listen to authors and influential interviewers on "after words" and on q&a your conversations with authors who were making things happen. book notes plus episodes are hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app wherever you geyo podcasts. announcer: the u.s. hou returns on monday at noon eastern and later t week members are expecd to consider the fiscal year 2025 budget resolution, which is their blueprint toas president trump'agenda to cut taxes, reduce wasteful spending, and secure the border. the u.s. cap is in on monday at 3:00 p.m. eastern. they will vote on nominations of daniel driol and jamison

ee. tch live coverage of the u.s. uson c-span, the senate on c-span 2, and all of our congressional coverage is available on c-span now and online at c-span.org. we are joined by michael knowles. welcome to the program. tell us about the daily wire and your show. guest: the daily wire has existed for 10 years which makes me feel old. my show has been on for eight years. i got my show through a strange series of events. i published a book called reasons to vote for democrats: a comprehensive guide. as a published because it did not have any words. host: it was 266 empty pages. guest: it was just irritate my

liberal friends and relatives. very few words. i self published it and i hit number one on the charts. i think i am the only person little media history who got a show for not writing a book. host: or writing a blank book. you spoke at cpac yesterday and you at first attended in 2011. tell us about the difference between what you saw in 2011 and today? guest: cpac has changed many times. it is an institution that has been around for many decades. 2011 was the height of the obama years. everyone was more depressed. maybe people were drinking more in those days to get through those difficult years. now people are exhilarated. i think the feeling is different than it was in 2016. i think the reason for that is this time around president trump won the popular vote so there is a real sense of excitement there is a new voter coalition, huge

swaths of voting democratics -- of voting demographics that have been secure for democrats for decades have come over in this election. there is a feeling of vibrancy. it is always fun to be at cpac but it is especially fun when your side wins. host: you spoke about there being a disconnect between what the popular vote once and what the establishment delivers. talk about that disconnect. guest: a great example is on immigration. for my entire life we've been told we have two options, more illegal immigration or more legal immigration. if you look at public opinion polls, the vast majority of americans want to drastically reduce all immigration. not because we do not like immigrants or have anything against people from various countries. we just happen to have the largest foreign worker percentage of the population ever. it is hard to assimilate people and a lot of people believe we have to put the brakes on this,

especially if illegal immigration is such a serious problem. this new coalition is formed in part because people feel neither major political party has really represented them in recent decades, which breeds opportunity. host: you believe immigrants are not assimilating in the united states? guest: i don't blame the immigrants. i think there's been a multicultural push for some decades to not assimilate, to view america last as a melting pot and more as a salad bowl, as i was taught in school. this is reflected in public opinion polls. the harvard harris poll said most americans want the caps on legal immigration to be 500,000. when you chill into the numbers you realize we take in between 1 million and 1.2 million people per year. that is a lot of people. the movement of people into the country for the last 65 years's largest movement of people in recorded history. i like people from all over the world but it a certain point need to make sure you maintain

social cohesion. host: do you believe that would impact the economy negatively. in other words we have a low unemployment rate right now. do you think having less legal immigration would make that worse and make it much harder to find people for those jobs? guest: even reducing illegal immigration will have an effect on the economy. this is the way mass migration has been sold, not just in the united states but in europe, which is the economy will collapse if we do not take in people from around the world. this is why you are seeing more of a focus on family policy, on encouraging people to get married and have children. it is a thorny social problem without question and has to be done carefully and in an intentionally way. as jd vance said at the munich security conference, he said united states is not nearly an economic zone. our chief goal is not merely to take up the gdp. we are a nation and we need to balance that as well make sure

we do not put the cart before the horse. host: if you would like to join our conversation you can do so. our lines are (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and (202) 748-8002 for independents. the washington post it sows has put out a poll and i wanted to share the results on the question, do you approve or disapprove of the way donald trump is handling his job as president? right now his approval of u.s. adults overall is 45%. 53% disapprove. why do you think that is? guest: in a country as divided as ours those numbers are not that bad. in part it is because there's so much to do in the first month of this presidency. the situation was quite dire. this is how trump won the popular vote as a republican for the first time in 20 years. it will take a while to unify americans.

