families. and why they decided to run for office. tonight at 9:30 p.m. eastern, our interviews include virginia democratic congressman eugene vindman who was born in ukraine, served as a u.s. army officer, and played a role in the story of his brother, alexander vindman, who came to national attention in 2019 for his testimony before congress on president trump's relationship with ukraine. >> i was a lieutenant colonel assigned to the white house on a detail. deputy legal advisor on national security council staff. the chief ethics official on the national security council staff and so i worked right across the hall from my twin brother and he had the portfolio of russia, ukraine, belarus, moldova. he listened to the phone call, he heard the president's attempt at extortion and he reported directly to me. announcer: watch new members of congress all this week, starting

at 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. announcer: looking to contact your members of congress? well, c-span is making it easy for you. with our 2025 congressional directory. get essential contact information for government officials, all in one place. this compact spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every house and senate member of the 119th congress. contact information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. the congressional directory costs $32.59 plus shipping and happenedling and every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to preorder your copy today. welcome back. we are joined now by elie mystal

, a justice correspondent and columnist for "the nation." guest: thank you so much for having me. host: i want to start with this associated press article with the headline "trump administration once a supreme court to let the firing of whistleblower agency had proceed." could you get us up to court on -- up to speed on what that case is about and what the question is? guest: trump likes to fire people and he think because he is president he can fire anybody wants for any reason whether they were not just because he feels like it and remembers it from his tv days, right. there are laws regarding how you can fire people when they work for the federal government. who you can fire, what the proper process is and all that sort of thing. he wants to ignore those laws, a north people who have the positions that are authorized by congress, and fire people willy-nilly and he is hoping for the supreme court to let them let them do that.

there are specifically laws in place to protect whistleblowers from retaliatory firings. one of the reasons why we have whistleblowers is because we have these laws, but trump because he has that kind of mobster mentality, he wants people to have america and never say anything against them, so he thinks that it whistleblower law is completely ridiculous and he should never be bound by it, and so we have classic set up of trump vs. american law and he is once again hoping the supreme court allows them to escape the realities of american law and quite frankly the supreme court has done that for him before and might well do that for him again. host: so when do you think the supreme court would rule on this? guest: the timing right now, i cant quite no. there is so much percolating through the lower courts to the supreme court. we've seen in the past the supreme court can move very quickly, especially when it wants to help trump. we see in the court can move very slowly, when extending the

timeframe is in his benefit. and i don't know how they will play this one. what i do know if the supreme court has the conservatives, the republican justices, the most extremist ones believe in this very impactful theory called unitary executive theory which basically holds that the executive branch of government, article two of the constitution is the president of the united states and nobody else, that he is the entire executive branch and everybody in the executive branch from a whistleblower to the department of justice, everybody serves at his pleasure. that is something they have been trying to push over the years. trump is going to give them many opportunities to push that theory, to stretch that theory even further and make him an even more powerful present, and people often wonder why would

the supreme court give him so much power, aren't they concerned about their own power? and of course they are, but the idea here is that if you make the president kind of the very most powerful person in the world, and the only person who can tell the president know is the supreme court because the supreme court then becomes the only body that is able to say. if they make up the theory, then they are the only people who can tell you if somebody has gone too far against their made theory, right. it's not congress, it's not the people voters elected who can restrain the president, it is the court and only the supreme court, so that is why giving the executive more power actually rebounds to give the supreme court itself even more power, and that is what roberts has always been about, chief justice roberts has always been about arrogating as much power to himself and his court as he possibly can. host: you said that the

president does not have the legal authority to fire whoever he wants whenever he wants, but he and elon musk have been making the argument that the people who are being fired and the federal government are in unelected bureaucracy, that we are trying to restore democracy by getting rid of these people, and that yes, the president should have the right to fire people that are not on board with his policies. guest: first of all, i don't want to hear anything from elon musk. you can't be an unelected bureaucrat talking about the dangers unelected bureaucrats i voted many times in my life and never once have i seen elon musk's name on a ballot. i don't know anybody who has pulled a lever for him, so he needs to shut the hell up. he's going to talk about unelected bureaucrats running america. number two, of course the president has the power and should have the power to assign

