we shouldn't be getting billions of dollars to people who aren't even u.s. citizens. i'm a veteran and i'm on social security. i don't get free health care, i don't get free housing, i don't get any of that stuff. people who can illegally across the border are getting it. host: i want to give a chance to respond. guest: i should have mentioned immigration earlier because that is one of the biggest things the trump administration has done to try to be different from the biden administration is that various biden initiatives, some of which were reversing previous trump initiatives, but in terms

of getting rid of catching release, in terms of various enforcement priorities, removing people from the country who are in the country illegally, the romanian mexico policy for people applying for asylum and trying to get into the united states, these are fairly substantial changes that were done through executive orders and are probably some of the biggest changes the trump administration has implemented since taking office. host: a questn a text, will all of these cuts help to offset --ut she refers to president trump as a turnip, permanent tax cuts that are due to expire at the end of the year? this is an independent from jacksonville, florida, referencing the expiration of several provisions of the 2017 tax cuts and jobs act and republicans of obviously expressed a desire to make some

of these tax cuts permanent. guest: yes, there will be congressional action to try to extend the trump tax cuts. i think that there is no likelihood that they would all be allowed to expire, but there are certain provisions that are pretty hotly contested, including a reform that was the initial act, the initial tax cuts on salt deductions that a lot of blue state republicans in particular would like to undo. doge, when you are talking about the $1 trillion, $2 trillion that elon musk has talked about, that would get you in the zone of that, but the likelihood is no, nothing of the size would come from this effort. host: just for the information of the audience, the estimated cost of the tax cuts extending if they were extended in their current form would be about

trillion dollars. host: right. i don't think you're going to get anywhere near $1 trillion or $2 trillion. congress would have to approve anything on that scale anyway. but in addition to $4 trillion, there's also talk of adding various provisions. if you get rid of the cap on the salt deductions, that costs some revenue. no taxes on tips, that will cost you some revenue. no taxes on social security benefits, that will cost you some revenue. some of the higher tax rates, there may be some revenue you get back from how people respond to the economic incentives, but there is less of a supply side effect some of these other provisions being discussed. host: new york, line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning.

i'd like to say that the reason we are losing sight of the reason for these doge, if we do not cut, potentially the dollar will become worthless and a lot of people blues their jobs, and whatever money you have good chop off a few zeros. the interest on the debt is astronomical. if we keep going like this, there won't be a country, people have a major depression. so yes, no one likes to see people lose their jobs, but sometimes when you have a cancer, some of the good cells unfortunately have to the extracted as well. also i'd like to say that nancy

pelosi and district in san francisco, they built some kind of walking path for $20 million. so let's not lose sight of the big picture about why this is necessary, thank you. guest: i mean in the big picture, the problem is that we have more spending really at the demand of the voters then we have the political appetite to pay for taxes. and we have entitlement programs that we are unwilling to reform that don't have any concrete way of paying for it. and doge and various efforts at rooting out government waste can be helpful, but ultimately those basic physical realities are going to have to be addressed to really change the country financial situation. host: that is all the time that we have for your calls on the

segment, but thank you so much. editor of washington examiner magazine, thank you. coming up later in the program we will hear from public historian and author jason stein our will be here to discuss similarities and comparisons between president trump and president william mckinley, who served from 1897-19 no one. but i'm next, -- 1901. at up next, more of your calls and comments for open forum. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independence, (202) 748-8002. while you are dialing in, we want you to know that there are more than 60 new members of congress and the u.s. house of representatives, and we will meet many of them next week on c-span. starting at 9:30 p.m. eastern, we will hear them talk about their lives, their past careers, and whthey ran for congress. here is some of what they had to say. >> i have a history of public

service in west virginia, my grandfather serving at the only three term governor in the state of west virginia and i am currently serving in the united states senate right now, and then my cousin who is in the house of delegates. so certainly we have a long family history of service in the state of west virginia and i'm certainly proud to be able to carry on the tradition. >> we are talking about the former governor and the current senator from west virginia. what did you learn from all those family member? >> when my grandfather, a lot of it with the learning process for me, that you could order anything you wanted in the governor's mansion to eat. other than that, not too much in terms of his actual service. but i did learn a lot from him in terms of his life, that he had served in world war ii, he was in combat, he was wounded,

and what that did in terms of changing his life and his service to this nation and put him on that path. he was not on that path before them and really felt like he had a calling toward it. obviously i talked to my aunt shelley all the time, and she's been air real good sounding board for me in terms of how to get things done in this type of legislative body as she served in the house previously and was also in the house of delegates in west virginia. >> i started a nonprofit in 2012. it is an afterschool program, summer camp for young girls in my district starting at fifth grade where they are able to do a lot of hands-on type of projects. the goal is to get them interested in careers in stem, and it has worked. the years it has existed we've had hundreds of girls who are in college right now starting stem. >> so in 2016 we lost my little brother luke to a fentanyl

overdose, fentanyl that shouldn't have been here. my little brother was 20 years old and it was tragic and i tell people it's like losing an arm and having to go through life without something that should be there that is not. it drove me to do this and to run for congress, it's why i'm here. >> i-practicing law in texas for 33 years, representing people in their times of need and when they had a problem, usually against a corporation or insurance company or something along those lines. i married my wife, we have a split household not on republican and democrat, but lawyer and dr. which in some cases i think is more contentious. i have two sons, nicholas and benjamin, they are 22 and 24 and working their way up through life. just really excited to be here. >> you are the first openly

lgbtq member representing texas ever. what does that mean to you and what do you think it means to others? >> it's a huge honor and a responsibility. texas has a significant lgbtq population and it is demonstrative that you can win in hard states and we must win in hard states for our equality to alternately the achieved. and also just to put yourself out there. don't shut yourself down because you think you can't win. i did that to myself, i never thought i could win i flipped a statehouse seed, i'm the first democrat to hold it in 40 years, now i'm a member of congress. i just think it's awesome. >> i grew up in an era with the vietnam war during high school, watergate during my college years. it really transfixed my attention on what was happening in government and politics.