when they see the results beyond the first month in office i think most americans will be pleased with what they see. people have been attacking elon musk and doge for consolidating the federal government. my advice to democrats is if you want to run on a federal bloat and bureaucracy, be my guest, i look forward to the midterms. host: you approve of how doge is going about cutting the federal workforce? guest: without question. i think doge is doing a great job. some people have made the argument that doge is unprecedented and upending the american tradition. the president for doge goes back to the wilson administration. wilson himself created through executive action the bureau of efficiency, almost the same name. he was followed by fpr -- by fdr that create major reform. host: did they do the same

things? guest: they did the same things but in fdr's case they are growing the government. reagan had the grace commission. the clearest analog come from the clinton administration. this was when al gore established the national partnership for reinventing government. the national partnership for reinventing government got rid of something like a quarter million federal jobs, consolidated 800 federal agencies. it took a big slah to the government. it is the one nice thing i will say about al gore ever. you cannot say what elon musk is doing is unprecedented. there's a lot of president and most of it has been from democrats. host: you don't think the american people will see any impact to all of those positions being cut? we had a call in the last segment from somebody in the v.a. and she said there are nurses having their contracts revoked, doctors. she said the veterans will feel

that impact. guest: i don't know anyone who defends the current state of the v.a. and i have a lot of friends who served in the military. there is a lot of reform that is required. the question is do we maintain the status quo? especially in the executive agencies and the bureaucracy. that was a question put on the ballot box in november and a majority of voters said we do not. say what you will about president trump or elon musk. you cannot say trump hit the ball. he was campaigning with elon musk. this was a major campaign promise. if people are upset. i'm not upset with the government becoming more efficient, reducing the size and scope. the people are upset, the only people to blame are the voters. host: let me ask you about the war in ukraine. president trump has said president zelenskyy is a dictator and ukraine started the war. why do you think he is using that kind of language when

clearly russia started the war? guest: russia invaded. it is a longer standing conflict that goes back to 2014 with the obama administration. i suspect he is referring to volodymyr zelenskyy as a dictator because he has suspended elections and instituted martial law. there is a funny argument for the people who want to continue the war. they say this is a war for democracy and there is a great fear. newsweek had an article. there is a great fear that if ukraine holds elections the voters might kick out of zelenskyy. let us democracy. host: it is strange president trump has not called vladimir putin a dictator who has been in power for 25 years and holds sham elections and all of his critics end up poisoned. guest: president trump has been tougher on vladimir putin than any president in my lifetime. host: how so? guest: trump's administration only administration during which

vladimir putin to not further invade another country. invaded georgia under bush, he invaded crimea under obama, he went into ukraine further. in other trump he got stopped. then under joe biden he launched this massive invasion. i think president trump's most precise comment on ukraine is the war would not have started on his watch. people say that trump boasts or he exaggerates. in that example we have clear historical evidence. host: and you believe that ultimately president trump will be able to negotiate a fair and lasting peace between russia and ukraine? guest: certainly. i am quite confident in his abilities. what i'm even more confident of his joe biden cannot do that. what i more confident of is barack obama cannot do that. i am willing to give president trump a chance. the question for the people who do not want president trump to try to broker a peace is what is

your idea for the end of the war? as of right now it seems to be the american grand strategy stated explicitly by many people within and without the government is what ukraine remain a meatgrinder so we can reduce the capacity of the russian military which is a euphemism to kill more russians and to sacrifice an entire generation of ukrainians to do it. this does not seem amoral view of the war and is does not seem sustainable. we are talking about a conflict that could easily expand and could lead to potentially a global conflict when we are dealing with a major nuclear power. president trump has a realistic vision of foreign policy. he is much more interested in peace than many people in washington and i think a lot of americans voted for him because of that. host: let's talk to callers. we will start with al in tennessee. independent bank. you're on with michael knowles. caller: i would like the guest

to address the bifurcation of the republican party. you have the trump crew versus the gop establishment. you see that even in the call in categories. about 40% of people are independent, about 30% democrats and 30% republicans. of republicans i would say half of those are maga so only 15% of your collins are maga publicans. the moderator brought up vladimir putin being a dictator. i will remind everyone that people in washington, d.c. vote for democrats about 94%. there is only matched by african dictators. and where we have "the new york times, washington post as fact-check and the topic generation. the new york times took $29 million from hhs and use that to forward government narratives and cancel people.