people to work with him and advance his agenda. we have an entire process for this. it is called the cabinet and if you think about the cabinet, this idea that the president can just hire or fire anybody wants at any time, we know that's not true because we know that even for his own cabinet, even for the people that he put in charge of executive agencies, they have to go through a senate confirmation process. that has happened throughout american history. the secretary of state, the secretary of war, now the secretary of defense, the attorney general, all these people have to be confirmed by the senate, and the senate doesn't want to confirm somebody then the president can't have that person in that position. hello, mr. matt gaetz, i hope you are well wherever you are in florida. but we know just from a basic understanding of american civics that what trump and musk are arguing for is provably wrong

and inconsistent with american law. host: i'd just like to say, elon musk right now is a special advisor to the president, and the president can have whoever advising him he likes, and they are not seven-confirmed. guest: yes, elon musk is an advisor so he cannot talk to me about being in unelected official holding our. and sure, the president to have advisors. the president can talk to whoever he wants. he wants to put his body -- buddy musk on the payroll, his daughter or his son-in-law on the payroll, that is fine, he can talk to whoever he wants. but there is an entire government that he represents. there is an entire government that he works for any does not have unaccountable power to hire and fire every single person in the federal government. he just doesn't.

and they just prove to you why he doesn't. the idea that just because you are the president can reach all the way down into a lowly civil service person working in the gao and fire them if they happened to be black, that is insane and that is again against the entire thrust of american civics. not even law, just a pacific structure of how the country works. this isn't how it is supposed to work. trump is claiming authority that no other president has had, and you know that he is asking for something that no other president has had because he has to ask for it. if this is how we always did it, then trump wouldn't have to ask the supreme court to let him do it, because it would just be the thing that is always done. it is not always done, this isn't have a supposed to work and there is a really good reason for why it is not supposed to work because we like to think of the president as one official among many. he has a specific job, a unique

job, an important job, but he is not the only person who has authority in the federal government. host: elie mystal is our guest, a justice correspondent columnist with the nation. if you'd like to join the conversation, you can. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. it's president trump has said that he will abide by court orders that block parts of his agenda. do you see that as likely, and what happens if that doesn't happen? guest: he's already lying, he's not abiding by court orders against him right now. the federal funding freeze, the put on is being blocked. the republic did a report on

this last week. if you go to organizations that are expecting federal checks, they will tell you in many cases, the money hasn't been turned back on. that is a clear example of trump lying to everybody's face. and all of us are pretending like it's normal. it's not normal. he said he will abide by court orders. this is a court order against him. he is not abiding by it. a, b, c. so do i think he will abide by future court orders? well, hell, i don't know. he's not abiding by this one. maybe he'll abide by some other one he finds more amenable to him. here's the rub, mimi, here's my real issue. whatever trump says he is going to abide by, there has so far been no at all indication he will enforce court orders against his owner elon musk. we haven't seen any indication of that at all. there's no suggestion at all

that trump will impose a court order against elon musk telling him to rein it in. that's what i'm most worried about. but that's because i already know that trump is lying about whether or not he himself will follow court orders because he's not following a court order right now. host: i want to play for you white house secretary caroline leavitt when she was responding to people who say that trump's actions are causing a constitutional crisis and then i'll get your response. [videotape] karoline: i'd like to address a narrative we've seen emerging. many outlets have been fear mongering the american people in believing there's a constitutional crisis taking place here at the white house. i've been hearing those words a lot lately. but in fact the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch where district court judges in liberal districts across the

country are abusing their power to unilaterally block president trump's basic executive authority. we believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law and issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration the past 14 days, often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits. this is part of a larger concerted effort by democrat activists and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against president trump. quick news flash to these liberal judges supporting their obstructionist efforts, 77 million americans voted to elect this president. and each injunction is an abuse of the rule of law in an attempt to thwart the will of the people. as the president clearly stated in the oval office yesterday, we will comply with the law and the courts but we will also continue to seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure

president trump's policies can be that's what she said. she's obviously wrong. it's a well-established part of american law that when you do something, you can be sued. and that lawsuit will go to a judge and that judge will make a ruling and that ruling will be appealed and once you get to a final ruling, that ruling is final. that's just how it works. there is no constitutional crisis with judges imposing the law. there is one with presidents ignoring the law. like that's the inversion that levet is trying to gaslight people and confuse people about. it is very simple to have a court order and follow it. that's normal. that's easy.