i thought that my service would be at a more localized level, but one road led to another and we would talk about politics at the dinner table because of vietnam. and then of course during college, the debate about what was happening in watergate was overwhelming and sparked some interesting politics that might be a little unique for that generation. >> tonight on c-span's q&a, former mafia associate lewis for on tape cares his book -- lous ferrante shares his book "borgata." he gives a history of the mafia in america, discusses attorney general robert kennedy's war against organized crime and the involvement he set the mafia had in the 1960 election and 1963 assassination of president john kennedy. >> robert f kennedy becomes

attorney general after his brother and that becomes clash of titans, the first time there is a massive concentration on the mafia from someone who holds all of the almost unlimited resources of the united states government at his disposal. and that is when the mafia finally feel threatened, it is a life or death situation. >> louis ferrante with this book "borgata: clash of titans." you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now app. washington journal continues. host: we are in open forum ready to hear your comments about the news of the week or public policy in general. in the foreign-policy dimension this continuing fallout from jd vance at the munich security conference last week. here's a headline in the washington post.

german leader rebukes fans, boosting far-right higher. german chancellor olaf scholz lasted vice president jd vance for his support of the far-right in a country that gave rise to adolf hitler, accusing him of interfering in domestic affairs less than 10 days after national elections. the denunciation of efforts by the german establishment to keep the far-right out of power sparked a wave of condemnation from senior officials and pundits, some of whom saw a u.s. administration actively promoting political extremism in the west. let's look at some of those comments that vice president jd vance made while attending the munich security conference. this is a portion from friday. >> today, almost one in five people living in this country moved here from abroad. that is, of course, an all-time high. it is a similar number in the united states, also an all-time high. the number of immigrants to

enter the e.u. from non-e.u. countries doubled between 2021 and 2022 alone, and of course it has gotten much higher since. and we know the situation didn't materialize in a vacuum. it is the result of a series of conscious decisions made by politicians all over the continent and others across the world over a decade. we saw the horrors yesterday in this very city. and of course i can't bring up again about thinking about the terrible victims who had a beautiful winter day in munich ruined. our thoughts and prayers are with them and will remain with them, but why did this happen in the first place? is a terrible story but it is one the first way too many times in europe and unfortunately too many times in the united states as well. an asylum seeker, often a young man in his mid-20's already

known to police rams a car into a crowd and shatters a community. how many times must we suffer these appalling setbacks before we change course and take air shared civilization in a new direction? no voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvented immigrants, but you know what they did vote for, in england they voted for brexit and agree or disagree, they voted for it. and more and more all over europe they are voting for political leaders who promised to put an end to out-of-control migration. i happen to agree with a lot of these concerns but you don't have to agree with me. i just think that people care about their homes, they care about their dreams, they care about their safety and their capacity to provide for themselves and their children. and they are smart. i think this is one of the most important things i've learned in my brief time in politics.

contrary to what you might hear a couple mountains over in dallas, the citizens of all of our nations don't generally think of themselves as educated animals or as interchangeable cogs of the global economy. and it is hardly surprising that they don't want to be shuffled about or relentlessly ignored by their leaders. host: more from that washington post article about the response to that speech that vice president dance gate at the munich security conference. he use the conference to criticize the country, germany's political firewall. the post-world war ii agreement by mainstream parties to block the far-right from being part of any government. he punctured to this point by later meeting with the coleader of the anti-migrant alternative for germany party which is pulling in second place. the afd denies being a far-right party but is classified by german intelligence as a suspected extremist group. one of the parties most prolific figures has been convicted and fined for using a banned nazi

slogan. michelle, line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. that was quite a clip. i saw vance speaking to the european union and i was, he was so bellicose. they are our allies. he was lecturing them about free speech and here we have the white house barring ap news from the oval office because they've not agreed to call the gulf of mexico the gulf of america. but that's not what i actually called about. on foreign policy and trump, he says he favors peace, yet the first thing he did was got usaid which is a peacekeeping organization, a form of soft

diplomacy. and instead he talks of increasing the defense spending and annexing panama, greenland, canada and mexico which is the exact opposite of peace. so one of the problems i have with trump foreign policy initiatives is that he says one thing and then his actions .2 escalation of imperialism. the only thing i can get is that most of his policies seem to be callous and transactional. thank you. host: john is a new york on the line for republicans. caller: thanks for taking my call. it would seem that the countries of the world now have a new mindset, and that is a total,

unrestricted mass migration just coming in. migration of totally unvented people. i think most of the industrialized countries of the west, they are not necessarily against migration, but common sense would dictate that they want them vetted in a way they can certainly know who is coming in and have these people be productive citizens. i go back and forth between fox news and cnn, and jonathan turley sounded the alarm in europe. it looks like what they are doing is wage an all-out war on free speech they are probably interpreting people's discontent with hate crimes and punishing people. that seems to be the trend going on. possibly maybe somebody would know who gave joe biden the ok

to let these people and obstruct any type of actions that people like governor abbott would take to control this onslaught? i would just like to know that. who gave biden the order? i think it is common sense he did not do it on his own. one more thing. a little bit unrelated, but relevant. i recently watched tv and this democratic asteria over -- hysteria over the doge actions and i was never so shocked in my life. i am 77 years old and i would watch these democrats get up, women especially, and dropped the f bomb in their little speeches and giggle and i thought that would be something totally unprofessional and maybe