the washington post took money from usaid. politico took usaid money. when you spread all of those newspapers out understand that is not news. that is regime propaganda. we all know it. now we have quantified the dollar value. have some introspection at c-span. i think your programs would be a lot better. thank you. host: your thoughts? guest: i think most of his comments are directed at the media and c-span but as much as this involves me i think he makes a good point about the republican party. there has been a split between the older bush from the wing of the party in this new trump wing. the way this is often presented in the establishment media as this is a hostile takeover of republican party or somehow the true republicans have been rejected. is a great threat to the party. i cannot help but notice trump has grown the party. we look at 2024, the first popular vote win.

when you look at trump getting one in five black male voters, 46% of hispanics, something like 40% of women over 45. the most shocking number to meet was 40% of women under the age of 30. we were told this was the voting group most inclined to vote for kamala. they voted for donald trump. i totally understand trump has changed the republican party but if i am looking at those numbers and i am a gop strategist it is clear he has change the party for the better. host: you did mention newsweek and the caller mentioned the new york times, here is a backcheck that says the u.s. government did not give the new york times tens of millions of dollars. just to clarify that. let's talk to pat in west virginia, a democrat. caller: good morning. i want to put a little comical error on it. the republicans every election

cycle come up with some kind of make america great again some kind of moniker they use. i'm reminded of the andy griffin that show where he takes a u-turn and gives a ticket to gomer for making a u-turn. he says "a citizens arrest." if you listen to it it sounds quite a bit like a citizens arrest. waste fraud and abuse. it is all nonsense. thank you for your time. guest: i think there's a lot of waste and fraud and abuse in the federal government. i think most democrats in this town, especially those familiar with the government would acknowledge there are some inefficiencies that could be corrected and that is what is being corrected now. host: here is stephen in kansas.

republican. caller: enjoy the program. it will be a great weekend. i've a part question. do you think trump is underrated that he is destroyed every political dynasty in existence and you think you should be on mount rushmore at the end of his term? should he serve a third term. i guess there is a possibility steve bannon says they could elect host: placeholders and then appoint trump speaker of the house and then there is no constitutional law that says he cannot serve a third term. do you think he should serve a third term if he succeeds at the end of the second. guest: i will take your questions in order. trump is more than welcome to have his face on mount rushmore. i think it would more fitting to

put his face on mount mckinley. he has taken the great interest of president mckinley, he is renaming that mountain back to mount mckinley. he is an american original. he needs his own mountain. also in unrealistic scenarios there is this question that is been raised as to whether or not trump will serve a third term. he is obviously term limited by the constitution. it is worth pointing out that president reagan did campaign in his last year in office and after he left office to repeal the amendment that term limits the president. i do not think that will happen anytime soon. it seems like a root goldberg political machine for trump to become the speaker of the house and then the other two guys leave and he becomes the president. it reminds me of people in 2018 who said there is one we are trick for bernie to get the democratic nomination. that will not happen. more portly for trump's legacy, getting back to what we were talking about earlier, trump has

legitimately change the republican party. i think he has done this for the better and in many ways heroes restored some of the best aspects -- in many ways he has restored some of the best aspects of the republican party. the question for his legacy will be what happens after trump leaves office and i think you're a number of contenders who could pick up the mantle but i think you will see his legacy not merely through trump installing himself as caesar permitting president until he is 500 years old. i think you'll see it in his political successors. host: i want to ask you about some things some of our collars in our last segment said, that they are worried president trump will announce some sort of a national emergency, a state of emergency and suspend elections. that there will not be elections after this. i take it you disagree with that and number two believe that the republican party would stand up to that and refused to go along with that. guest: i think the hypothetical is totally ridiculous. what trump has done most