it's trump who doesn't want to do the normal, easy thing, and he's trying to say that these judges doing their job is somehow a constitutional problem. there's another thing she said that i want people to notice and realize how insane it is, right? she's basically saying and republicans have been saying that trump was elected with 77 million people and so that somehow means that because he won a majority of the vote, he gets to do whatever he wants. and again, that's just not how it works. that's not how law works or civics works. yes, the president was elected fairly, congratulations, congratulations on all your success, donald trump. but he's still part of a system. he's still part of a legal structure. he's not above that legal structure. and there are therefore limitations on what he can do, no matter how many people want him to do it. there are things that he can do, there are things that he can't do. the judges are saying that in many cases he's exceeding his

constitutional and legal authority. just because 77 million people want him to exceed his constitutional and legal authority doesn't mean he can. it's that simple. mr. hazlett: let's go back to the supreme court -- host imlnch let's go back to the supreme court. your cover article for the nation says this. how trump could remake the supreme court for a generation with the subheading, donald trump is poised to become the first president since f.d.r. to have appointed the majority of high court justices. his potential picks aretaryifying -- are terrifying. guest: yeah. so liberals generally think that the supreme court can't get any worse because it's already stacked 6-3 with republican appointees over democratic appointees. and so i like to remind people that of course it can get worse. it can always get worse. and worse right now is taking that republican 6-3 majority and making it permanent for the lifetime of my natural life and

everybody who is viewing this program's natural life. right? and that's because the two oldest justices on the supreme court are both republicans. clarence thomas, he's 76, samuel alito, he's 74. if both of those two men retire in the next four years, trump will have the opportunity to replace them with those men but 30 years younger. thus at some level -- i can't say permennizing burks giving him control of the supreme court long after trump's life, right? these are justices that are going to outlive trump, these are justices that are going to impose the maga legacy on the rest of us through through unelected means for the next 30 or 40 years. trump is in the position, if alito and thomas retire to be the first president since fdr to

appoint not just supreme court justices, but a majority of the supreme court if these two men retire. that's what keeps me up at night. host: there is a question for you from david in palmyra, new york regarding not following court orders. he said, if i'm not mistaken, biden did not follow court orders either given forgiveness of millions of dollars in school loans. you are wrong. biden did not -- did follow the court order. he followed the letter of the law. he followed the spirit of the law. just because he got an adverse court order does not mean he gave up on the program. he tried to find another legal way to achieve his end. trump did that last time. the first muslim ban, overruled by the court. the second muslim ban, overruled

by the court. it did trump say i will stop banning muslims? no. he tried again, and again, and again, until he got a muslim ban the supreme court was willing to uphold and i think it was a horrible decision by the supreme court, but it is a problem with the supreme court, not donald trump. donald trump when he was trying to ban muslims from coming in to the country did at the right play. joe biden when he was trying to relieve student debt relief did it the right way. what trump is doing now, ignoring court orders ordering him to restore the funding he is legally and unconstitutionally took away, that is different in kind than anything biden did, then anything prompted the first time, and frankly, than anything any other american president has done all the way back to andrew jackson or abraham lincoln. host: let's talk to calder's

starting with maria in atlanta, a democrat. caller: good morning c-span family. good morning elias. i was er mning e.i was wonderinr

bring you back again? i am a big-time follower. trump gets on tv and says all kind of stuff. a while back he got on tv and talked about how elon musk

helped him in swing states. how he went over there and worked on his computer and he said he is awfully good at computers. but i never heard any of the media pick this up again. do you think he was trying to say the election was stolen? guest: i don't. thank you for the love. i want to say, for your own mental health, trying very hard to stop watching trump on tv. it's not good for you. he will say the same thing. once you see a dog bark, a dog run you don't need it for the rest of your afternoon. go out and touch grass. it will get into your soul if you listen to that man too much. trump is not the most rhetorically cautious individual . i don't think he was trying to say elon musk helped them steal the election. i don't think elon musk helped trump steal the election. i actually think the democrats and liberals somehow, sometimes,