it is the norm today. but if some of your viewers have comments to make on that, i would appreciate it. thank you for your time and have a good day. host: next up is steve on our line for independents. caller: i listened to the vance clip. i did not see anything controversial there. i think that is the problem with media and things. we cannot speak about things rationally. everyone is talking about usaid. i am sure 99% of the people against the cutting never heard of usaid until two weeks ago. i look back when clinton did something similar to this called reinventing government initiatives and he ended up

cutting over 100,000 people from the federal workforce, 360,000, and for the first time the united states had a budget surplus and back then, and this is not long ago, everyone was applauding that effort, republican or democrat, the media. we are in a country with trillions of dollars in debt and we are going to argue over everything cut from the budget? it is destructive to our nation. i do not get why. why does anyone not mention clinton did this? >> i was able to look up an article about that in the

washington examiner. doge's government work recalls clinton administration's initiative. elon musk and the department of government deficiency are busy eliminating waste in the u.s. government, it is not the first time a presidential administration has sought to make the government more efficient. doge's work has drawn comparisons to the clinton administration's initiative launched just a few weeks after bill clinton was inaugurated as the 42nd president. six months after launching the initiative, clinton and then vice president al gore showcased a report on the ministration's -- administration's national performance review that detailed how the government could save over the course of five years. is this what you were talking about? caller: that is what i am talking about.

why hasn't anyone mentioned that? no one is talking about this. with a trillion dollar deficit that continues to grow, we have to be somewhat drew kony and. how else do we cut the budget? and it is not just let's tax the rich. that is not going to make a dent in the budget. it would be nice if everyone was on the same side and part of the issue is the way media has to report things now and there are good guys and bad guys. and everyone follow suit without anyone thinking rationally about the reality of the country. host: next is another steve, this one in new york on our line for democrats. caller: what this guy steve mentioned at the end was they cut and raise taxes.

republicans will not raise taxes one penny. that is why bill clinton balanced the budget, taxing the rich. he will not touch that. we had surplus and then george bush came in and started two wars and give a tax cut, a republican initiative. it started back then. we had a pandemic and all that. but they will not raise taxes. we are not saving money because this money is going back out the door on a 4.5 trillion dollar tax cut. three quarters of it will go to people making over $100 million a year but they forget to mention this. if you are going to cut, do not do it with a hatchet. 80% of these jobs are not in d.c..

this will have an effect all throughout our states. there will be lower purchasing, all of this. it is going to have a snowball effect. 's elon musk's cars blow up every day. his spaceships do not always work right. there are other companies that make satellites and stuff that he can withhold contracts from and they are just as good as his. he is hiring 18-year-old a 19-year-old kids who do not know old programming linkages and they are making a lot of mistakes. they are not the cream of the crop. i have worked in tech and these guys will never admit a mistake. they will never admit they do not know something and you are seeing it now. it is going to have a big effect and i would imagine a lot will

be held up in courts. it will have an effect on people's jobs that do not even understand it there they are cutting from the v.a. and cdc, cancer research. if you want to cut conduit with a scalpel. you do not do it with a hatchet. host: lynn is in columbia, maryland on our line for independents. caller: your earlier caller referenced the more than one million unvented migrants are shared across the border in the opening months of the biden administration. that was actually the second thing they did in terms of executive order. the first thing they did was renew the declaration of national emergency originally issued by president trump declaring a deadly global pandemic. let me put this together for you people out there that are not getting it. the biden administration came into power january 20 of 2021.

the first thing they did was renew the declaration of national emergency for a deadly global pandemic. the second thing they did was open up the border and then between january and may we had more than one million unvented, untested, unvaccinated immigrants crossover the border. i was paying attention and at that point i knew the whole pandemic scare was fake. it was obvious. they knew there was no threat of a deadly global pandemic. but most americans cannot put those two ideas together. i really waited to see what anthony fauci would say when he faced that senate committee and they asked him, what do you think about our maintenance of the border? and the millions of immigrants that have come in in the midst of this deadly global pandemic? and he said, senator, i have no opinion on the impact of migration on the pandemic. i just think all americans need

to go out and get vaccinated. i also should saying those of us in the truth or -- truther community know this alleged opposition to elon musk is fake and controlled. it is controlled opposition because it is refusing to go after elon musk for those areas of fakery on which he is most vulnerable and that is his use of cgi. many recitations of his space launches -- that ridiculous space car -- sports car in space where he allegedly had some guy behind the wheel of a sports car floating out and space -- that was cgi. that was fake. but you alleged enemies of elon musk will note -- will not go after him for that because you are cowards. host: let's go on with beth in florida on our line for republicans. caller: i do not even know where

to start. i was all for calling out waste, fraud, and abuse. i may be the only person that ever called in to your show in the last eight years that has ever spent -- they've never spent a dime of taxpayer money for the government. i am a former negotiator and i wanted to talk about fraud, waste, abuse, and (202) 748-8003 -- and facebook.com/cspan -- and doge. doge is not a government organization and they are not being efficient. i will add the new treasury secretary was on fox news the other night and said elon musk was going in and looking at algorithms. unless he is doing an audit of the system itself, the computer system, he is not doing an audit for the government.