conspicuously in his first month in power is reduce his own power. he is streamlining the federal government. he is reducing the size and scope of the government. he is trying to get all of those inefficiencies out of there. very few future dictators would remove their own power as their first act in office. host: you believe the president now will have less power as a result of president trump's actions? guest: by slashing his budgets and the scope of the executive branch i think that is what will happen and that is the stated goal of president trump's actions. you get back to this question of elections and the peaceful transfer of power. i am old enough to remember bush v gore 2000 when democrats do not accept the results of that election. tillery clinton referring to president trump's first election as illegitimate. i think stacey abrams is still pretending to be governor of georgia. if anyone will question the results of election iva greater fear that will come from

democrats. host: here is david in new jersey. independent. caller: good morning and thank you. i think an area where republicans and democrats could come together to really stop abuse would be in the community action programs that stand in the middle of the money stream between the federal government and head start. head start is a highly emotional issue because it is iconic from lyndon johnson. it is in project 2025 because it is such a red flag. the bipartisan piece is that these community action programs around the united states collect in the range of $1 billion a year and they are not monitored by either republicans or democrats for how they use the money. here in flemington, the minute

flemington dropped below the federal poverty line, the community action program headquartered in philipsburg, new jersey rushed into flemington and filled it with programs, including head start and early head start. i am not debating the lives of children. that is cruel. i'm not debating who should get it, how long you should be here. what this community action program does and what they do around the country, they treat those federal dollars as their own. they pay their executives whenever they please and i know as a matter of fact they pay poverty wages to employees that are not federal employees. they were employees of these private community action programs and they pay them such a low wage. just above the poverty line for they cannot get medicaid or food

stamps, they are outrageous in terms of benefits. host: let's get a response from our guest. guest: i totally agree there is lot of graft in these programs. nobody in the country objects to educating children. nobody in the country objects to the efficient and just use of the government and some kind of staff or executive office to carry that out. the devil is in the details. i think a lot of what you've seen from the cuts in usaid are highlighting how absurd some of the uses of their taxpayer dollars are. one example that came out last week was the former u.k. politician who is now professor at yale recently picked a fight with jd vance, he was complaining his wife's nongovernment organization had a contract with usaid and they were going to stiff this ngo for

$1 million left on the contract he was quite upset about this. they asked what is the organization do? it turns out one of their initiatives is to teach afghan citizens about the modern art of marchal do jump. i am all for interesting art but it seems to be there would be better uses of that money, both for the pieces of afghanistan. host: $1 million for one lesson? guest: usaid cut the contract and withheld the million dollars still owed to the organization. many more dollars have gone to that organization and organizations like it over time though i do not know the precise cost of the one lecture. host: here is stephen in indiana. a democrat. caller: good morning. i have one simple comment. trump won the presidency both times because of his opponents.

a woman for president. i probably will not see it in my lifetime. a woman for president is just not going to happen. it is not how great trump is. that is the facts. host: what you think of that? guest: we have had women in pre-prominent positions of power in the united states. host: never president. guest: the democrats keep putting up women who are bad candidates. hillary clinton was one of the most detested figures in american public life and kamala harris was an extremely weak candidate. she was at a disadvantage because she never had a real primary. one time she ran in a primary she was out almost immediately, she was the first candidate out. nobody really wanted her. conservatives like plenty of women figures in politics. margaret thatcher is probably the clearest example. we have lots of great governors.