rolled into, to protect themselves, with feelings that may be something fishy, something untoward happened because that's easier to believe than it is that 77 million americans voted for a convicted felon crazy person. right? it's just easier to believe we live in a place where something had to be fishy there, then, no, people knew who trump was and they just wanted to do this to the country. like, the latter is actually true. i don't think elon musk helped him steal anything. i do think that now he is in power, elon musk is helping him do some serious illegal activity with muska wielding power that she -- that he never should have had a but that is a different problem. host: let's talk to mark, a republican in clifton park, new york. caller: trump won the election fair and square.

he has a mandate to govern conservatively. he is allowed to govern conservatively for at least the next two years until the midterm. and, the next four years until a republican successor will have 218 -- run again. trump is given the latitude, because he won the election by the majority, by the popular vote, and by a landslide electoral vote. guest: we agree trump won the election fairly. he is allowed to govern as a conservative. and conservatives are allowed to like the crazy things he does. what he is not allowed to do is illegal stuff. right? surely, mark, we can agree he isn't allowed to do illegal things. that he is not allowed to do unconstitutional things. surely, we can agree on that. while you and i might disagree

on what is illegal and unconstitutional, surely, we can agree that a federal judge is the person who should be able to tell us what is legal, what is constitutional, and what is not. mark, can we not agree that from, though yes, he is allowed to govern conservatively, though yes, he is allowed to do with the people elected him to do, he is not allowed to print the law. host, mark, still there. caller: what trump is doing is the right thing. guest: is it the legal thing? it was supposed to decide whether it is legal? is nobody supposed to decide whether it legal? is anything trump says legal? are we back to nixon now, when the president does it, it's not illegal? is that the best you can get to, mark? or do you think somebody who is not the president should have a say in whether or not what the

president is doing is legal or illegal? host: mark, what do you think of that? caller: i think what trump is doing is great right now. he is cutting waste. host: that's not the? . as far as legality. caller: i think he has a large latitude. we will have to find out. obviously, court orders, judges, i think they will eventually work their way through the process, i suppose. host: got it. host:elie mystal vice president jett -- vance said this. "if a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. if a judge tried to command the attorney general on how to use

her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. what is your response? guest: i went to harvard and jd vance went to yell and i am feeling good about my choices if that is the best jd vance can do now. if jd vance is right then the dobb's decision canceling the right to abortion was illegitimate and illegal on its face and joe biden should have personally performed abortions the last four years if jd vance was right. of course, jd vance is not right. if jd vance sounds like an idiot when he says that. because, the idea data judges, that the third branch of government does not have a legitimate check on the power of the other two branches, the legislative branch and the executive branch, again, it flies in the face of a basic american civics. all right? now, i have many problems with the supreme court and how it wields power. i can argue that the supreme court has too much power.

i have argued that in the past. i am in favor of what the scholars call jurisdiction stripping. it's a way for congress to limit the power of the supreme court on constitutional issues. i'm all for reform of the supreme court. i don't think it is the bravest body on earth. but it is a legitimate part of american government. acting like it cannot say what is illegal or not, what is constitutional or not, that's just not something we do in this country, right? we understand judges have a role and the rest of us have to follow the judges ruled and if you don't like it there are many opportunities to reform the supreme court that i have listed in many articles in the nation that jd vance is welcome to read. the idea that the supreme court has no authority on trump just because he is the president, again, flies in the face of bear -- basic american law and civics and jd vance knows that. he is saying what he's saying

because it is in his best political interest to lake street -- to look trump's boots even if it falls -- flies in the face of all logic, reason, and sense. host: louis in new jersey, and independent. guest: good morning, sir. this reminds me of when trump had his first term. we had all of the judges blocking him from building the wall. it is just politics. judges should not be involved in politics. that is what is going on here. another thing is he is an executive and he can fire anybody wants. guest: again, he can't. maybe you want them to be able to. maybe, because you watch the apprentice you just want to say you're fired. that makes you feel good inside to know there is a strong daddy figure firing people. maybe that's what you want, louis. but it's not have the country works. he doesn't actually have the power to fire anybody he wants, no matter how many times he