he is definitely not doing a financial audit. my husband was a financial auditor for the government for 33 years and i was a contract negotiator and spent tax dollars. fraud, waste, and abuse. fraud -- one contract i had, i was working with a large business. i am sure if i could remember which one of the big names like boeing or whatever i could tell you which one it was, but it was almost 40 years ago. i do not remember the company. i was buying a sole-source item from them and in the midst of that i thought i would reply from a small business that said they can make the same item. the point of the story, what had happened is the small business had somehow gotten a copy of the specs and blueprints for this item from the large business. basically, they were stealing their proprietary rights and

intellectual property and we found out it was stolen from the large business because there was a notation written in cursive on it, so i had to stop my contract . this whole thing had to go through the courts because the large business sued the small business for theft and there was a big investigation in the government. host: i want to get to a couple more folks before we have to end open forum. let's hear from our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask your last guest about security clearances. when i applied for a job with a government contractor, it took almost four months for me to get my security clearance.

i did not even have to have access to personal data that elon musk and these younger kids may have. i am not understanding -- what kind of security clearance does elon musk and these people from doge have to have access to such sensitive information? i am not getting it. a previous caller talked about vetting migrants. what kind of vetting does elon musk and them have to have access? president obama -- in charge of any government agency all heck would have broke loose, so people need to start thinking about what is going on out here because this is not a joke right now. this is very serious and these people have access to our sensitive data.

they should not have access at all. >> gary is in connecticut on our line for independents. >> calling in regard to the apparent current direction of our policy toward the war in ukraine. when the soviet union collapsed, ukraine is an independent state was the third greatest nuclear weapons power in the world. in 1994, they signed a treaty guaranteed by the united states, great britain, and russia to give up nuclear weapons if their territory and sovereignty were protected. that was a treaty which we guaranteed now we are not doing that. and that is terribly upsetting. it is really ironic that the sellout of ukraine has begun in munich.

munich is where the sellout of chuckles of aki a -- czechoslovakia took place. as we all know, the munich selloff was a major factor leading to world war ii. thank you. host: that is all the time we have open forum. coming up, historian and author jason steinhauer will discuss similarities and comparisons between president trump and president william mckinley. we will be right back. ♪ >> tonight on c-span's q&a, former mafia associate louis fer

rante shares volume two of his history of the american mafia. in the first of a two part interview, he gives a history of the mafia in america discusses robert kennedy's war against organized crime and the involvement he says the mafia had in the 1960 election and 1963 assassination of president john kennedy. >> robert f kennedy becomes attorney general for his brother that becomes clash of titans, the first time there is a massive, concentrated attack on the mafia am someone who holds almost limited resources of the united states government. that is when they mafia finally feels threatened. it is a life or death situation. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all our podcasts on our free c-span now app.

>> all this week, watch c-span's new members of congress serious where we speak with republicans and democrats about their early lives, previous careers, families, and why they decided to run for office. monday, our interviews include a democratic congress woman, the first african-american elected to congress from oregon. >> my mother graduated in 1970 from one of the last sector get in high schools in state and the country and i think about all of the opportunities that were not afforded her coming out of segregation and i bring that perspective to oregon, saying my mom was a real kid that did not have a lot of opportunities. i am going to make sure i bring that forward for all the kids in oregon. >> watch new members of congress all this week on c-span.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are joined by jason steinhauer, author and public historian come out to talk about historical comparisons to our modern moment. welcome back to washington journal. you describe yourself as a public historian. what does that mean? guest: great question. the world of professional history is subdivided into two major categories commit major camps, academic history and public history. there's a lot of overlap, but roughly speaking academic history -- professional historians teaching at universities, writing scholarly articles. public historians typically work in places like museums, libraries, national parks. may not ever write an academic book but may do a series of museum exhibits or curricula so it is about taking historical

scholarship and interfacing with public audiences. that is what i have done throughout my career. i began my career in museums. i worked at the library of congress. i was the founding director of a center about bringing history to bear on contemporary issues so i love to think about history and apply it to questions of public policy and also think about how the public understands history and try to find ways to bring history to the public. host: you have a commentary here, make mckinley great again, how trump is bringing the 19th century into the 21st. tell us about president william mckinley. guest: i will tell you how i got turned onto the subject. president trump issued an array of executive orders and one of the first he signed in the early days the presidency, i believe on the first davis presidency, was to revert constant only back

to mount mckinley. inside the executive order, there were a series of sentences , full paragraphs praising president mckinley. i thought that was curious. there are lots of different republican presidents that could be cited, reagan, eisenhower. why mckinley? as trump's presidency unfolded, he started to talk about tariffs and annexing territory and i thought, that is a very mckinley . this feels very 19th century. that got me thinking about the similarities between the two as well as maybe some of the influences the president is currently drawing upon for some of his policies. that led me to look at mckinley. he was the 25th president of the united states. he was from ohio. he served in the u.s. civil war

and eventually would on to serve in congress and as governor before running for president. he served as president from 1896 to 1900. he won reelection and began his first term and was assassinated. he was a very influential figure in his time, ran for president twice, won twice. his second term was cut short. he is a name and personality that was very well known for his time but since then has faded in terms of the american memory. >> let's listen to president trump talking about former president mckinley, specifically citing his policies on tariffs and the panama canal. >> america will reclaim its rightful place as the greatest, most respected nation on earth, inspiring the admiration of the entire world. a short time from now, we are

going to be changing the name of the gulf of mexico to the gulf of america. we will restore the name of a great president, william mckinley, to mount mckinley, where it should be and belongs. president mckinley made our country very rich through tariffs and talent. he was a natural businessman and gave teddy roosevelt the money from any of the great things he did, including the panama canal, which has foolishly been given to the country panama after the united states -- think of this. the united states spent more money than ever spent on a project before and lost 38 thousand lives in the building of the panama canal.