plenty of strong women in the trump administration. the candidates the democrats put up, let's say as president trump says as some other country sending illegals here, the democrats are not sending their best. host: who you think will be the first republican woman president of the united states? guest: if you judge by the last election cycle nikki haley would like to do that. kristi noem might be eyeing that job. i think sarah sanders who was so prominent in the first trump administration, i think she has a real shot at it. it would probably drive some of our friends on left side of the aisle crazy of the first woman president were a republican but there are a lot of good candidates if they want the job. host: this is gary in newport, kentucky. republican. caller: $77 million and some change. says it all. the people one things done and trump is getting things done.

that kind of sums it up. the ping-pong match democrats and republicans of been playing with immigration. as far as ukraine, colin powell said i had to shake hands with some pretty bad people. i think that is what trump is doing. shaking hands and trying to get things done. host: i want to ask you about kash patel it confirmed yesterday. what kind of changes you think you will see at the fbi? guest: the first order of business is to stop the abuse. i say this as a catholic myself. perhaps i should not be surprised but i was scandalized to see during the biden administration the fbi was spying on catholic parishes. the fbi came out and lied about it and said it was only one field office. we later found out it multiple field offices viewing catholics as extremists.

radical ideologues, whatever nonsense euphemisms they used. despite non-christians for practicing their faith. traditional faith of this country. you also need to stop the abuse with the fbi and the doj targeting parents who have legitimate questions about how their children are being educated. in particular being exposed to leftist ideology, sexual ideologies. that has to be cleared up. selective prosecution. weaponizing the government to go after one's political enemies. all of the things we were told to fear from president trump that came to pass under the biden administration. that will be the first order of business. host: and you are in favor of them to be let go? guest: the january 6 cases were preposterous. capitol hill without a lot of information about that.

the federal government have a lot of egg on its face when we were told that that eccentric fellow was about to shred the constitution and then video which had been withheld by the government came out that he was escorted around the capitol by police. there were videos available for anyone to see. that is important. most important in terms of upending precedent, the fact that the bite in the adjacent agents to raid the home of a former president, that is completely unacceptable. that degrades united states to the level of some banana republic. host: these are the classified documents to former president would not give back? guest: this is the raid when federal agents showed up to raid the home of a former president

because president trump had classified documents, which many of his predecessors did as well. joe biden had a box of classified documents with his drug addict son having access to it. host: i want to show you dick durbin on the floor, a member of the judiciary committee speaking out against kash patel and then i want your response. ♪ >> the many red flags in his record, probably because they fear retribution from the president and elon musk. this is not a partisan issue. during my time in the senate, i have voted for four fbi director nominations before this one. each one was clearly a republican and i voted for them nevertheless. the federal bureau of investigation has been historically apolitical. i oppose kash patel because he

is politically extreme. he has repeatedly expressed his intention to use our nation's most important law enforcement agency to retaliate against his political enemies. even before president trump took office, mr. patel announced that he would force out fbi director christopher wray who were nominated in his first term before firing the former director jim call me. the director is the only political appointment at the fbi. congress took steps to ensure that this agency remains as apolitical as possible while providing for a single term of 10 years for a director and subjecting the appointment to the advice and consent of the senate. 50 years ago we made this reform. we have seen it all fall to ashes today. host: your response? guest: that is quite rich coming

in the age of james comey even the first trump election when the fbi colluded with democrats to cook up this information that suggested that trump was some type of kgb agent which was used to undermine the trump campaign and to undermine president trump 's first administration. give me a break. a hand rating as joe biden's fbi sends thugs to raid the home of his political rival. spare me the crocodile tears. host: here is michael in denver, colorado. independent. caller: thank you. mr. knowles, thank you for your work. it holds significance in promoting free speech and dialogue. i am a millennial so i appreciate what you do. my question, i wanted to ask you about comments made on your show

a few days ago. you said trump in many ways is our napoleon, a product of the revolution and the undoing of the resolution -- the revolution because he rides his way into the revolution like napoleon. when you use the forward revolution in this context, it is a very serious word, a forcible overthrow of a government or forceful order. when you say trump is undoing the revolution because you can say biden introduced green energy policies or environmentally friendly and dei. to justify that trump is undoing a revolution, will need more than just a typical talking points.