beats his chest and says i'm the president, i'm the executive. caller: i don't like anybody's boots. guest: but you want him to fire people. why can't he fire people the right way? there's a process for firing people? why can't he use that process? caller: i agree with you there. man. you said the judges were playing politics with the law just like in the first trump administration. have you forgotten the biden years? there were a lot of decisions from the exact same judges that were adverse to bidens agenda, the policies. one of the other callers earlier brought up student debt relief as just one. if you think judges are playing politics to think it is politics that hurts trump, really? guest: caller: i agree with you on what they did to him by, sir.

it's just politics. ok. it's politics. that's all. host: i want to ask you about an article you wrote for the nation with the headlines "trump's attacks on dei are a green light for the government to discriminate." explain that. critics of dei say it is discrimination because it is preferring people of diverse races, women over men, that kind of thing. what is your response to that? guest: dei was invited by white men to try to comply with the civil rights act and the 14th amendment of the constitution. dei was there white male creation to comply with the constitution. what diverse people, if that is what we are calling us today,

that is what women has been asking for has not been dei, it has been fair and equal employment opportunities, the application of the equality clause in the 14th amendment, and the application of the civil rights act in hiring. that is it. it was white guys that were like, we will just do some d.e.i. that makes sure that we have to hire black people, women, latinos, whatever. that was their solution. now that they don't like that solution anymore, that's fine. it's constitutional. date --dei is a policy and it is constitutional and legal to change policy. trump has every authority he might need to change the policy of the united states. but my question is always what will you do instead? you still have to comply with the civil rights act and 14th amendment.

what will you do instead, trump, instead, must, instead, white tech brooms, instead, to make sure you are still in compliance with the civil rights act and the 14th amendment? and is there they never have an answer. host: i think they would say, we will just hire the most qualified person for each job. and therefore, we are in compliance. guest: is it that what is happening? d.e.i. was because that wasn't happening. for whatever reason they weren't able to follow -- higher than most qualified person for each job. that was happening before d.e.i. and now that d.e.i. is ostensibly gone, isn't that what we see? them hiring the most qualified people? do we see them only firing the least qualified people for every job? of course, we don't. in your last segment with armstrong williams a caller asked that man, does he think

every person that works in the federal government that is of color is a d.e.i. hire and was unqualified for their job? armstrong goes, no, that would be ridiculous. of course, he said, most people i am sure he their job on merit. that's an interesting statement. because they are firing everybody. they are firing people not based on merit or their qualifications or their actual work history. or they are firing people because they are black. that is what violates the constitution. and that is what violates the law. it is legal to get red of d.e.i. policies. what is illegal is to fire people just because they happen to be black at work. it's ridiculous to fire everybody that has been hired under a d.e.i. program without any assessment of their actual work performance, their actual

merit for the job. but they aren't doing it that way. they are firing everybody that happens to be black in government. that is what the problem is. host: let's hear from jennifer in midlothian, virginia, a democrat. caller: thank you for taking the time to listen to our calls. my question, piggybacking on what you are talking about with d.e.i., i am trying to understand, right, we know there is no statute for taxation without representation necessarily, but what a legal resort as recourse to those of us that fall within these marginalized groups, african-american, disabled, lgbtq, all of these things labeled as marginalized communities, to push back on everything being dismantled in the name of d.e.i.? if we are federal taxpayers, if we are paying our money but every book that represents as is banned from schools, every program that potentially might create access for these

individuals, special education, all these things, we are paying our money. this is an economic issue. as citizens, as residents of whatever state you are in, commonwealth of virginia, commonwealth of massachusetts. how can we push back and say, wait, my taxpayers are going to everybody but my community? how is it legal that we don't have any recourse because they are doing it in a discriminatory way under the guise of, that is considered d.e.i., but we don't want it. we also have title vi and title vii and all these rights we are supposed to have access to. we are paying our money. we are concerned we are to getting the services and access we should be getting. guest: jennifer, i believe and you named the statute. i believe what they are doing is illegal under the civil rights act, not because they are changing the d.e.i. policy.