we have been treated very badly from this foolish gift that should have never been made and panama's promise to us has been broken. the purpose of our deal and the spirit of our treaty has been violated. american ships are being severely overcharged and not treated fairly in any way, shape, or form. that includes the united states navy. above all, china is operating the panama canal and we did not give it to china. we gave it to panama and we are taking it back. host: you highlight some of the accomplishments of the mckinley administration. some of those will sound familiar. instituted tariffs, issued an executive order that dismissed civil servants, annexed hawaii, acquired puerto rico and guam, went to war with spain over cuba

, expanded american power in the pacific, specifically the philipnes, bolstered the erican military, particularly the navy, advocated for business and industry and professed sympathy for american workers. where do you see the strongest comparisons between trump and mckinley? >> first, these were things that happened during the mckinley administration there could be debate about whether they are compliments, but i would say clearly the president and his advisors, people within his circle have given great attention to the mckinley administration and i think there are a couple reasons why. the clip just played touches on it. the period before mckinley ascended to the presidency, the united states was booming in terms of economic activity.

we think about it as the gilded age, tremendous wealth among robber barons like the rockefellers. american industry was really surging and it was a golden age in some ways because there was a surplus and tremendous revenue coming in, so i think trump has talked about this in other public appearances. he seems to be harkening back to that era and thinking, how can we use tariffs as a way to bring in additional revenue and support american businesses and make sure we have another golden age of prosperity? in terms of worldview, there is a lot of similarities there. and trying to establish the dominance of the american economy and hoping that will trickle down to the american worker. that was a philosophy mckinley ascribes to. he was very much a pro-business,

pro-corporate president. he had a version of an elon musk who helped him assume public office, and industrialist and wealthy businessman. mckinley sort of believed the better american corporations did, the better all of america would do. he envisioned expanding the possibilities for american trade not just in the western hemisphere but beyond to the pacific, china, and other places. in terms of worldview, there are similarities there and also trump seems to be inspired perhaps or maybe even just borrowing from a mckinley playbook about how to expand american reach, trade dominance, and the american empire. host: to your point about whether these were accomplishmentor not, a universityf gegia history professor says the mckinley

ductive political logic.a if defensive tariffs help republicans win the presidency, only -- then even more tariffs will only enha their power. as the bill shape mckinley, he and other legislbega adding new taxes on a dizzying array of imports. the reaction to the legislation was overwhelmingly negative, as handout to the nation's wealthiest manufacturers. newspapers spelled out how much more working-class families would have to payor a wide range of goods. democrs warned farmers they would soon be reduced to drinking from gourds on account of the high price of 10 cups. that is quite the summary. what do you think are the lessons from the mckinley administration for the trump administration, if they are going to follow that playbook?

guest: there are a lot of debates about tariffs and their efficacy and who ends up paying for tariffs, whether it ultimate get passed on to the american consumer and that leads to higher prices. there is evidence to support that. one of the broader lessons from all of this is that economics and understanding the dynamics of marketplaces is complicated and there are lots of factors that go into it. often presidents get more blame than they deserve and take more credit than they deserve for the success or failures of economies . in the case mckinley, he wrote a piece in 1890 arguing for tariffs, believing for the government to raise the necessary revenue needed it was better to levy a tax on imports than to do so via internal revenue, and he argued passionately for that in the

early 1890's. in 1893, there was a severe economic recession and tariffs were blamed in part for the recession so that helped the democrats, but mckinley doubled down and said, the democrats did not do tariffs correctly. i will do them correctly and protect american industry. he obviously ends up winning in 1896 and by the end of the century, by the end of the 1890's the american economy has recovered and is doing well. so mckinley takes credit for it and says it was my tariffs all along. the answers are more complex than that. there are lots of different factors that go into it. in today's administration, i think they are looking -- and i'm not an insider, but it seems like they are looking at a variety of things. they want to bring down government spending. they want to increase the amount

of oil and gas in the fuel supply. they think that will help them bring down costs and inflationary pressure. they are looking at trade deals, at tariffs. and the combination of those things, they hope, and also deregulation and lowering taxes, they think the combination will help the american business so even if there is an uptick in mac price from tariffs these other savings will help offset that. the jury is out on whether that will happen. >> there also parallels to imperialist ambitions president trump has talked about, canada is a 51st state or buying greenland or reclaiming the panama canal. and then mckinley had quite the expansionist view as well. what are some of the highlights there in terms of -- as in what

you highlighted in your piece, and terms of the comparisons there? guest: perhaps the biggest legacy of the mckinley administration is how it redrew the map of the united states. for example, you mentioned it in the opening. the annexation of hawaii. hawaii had a queen and had an indigenous population. during the mckinley administration, the united states annexed hawaii and claimed it as an american territory. viewers might be familiar with the spanish-american war of 1898. spain had been a dominant empire . by the time the 1890's come around, spain's empire is under pressure from insurgencies and the united states entered the war on behalf of cuban revolutionaries to try to expel spain from the western hemisphere. as a result, the united states takes cuba as a protectorate and incorporates puerto rico and

guam and also annexes the philippines. by the turn of the 20th century, you have an american map that extends beyond the continental united states. the distance from new york to manila is 10,000 miles or something like that, so mckinley redraws the sphere of american influence and expense the map in profound ways and these are legacies we are still grappling with. puerto rico is still part of the united states, yet does not have representation in congress the way a state would. the presence of guantanamo bay in cuba as a result of the war with spain and the arrangements made after the war for american presidents on that land. so mckinley would talk about this in terms of spreading american geopolitical and economic influence, making sure there was an array of