. but fairness is spirit equality is. when they willy-nilly a fire everybody for the crime of being black, the crime of being a woman without any individualized assessment of their merit i believe it is violating the civil rights act and they should catch a lawsuit. unfortunately, when they catch of the lawsuit and i know lewis is still out there. when they do catch of the lawsuit, eventually it goes to the supreme court. the supreme court, my read on the six republican judges is that they don't think the civil rights act should be constitutional in the first place. they don't like the voting rights act. roberts did anything he could to eviscerate the voting rights act. they have already gotten through the 1965 voting rights act. i believe next on the chopping block for the conservatives is the 1964 civil rights act. i do not think the lawsuit that trump deserves to catch because

of what he is doing it will work at the supreme court. to jennifer's question, what is the recourse? there recourse is the recourse the people always have. trump was elected by a majority of americans. the only people that can take the power away are a majority of americans. activating, voting, convincing people. i personally have started to boycott target. right? i vote with my wallet as well. target specifically the target spent like a decade telling my community, we like to hear. come to target. put products on our shelves. target is basically tom cruise in jerry maguire. we love black people except for one from his in charge. target deserves to not have my dollars at this moment. i am doing what i can with my wallet, my feet, my voice. we all have to do that.

in the words of kermit the frog, we need more dogs and cats and muppets and it tickets and thanks. >> let's hear it from butler, missouri, a republican. >> good morning. can you hear me? i have a question. biden did not do anything except stay on vacation most of the time and i hear people calling in bad mouthing trump and what he is doing and everything. and it is like déjà vu. are we going to try to put trump in the courts again during his presidency? or are we going to give him a chance? i say give him a chance. i think he is the best president we have ever have. whatever he does, he knows right from wrong. he won't do anything wrong. but it all the lawsuits.

all of them, dismissed. it is a witch hunt starting all over. the person you have on your show this morning, if they are so smart and think that trump is doing wrong, why are they president? host: go ahead. guest: i will fight trump up with everything i have. i will never yield to this orange minutes. and if that makes you unhappy, i apologize. but i will do everything i can in my small power to fight this man and what he is trying to do my country. host: his supporters are saying that is exactly the problem. that you are fighting him for no reason. guest: i got reasons. that man has been convicted on

30 of felonies. the only reason why the other cases have been dismissed against him is he has judges in his pocket. the supreme court gave him absolute immunity for official acts in the first time in american history the president was placed above the law by his hand-picked supreme court justice. we have just been talking about his racist actions with d.e.i.. he is calling white south africans to live as refugees in this country while expelling black and brown actual refugees living here now. he's trying to overturn the 14th amendment and stripped birthright citizenship from people that were born americans. these are reasons i can think of to oppose him off the top of my head. host: you have a book coming out next month called "bad law: 10 popular laws ruining america." give us a brief explanation.

guest: let's go with voting registration. all voting registration should be renounced. voting registration doesn't help keep our elections safe. all it does is decrease participation in elections. in the first chapter of a book i have an argument for how voter eligibility requirements are in fact necessary but once you meet the eligibility requirements you should be automatically registered to vote and that registration should be what is called portable. it means when you move you are still registered. the registration follows you. you don't have to chase registration. people might think it's a radical idea. i point out to people in the first chapter of the book that is how they do it in most of the rest of the functional democracies in the world. in england, in france, in argentina, in austria, everywhere else. we are the slow people. we are the people that have not caught up with the 21st century

by still doing registration as a case-by-case basis instead of automatic or mandatory registration for all eligible voters. if we have that i wonder if the 77 million people that voted for trump, i wonder if that number would be enough. host: dave in lynchburg, virginia wants to end on a positive note. you suggested what keeps you up at night. conversely, what gives you hope? guest:[laughter] i have two kids, 12 and nine. they are beautiful little boys. they are not afraid. they are not depressed all the time. they think the world will get better. they understand we have serious problems, but my kids think they will be the people that come up with the solution to climate change. they think they will be the people that come up with solutions for our problems. i take a lot of strength and hope from them. i do think, generally, and i

know it is trite to say, i do generally think the kids are all right. i think the kids are seeing how my generation is screwing up and they are committed to doing better. i hope that remains the case. host: justice correspondent and columnist for the nation elie m ystal find his work at thenation.com. welcome to today's washington journal. we start with news from the hill headlined "refuses to block musk, doge from seven federal agencies." the u.s. judge tonya chutkin refused the request to immediately oppose wide-ranging restrictions on elon musk's doge. the coalition claims musk far-reaching role is unconstitutional since he wasn't

confirmed by the senate and the state sought to block doge from accessing seven federal agencies. she refused to their demand to do so at the current stage of the case saying they had not made the necessary showing of irreparable harm. she said "plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that wasn't created by congress and over which it has no oversight. in these circumstances it must to be indisputable that the court works within the bounds of its authority. accordingly, it can't issue a temporary restraining order. especially one as wide-ranging as the plaintiff's request without clear evidence of imminent irreparable harm to the plaintiffs. the current record does not meet that standard. we will show you a portion of the interview that aired on fox news last night. here is elon musk responding to criticism about doge.

this is what you get from the democrats. you get, no but it -- nobody voted for elon. nobody voted for any cabinet nominees. people are dying because of doge cuts. what doge is doing is illegal. elon musk is, more street vernacular for a male body part. it is a constitutional crisis. what -- >> why are they reacting like this? >> do you give a flying rip, number one? let's we must be doing something right. they would not be complaining so much if we were not doing something useful, i think. all we are really trying to do here is restore the well of the people through the president. -- will of the people through the president. we are finding there is an unelected bureaucracy, a vast federal bureaucracy implacably opposed to the president and the

cabinet. you look at d.c. voting. 92% kamala. that's a lot. they don't like me here either. >> i think about that number a lot. 92%. that's basically almost everyone. if the will of the president isn't implemented, and at the president is representative of the people, that means the will of the people isn't being implemented. that does not mean we live it a democracy. we lived in a bureaucracy. we are seeing the thrashing of the bureaucracy as we try to restore democracy and the will of the people. host: we will take your calls starting with andrew in sterling, virginia on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: the introduction of elon as copresident of the united states is probably one of the most dangerous, in democratic

actions ever done by a sitting u.s. president. we now have a president and a copresident in the process of destroying this country, this democracy. he was not an elected official. he has not gone through proper -- he has not gone through any kind of security clearance. he has gone through every department in this country. basically, undermining and destroying what makes this country work and what makes this country great. this guy is truly a danger. 12 along with musk have basically sold our country out to putin and every dictator in this world. host: respond to what you just heard elon musk say, that he is restoring democracy and it is the bureaucracy contrary to the people as well?

caller: for them to attack federal workers, to go through every department, when these are the people, these subtle workers that are the heroes of this country, that are basically protecting every american citizen. it's crazy. i would note the kind of provision this country will be in after four years of these two clowns. you won't be able to recognize this country. we will resemble russia. we will resemble red china. we will resemble every autocratic dictatorship in the world and the american people will suffer. i would like to think that the american people, after what they saw the first few weeks, are regretting their vote for donald trump. this is not what they ask for. and this is what they will get. >> let's see if anybody is regretting the vote, as you believe. a republican in wilmington, north carolina. david, good morning. caller: good morning. to respond to the last caller,

democracy is not equated with wasting trillions of dollars. there are a couple points the press could help but they won't, but c-span can. inflation is not a rise in prices. inflation is a rise in the inflation of the money supply. one of the symptoms of which is a rise in prices. the root cause is increased in the money supply through borrowing. and the other is the point about, just an aside, but can you set the record straight on the elon musk security clearance. i think he has top secret. but maybe you can straighten that out? host: it is not clear to me. i have been looking into this and i will continue to because you right it's not clear. i had a scene that he did not get a top-secret clearance because of previous drug use and

because of his international conduct. >> yes, because of others. >> does that mean he has a secret clearance, not top-secret clearance? that's not totally clear to me. caller: i had heard top-secret but it is based on need to know and doesn't cover all areas, correct. the other major point, and the president isn't helping and congress could do a better job too is to explain to americans the magnitude of the data and the trouble we are in. i