opportunities for american businesses to expand markets. the philippines in the pacific being a primary destination for that and hawaii being a strategic gateway to the pacific and i think when we hear president trump talking about expanding american influence geopolitically and expanding opportunities for american businesses, there are parts of that discourse in that. he seems to be drawing some inspiration from that. host: let's start with brian in massachusetts on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: i understand that mckinley -- please correct my understandings are wrong. mckinley was one of the few or maybe many enlisted men who rose to an officer rank and he experienced battle in places

like antietam. he was -- i believe he was a methodist and i was wondering whether that religious persuasion enabled him to stop a war with spain or cuba but it was an erroneous report that a mine in havana harbor -- he was forced to declare war or approve war with spain. i just wanted to get your opinion on his probably nonviolent understanding of war and if he had experienced war, so thanks. interesting show. thank you for letting me talk. guest: is a good question. in answer to that question, he did serve in the u.s. civil war and was a devout methodist. as it comes to the spanish-american war, one of the

things that is important to remember about histories historians often argue with each other and we argue because we look at sources and try to understand how these personalities behaved in their time and sometimes based on the evidence we come to different interpretations about what may have happened, because none of us was there. in the case of the spanish-american war, there have been debates and arguments among historians about how eager mckinley was to enter the war and how reluctant he may have been to commit u.s. forces to the cause and how much he was influenced by newspapers at the time. to the point you mentioned, mckinley sort of does a half measure at one point where he sends the uss maine towards cuba as a show of force but not with the intention of actually engaging in battle. the maine explodes in the harbor, so the cry of remember

the alamo changes to remember the maine and they were cost intervene in the war between spain and cuban revolutionaries on behalf of the revolutionaries to avenge the explosion of the uss maine. evidence suggests the maine was not excluded by spanish forces. it may have exploded as a result of something internal to the ship, but either way it became impetus for entering that conflict and there were debates in american society at the time about whether entering the conflict was the right thing to do. mckinley himself debated that. in fact, he wrote about this. he would stay up late at night pacing in the white house or thinking at his desk and even praying to give him the guidance about what to do about the cuban question and the spanish empire. the explosion of the uss maine

is what provokes the united states to enter the war. host: there is a question from eve in alexandria. anti-immig sentiment was rampant iu.s. public during the miny adration, primarily against irish catholic and eastern europeans. what similarities are there with the trump administration and what immigration policies? host: great question. in the 1890's, there were nefarious ideologies present in not just american society but around the world. there was obviously antiblack racism in the year that mckinley is elected. it is also the infamous decision that codifies racial discrimination in united states. there is a lot of xenophobia. there were a tremendous amount

of immigrants coming to united states. many were from italy. there were also jews from eastern europe. there were croatians and assyrians and chinese americans and japanese-americans and there was tremendous xenophobia within american society and fear about what those immigrants would mean for american society. if you look back at the language used, you will see in the writing people use terms like invasion of immigrants. people worried about whether this invasion of immigrants would change american culture and how it would affect american civilization and would america be able to survive this influx of immigrants. it leads to heavy restrictions on immigration, not just the

chinese exclusion act would also eventually quotas in the 1920's. with hindsight, we know actually immigration did not destroy the american republic. in fact, it enriched the american republic and folks like italian americans who in the 1890's people questioned whether they could integrate into american society, today american -- italian americans are part of the fabric of american life, so we see similarities in the discourse today on the way we describe immigration that mirror some of the language that existed in the 1890's. with the benefit of hindsight, we can see there are lots of ways immigration to the united states enriches our culture and makes us a stronger and more diverse nation and that is one of the benefits of studying history. host: some of the same narratives at the time i imagine contributed to public for -- support for expansionist policies.

host: some of those same ideologies were some of the most staunch anti-imperialists, so basically there was debate about whether the united states should actually annex these territories and the anti-imperialists, many of them worried about how the integration of puerto ricans and hawaiians and cubans and filipinos into american society might work, if it would work at all. so some of the fittest for the language is wrapped up in discussions around race and immigration and thinking that basically america and the united states has been around not integrating these alien races, as they were described, into american society because that would help us preserve american society and bringing these into the fold wrist destabilization. mckinley talked about this publicly and in his private

writings. in his vision of empire, part of the responsibility was to "civilize and christianize" these people. our famous court cases around this argued before the supreme court and it got at the question of whether these territories that were newly acquired could ever really fully integrate into the united states as state or whether they had to remain as territories and what rights those people would have if they lived in a territory versus a state. we are still grappling with some of these legacies today when we look at places like puerto rico. host: cj is in buffalo, new york on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. can you sort of give you

whatever -- the zeitgeist culture of the turn of the century? and like -- whoever killed mckinley, i think his name was leon or something, was there a purpose behind that or was he a crazy anarchist? or is it some kind of semi-political motivation? i grew up in the area and never really heard a lot of details. host: mckinley ranks on c-span's presidential -- we do a presidential historian survey and they get historians to rank the popularity of the presidents . mckinley was ranked 14th in 2021 and i wonder how popular was he at the time.

guest: mckinley was very popular. he wins the election comfortably and wins reelection also very comfortably. he was a well-known figure. he served in the civil war and in congress. he had been governor of ohio. he ran a strategic presidential campaign. i made a video on this talking about how he was very shrewd about public relations. he was very good about working with the press and converted a train car on his train into a dark room so he could constantly feed the press with photograph. so a very shrewd politician. one comfortably -- won comfortably in both elections he ran. in 1901, he went to buffalo, new york to deliver a speech. while he is reading various

people in the crowd, there is a man there who pulls out a gun and shoots him in the chest. initially, it looks like mckinley might survive, but eventually he succumbs to his wounds and passes away and that allows teddy roosevelt to become president. in terms of reasons for the assassination, the assassin, whose name i'm surely going to mispronounce -- i believe it is leon czolgosz. he describes himself as an anarchist who has sympathy with the american worker and felt that kenley did not do enough for the american worker. mckinley was very pro-corporate, very pro-business. he wanted to make sure that american businesses succeeded and he believed that would trickle down to the american worker. i think he said at one point that their pails would befall

the reality of the turn of the century was different from that. you had robber barons and people like the vanderbilts and carnegie's who amassed tremendous wealth, including the gentleman who helped mckinley get elected. inside cities cut you had tenements or immigrant families would be living multiple families to a unit or with multiple people in a family to a room. there was tremendous poverty and there were tremendous fights over workers rights, over the length of the workweek, about wages. there were numerous strikes across the country. all of this feeds into the progressive era where there were calls for reforms to make sure workers had more protections and conditions were better for workers and there were more fair wages and prosperity was shared more equally, so mckinley's

assassin certainly was privy to that rhetoric and understood in a moment for tremendous american wealth and prosperity for some there was inequality in how the wealth was to should be 10 and what is interesting about him is he expressed no remorse for his actions. he was executed. even until his execution, he defended his actions and expressed no remorse for them, so the zeitgeist at the time, like all historical euros, was complex and it differed depending on who you asked and what your place was in society. host: bo is in sylvester on our line for independents. caller: i have been teaching my class on the imperialism of the early 20th century and i want to

bring up china. i know you are a historian and will know about this. you could probably flash a map up showing the western powers fear of influence and china. and you can elaborate on this too. you had the boxer rebellion and the boxer protocol but also the open-door notes. the thing about this is i think this was part of china's sentry of humiliation that we tend to forget in american history and one of the legacies of why we have issues with china today, that they remember when the western powers dominated their kingdom. so i would like my historian on their to comment on that. guest: it is a great point to bring up the boxer rebellion. one of the things i think is important to remember is that even in the midst of this period of american empire where the united states is in geopolitical competition with great powers like spain for dominance of

economic markets and gop oakland fluence, the united states is still collaborating with foreign powers. one of those collaborations happens in china to suppress the boxer rebellion. united states sends troops, along with other european nations, as part of the effort to suppress the rebellion. it is part of this broader period where not just the united states but also powers in europe are looking to asia thinking about opportunities there for empirical and colonial expansion as well as expansion of markets and trade. obviously the british have a presence in india. the spanish have a presence in the philippines. there's a lot of imperial legacies in the pacific and those are still coming into play today when we look at geopolitics and various

nationstates and actors in asia, whether china or any number of different countries still remember and still talk about, in their public sphere, american imperialism and presence in the pacific and that informs the way geopolitics happens today and some of the tensions that exist today. i think it is an excellent point by the caller. host: i tended to find a map that was not able to find a good one quickly. was go to jim. -- let's go to jim. caller: this is a peculiar time where the western powers are facing and irreversible doom loop of debt and geopolitics generally and historically has

directed them to enter into some kind of war where the population is directed to blame a foreign power rather than their own politicians and bankers. and the thoughts of expansionism and things like this in the face of 85% of the world organizing against us and having proved ourselves unworthy stewards of financial assets by seizing other nations' savings puts us in a peculiar position. i think we need to learn how to cooperate with at least two other major powers in the world for a non-hegemonic system. host: did you have any follow-up points to what jim was saying? guest: i agree about global cooperation and i think that is

something i think a lot about today in particular when we think about some of the international structures that the united states worked so hard to build after the second world war and how we can continue to perpetuate those structures and organizations to ensure freedom and democracy and human rights triumph and i think the only way we can do that is through global cooperation. we have ambitions for the united states in terms of our expansion and economy and prosperity, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that we will need to coope allies to ensure thatra democray and human rights also prevail around the world. and that's that's something that i hope we as america, regardless of our republican, democrat or independent, can agree on. robert is in indianapolis, indiana, on our line for democrats. good morning, robert. good morning.

and thank you for taking my call. mr. steinhauser. my question is, you were saying that the trump administration are highly infatuated with the mckinley era. and i'm assuming that's what they mean. that's what they mean when they say make america great again, that it's going to bring us back to the mckinley era. 80, 95, 90. what i think i heard you say. so my question is, in the spirit of i think this is why african-americans are such a nervous about the trump administration. so my question is, in the spirit of black history month, how did the african-americans people fare in the mckinley era and how does that coincide with us here in america in 2025? i'll take my answer off the air. yeah, it's a great question. let me break it up into two parts. so first and foremost, i think. in the united states,

sovereignty rests with the people. and we elect a president every four years. that president works for us. and then every four years after that, we get to decide whether he or she will stay in that office or whether we elect a new president. so i think the reason that history important is important in this particular conversation is important is because if the president works for us, it's incumbent upon us to understand from the president what influences are shaping his worldview and some of those influences are historical in nature. some of them are more contemporary in nature. and my argument for the piece that i wrote and for this conversation today is that mckinley's administration is one of those influences. i don't want to suggest that it's the only influence. i think that there's a lot of other influence is that the current administration is pulling from. they clearly are pulling from reagan and take inspiration from him. they're also clearly pulling from milton friedman and other sort of libertarian economists.

so i think it's a it's a mix. but part of our responsibility as citizens and as voters is to understand and all the various pieces so that we can decide whether the person that we've elected is acting in our best interest or not. so i think that's really one of the benefits of this conversation and sort of what i try to do with my historical scholarship more broadly. part of that also is understanding, adding and this is a great point by the caller that in particular eras of history, certain policies have positive effects, certain policies have negative effects in different aspects of the population, get affected very differently by those policies in order to understand holistically american history, we have to look at the entire picture, not just part of the picture. and so as i mentioned earlier, you know, mckinley, when he runs for reelection in 1900, he proclaims that he has ushered in a era of prosperity for all. when we look below the surface,

though, we realize that actually not everybody was prospering during the 1890s. as mentioned, 1896, there is the today what we would consider to be a very unfortunate supreme court decision of plessy versus ferguson, which basically enables racial segregation under separate but equal and ushers in a period of really virulent jim crow laws that will persist up through the civil rights era. and also, there were. lynchings in the 1890s across the american south. there's a museum now in the united states that documents this. viewers might be familiar with a banner that used to hang outside of the offices of the naacp in new york city that said a man was lynched today. right. and, you know, mckinley does not do much to speak out against these injustices. he doesn't do much to condemn the plessy versus ferguson

decision. he doesn't do much to condemn lynchings and other jim crow segregation that was happening in the american south. so, again, understanding that history, knowing that that is part of our american story, we then have an obligation to move that forward and say that we cannot let that happen again. and so we have to learn from that history and make sure that whatever influences our leaders are taking from various aspects of the american past, they don't include those ugly episodes of the american past that that i just alluded in this complicated history of mckinley ties into what we kind of started at the beginning of the conversation, talking about president trump's efforts to rename denali the mountain in alaska to back to mt. mckinley. and i should point out that alaska state legislature has formally opposed trump's renaming of denali as mt. mckinley. this is reporting from alaska public media saying the alaska

senate unanimously, unanimously joined the state house friday in urging this was back on february seventh in urging president trump to reverse his decision to rename north america's tallest peak as mt. mckinley. trump issued the order renaming denali after president william mckinley on his first day back in office, saying he was a natural businessman who made our country very rich through tariffs. that decision created an uproar in the state. in addto what the alaska state legislature has done, alaska's senator lisa mui has introduced a bill to keep denali as the name of north america's tallest peak. and she said in a statement, you can't improve upon the name that alaska's yukon athabascan is bestowed on north america's tallest peak, denali, the great one. for years, i have advocated it in congress to restore the rightful name for this majestic mountain to respect alaska's first people who have lived on

these lands for thousands of years. this is an issue that should not be relitigated. this was back in 2024 when she made those statements. and i wonder when it comes to the naming of things in terms of what someone's legacy actually is through your research on mckinley. what do you think is the way to think about him as a president? well, i think all historians would agree that we should view our history with complexity, with nuance, and with an understanding that, um, the policies that our elected officials and our presidents enact sometimes have positive consequences, sometimes have negative consequences. and it's incumbent upon us to try to analyze that objective fully, to look at a wide array of sources so not just what the executive office says or the

white house says, but also to look at social history, to look at cultural history, to look at the voices of immigrants, to look at the voices of disenfranchized populations and weave all of those together into some narrative, both for other scholars and for the broader public that can somehow make sense of very complex and complicated moments that we ourselves did not live through. and that is a very challenging task, but that's what makes history both difficult and rewarding as a field to engage in. it's also a very time consuming past, excuse me, time consuming effort, right? you have to look at a wide array of sources to try to understand a very complex moment and a very complex person such as mckinley or the 1890s. and to do that work requires time and it also requires funding. so one of my pleas to anyone who watches this program or anyone anywhere out there who feels that history plays an important role in american society, is to

make sure that you tell your elected officials to continue to fund and support history education, whether it be at the k through 12 level, whether it be at the university level, or whether it be beyond as a lifelong learner to have archives, to have libraries, to have institutions that preserve these documents so that we can then ask dollars and citizens go back to them and look at them and learn from them. that is a fundamental aspect of democracy, and it's also a fundamental aspect of doing good policy and being an educated and informed citizen and voter. so we have to ensure that there's still an opportunity for people to engage in that work, both as a professional, as well as an amateur. and i think one of the great things about c-span is that it creates the platforms for us to have these types of historically informed conversation. well, we're going to end it there. thank you very much. jason steinhauer is an author and public historian. thank you very much for your time. thank you.

and thank you to everyone who called in to washington journal today to share your questions and comments. we are going to be back with another edition of the show tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. eastern. have a great day. and. c-span's washington journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics and public policy from washington and across the country. coming up monday morning, presidential historian alexis coe talks about the significance of presidents day. she'll also discuss her recent yearlong cross-country project for the think tank new america, asking people how should a president be? then fox news senior political

analyst juan williams on his new book, new prize for these eyes the rise of america's second civil rights movement. washington journal. join the conversation when live at seven eastern monday morning on c-span. c-span. now our free mobile video app or online at c-span, dawg. weekends bring you book tv featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. here's a look at what's coming up this weekend. tamara linear, author of from these roots, traces her family's bloodline to an enslaved man, papa r.a., who's in one of the first ever photos of enslaved people from africa. she also speaks about her lawsuit against harvard university to reclaim the 19th century daguerreotype of him. in honor of presidents day weekend, we'll look back at presidents as authors. you'll hear from jimmy carter, george h.w. bush, bill clinton, george w bush, and barack obama.

bill gates discusses his life and career and early influences in his memoir, source code. then on afterwards, former president of anheuser-busch sales and distribution company anson friedrichs offers his insight to the bud light controversy. declining sales and its future. in his book, last call for bud light. he's interviewed by the competitive enterprise institute senior fellow richard morrison. watch book tv. every weekend on c-span two and find a full schedule on your program, guide or watch online anytime at book tv dot org. c-span democracy unfiltered. we're funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband.