joe is in georgia, republican line, you are up first. i think trump is the best leader in world history, we are going to have the best history and i think trump by far is the best leader in history. i never been so fired up. we out in georgia, we love trump and we think he's the best leader in the world. >> what does that do specifically -- i am fired up about donald trump. >> what specifically does it do for the topic of inflation for the trump administration efforts? >> it is going to do great. >> caller: musk is cutting all

this spending and that'll cut the cost of doing business and that'll be a great thing for inflation. i mean i will tell you what. we are an investor heaven and inflation is going to go down. happy days are truly here again my friend. >> host: tom in florida, trump on inflation. go ahead. >> caller: terrible job. he talks about he's going to do. he's done nothing. he put this guy into eliminate waste and jobs. change is a good opportunity for him to do things. that's what he's using. there is no reason what's going on. trump trying to make a splash. everything he does chases a shiny object. don't look here or there.

>> host: when it comes to inflation, you said he's doing a terrible job, what do you measure that by? >> caller: the prices gone up since he took office. not even talking about the eggs which are obviously a product of the bird flu, everything is more expensive. insurance in florida have gone through the roof. people talk about what they're going to do. it is all about big business. all about trump. >> host: tom there in florida, let's hear our line for democrats and massachusetts. this is betty, hello. >> caller: hi, thank you. i think trump is doing a terrible job. i feel like he's living in robin hood in reverse, stealing from the poor and giving to the rich,

elon musk. the prices in the supermarket have not gone down one bit. he does not care. trump is running the country like a mafia boss. >> host: when you look at prices, is it strictly supermarket prices or everything? >> caller: everything. go to the beauty parlor to have your hair done, everything is up. >> host: now, the administration involved for nearly a month or so. do you think that's too soon to gauge or there are other things there? >> caller: normally, i would think it is too soon to gauge. with musk running around doing what he's doing, i don't see any hope in the future. does he mention it when he speaks? i am talking about trump. he could careless. he got in on this and he could

careless. all he could care is his lining in his own pockets and now his friends. >> host: betty in massachusetts, we got you. during the cpac convention which we have been showing you. here is jd vance from last week talking about those goals. >> the fundamental goals of our immigration policy and border policy and doge and saving taxpayers money, the fundamental goal is we want your children and grandchildren to be able to raise a family in security and comfort in the country that we all love. that's the whole goal of president trump's agenda. safety and prosperity, right? it is pretty common stuff. we know to do that, we have to unleash america. why is it so important? we know grocery prices got too high

under joe biden's leadership. the farmers are paying more for energy then we are all paying more for the farmers. if the truck drivers are paying more for fuel then we are all paying more for what the drivers delivering to the store. if we unleash america's energy, that'll do more than anything to drive down the cost. we have got to stop spending the american's people money on garbage. every dollar that we take in and spend, you have to pay for either through taxes or through inflation. if we spend the american people's money more wisely, if we stop taxing and spending the american people to death, that's going to bring relief to all the pricing pressure out there. we'll make it affordable to live in our country again. that's our mandate and goal. there is a lot more that we can do but i think we got a pretty

good start after 30 days. >> host: you can see that on our website on our app and comment on the administration on inflation on 202-748-8001 for republicans and 202-748-8000 for democrats. anthony grady posted cutting government is wae full. carl says yes, he's been in office one month. energy costs and governmentover spending. vonn bradley is saying no idea, time will tell and rome is not built in a day. you can text us at 202-748-80003. the trump administration is not doing enough addressing inflation. this is a republican line.

hi. >> caller: i don't know if i can given an opinion when i think of his inflation so far because he doge has not made it quite yet to the federal reserve to audit next. that's really where the center of inflation comes from. they print money, you know, depending on what they do and limit our money supply. i think the united states is the greatest money manipulator. we get away with it. we are the world's reserve currency. we are watching unfold at the moment. the death of the dollar. can we attribute that to trump? i think he kind of, the fed has been doing this forever 1913 is when they started. >> host: they control interest

rate up and down and deciding how much goes up or down. >> caller: yes, they do have that power. the way the market works, by the time they executed whatever their policy is given time or given administration, they won't see the effects for a couple of cycles and i am talking years. this inflation, if i have to answer this question is probably trump. he was the one when the covid he allowed these people get into his head and spend money like crazy. what is he doing? i support trump. i think he's doing a great job. i am in the republican party. i am always towards the libertarians. most republicans talk like libertarian.

trump is doing libertarian things. i don't know what libertarians are talking about. >> host: okay, let's hear from greg independent line, greg is also in virginia. >> caller: good morning, pedro, i think trump is doing the right thing. everybody is saying it. everybody has been saying this. overtime inflation is going to come down. my issue though is it is better to do it -- there is this legislative branch. all these executive orders and the next administration comes in and change everything, so now we are back to dealing with issues.

>> host: you are talking about elon musk effort, is that what you are referencing? >> caller: it is more stainable to do it through the legislative branch. i understand why can't. what i am worried about in another four years to get another president in there and he changes everything. and we back to dealing with all these issues right now. >> host: greg mentions elon musk being back on the news. mr. musk warns federal employees and all federal employees will we receive an e-mail of what

they have done. the tech giant did not detail any thing on the platform. "please reply to this e-mail with approximately five bullet points of what you accomplished next week. colorado is where jason is. he's on the line for democrats, the trump administration efforts on inflation. go ahead. >> caller: hello? >> host: you are on, go ahead. >> caller: i should start by saying the president's actions and choices for the federal reserve board can affect inflation. there are many other factors must be weighed in when evaluating the root cause behind

price increase. inflation can have many causes including increase production cost, higher demand from americans and monetary policy other things that get factored in are labor costs, raw materials and market destruction. when we talk about doing enough to fight inflation. president does not have control over a lot of things. when companies decide to start paying more so they can have productive workers. there is a cause of inflation. trump is hoping for ridiculous 0

percent unemployment which is ridiculous for any economic system. once again, there are a lot of factors involved in this. i don't know what else to add. >> host: okay, jason in california there reflected similar thought. no psident can control inflation. just another one of president trump's endless lies misled voters. from delaware, we'll hear next from alex in delaware, republican line, go ahead. >> caller: i know why trump always say stupid people. it is way too early to talk about inflation and all. he's only been there a month.

he's got nothing to do with that. that's from the bird flu from the eggs. he said that, you know, in a year, gasoline prices will be down and electric prices in half in a year. why is all these people talking like this? it does not make any sense to me at all? people are stupid people. >> host: if he promised that in a year, what makes you think he'll be able to achieve that? >> caller: because he's going to lift the chain of energy. >> host: go ahead, finish your thought. >> caller: he told you what he's going to do. i don't understand. he's only been in office for a

month. it is crazy to talk about this stuff. it is stupid. >> host: let's go to todd in california, independent line. hi. >> caller: hi, how are you doing? i don't think trump is doing enough. he needs to stop with all the tariffs talk. ideally, i would like to see china and canada and mexico to drop all the tariffs. if trump has not done so yet, i would like to see him - the pipeline and foreign oil because increase transportation costses are a major factor on inflation. he's going to have to start subsidizing u.s. farmers because

i got eggs yesterday and they were like $8 for a dozen eggs. that's what i think needs to happen. >> caller: so, you talk about tariffs, can you elaborate on your concerns of what tariffs may do when it comes to the economy and inflation? >> caller: when tariffs are slapped on the nation, it is the nation that's doing the important thing and has to pay the tariffs. 25% tariffs which will u.s. taxpayers have to pay and canada - prices keep rising and every nation we are doing business is going to be a cycle. the prices are never going to go down. >> host: todd in california

giving us his thoughts on inflationary topics and the trump administration efforts. let's hear from another resident in delaware, line of democrat. hello. >> caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call and thank you for cspan. he's totally incapable of telling the truth. the reason people are upset because more has not happened that trump said he would knock down inflation from day one and he would knock down prices and he made a lot of ridiculous claims all he does is lie and except when he talks to his billionaire buddies. last fall when he talks about his energy billionaire, if you guys give me a billion dollar, i

will give you whatever you want and he would deregulate whatever they wanted to get rid of. elon musk, why is that when he set up this department of government efficiency, he hired a bunch of computer hackers? where are the economists and the accountants to go through and dissect the budget to find out what's going on. it is all about retribution. all the people they fired were people he had a grudge against. elon musk amongst many faults does not even have a college degree. he just waves around a bunch of paper and says how great and smart he is. when you take that many drugs, of course you think you are smart. >> jim there in delaware giving his thoughts on the economy overall when it comes to going into the year to what extent you

agree or disagree with the following statement. people responded after paying my bills, i do not have enough money on things that i want. homeowner ship is an important part of the american dream, 76% is saying that. the government should continue to set policies that reduce carbon emissions and the topic of crypto currency, 18% saying it was a safe investment at least for those who were polled. those are some categories. the price of eggs that was a similar sentiment of senator mark kelly and also using eggs as an example. here is senator kelly last week. >> the safeway down in tucson is

charging $nine eggs. some groceries are only allowing customers to buy one or two cartons at a time. if you are going to the waffle house, you are paying a surcharge for each eggs that you buy. i want to know where is donald trump and elon musk? a few days ago, they hired a bunch of people at the department of agriculture whose jobs it is to stop this outbreak. the next question you may ask is why. why would they do this? why are elon musk and donald trump slashing and cutting so recklessly that they would fire the people working to stop bird flu? well, mr. president, it is because what's in front of us

here in the senate this week. they want to take the next steps towards a big tax giveaway for rich people. but, they have to find some ways to pay for it. it is wrapped up in all these budget bureaucracy stuff. making health coverage and food more expensive for working families. that's what it is going to happen. >> that was from last week the hill reporting from a couple of days specific efforts by the administration on those egg prices and - there are no clear plan of the administration. when the president took office, the administration instituted a

black out out of the health agency. the chief of government and public affairs for national of county and city health officials saying they heard a short update from the cdc on the avian flu. it is critical that they are in communication because both sides have something to add to the conversation to make sure we have the best evidence to move forward. here is robert in delaware, democrats line. >> host: you are own. >> caller: i would like to know how they keep saying - i am a democrat and i don't know know white - >> host: caller, the topic is inflation and what the trump administration is doing about it? >> caller: trump is doing a bad job.

joe biden, i don't live that far from him. he didn't know what the heck he was doing. >> host: when it comes to the topic of inflation, what do you think the trump administration is doing about it? >> caller: drill oil. all the other stuff of what john is doing of coal and factory, how are they helping us? i would like to know that. >> host: peter in maryland, independent line, go ahead. you are on. >> caller: hello? thank you very much. i really thank cspan for all you are doing and trying to get americans to talk to each other. i request that you consider opening up another cspan line for those americans who want to see us work together bipartisan

to help america do great. we all, democrats and republicans, want a safe environment for our kids. none of us want government waste. none of us want to see high inflation. we all want the same thing and i request that we stop with all this hate and stop with all this condemnation and stop having republicans calling on the democrats line pretending to be like a democrat like the last caller and let's be honest and real and truthful with each other. let's find bipartisan solutions. musk should have democrats working with him to clean up government waste if he really wanted to clean up government waste. >> host: what's a bipartisan solution to inflation? >> caller: getting together and

finding out the cost of inflation and realizing way beyond one item here or there. it is world's economy and working together to find a mutual solution for all people. we are not the only nation facing inflation. this is not an only american problem. this is a world inflation crisis. we need to work together to solve our problem. it is unfortunate that our current office leader and presidency does not believe in working together that's a huge problem for finding a solution that'll work. >> host: he gave his thoughts he talked about inflation being a worldwide issue and took polling of those living in the country besides the united states asking residents of those which three

of the following topics you find most worrying in your country. inflation still topping that risk. 32% of saying it was a top concern of theirs that matched directly at 32% with the issue of crimes and violence and followed by poverty, social, and policy at 28%. it goes down from there. again, if you want to call us at 202-748-8001 for republicans and democrats. you can text us your thoughts and our social media site is available, too and on x. republican line, this is from betty. she's in south carolina. good morning. go ahead, you are next. >> caller: trump is doing a good job.

what all these people have done to this man ever since he's been the first president-good when he was in. i know you are going to cut me off because you already put the finger on the button. you let democrats call and every one of them lie. there are some good democrats and some bad ones. >> host: betty, you are still with us, when it comes to inflation, what the trump administration has done? >> caller: can you not see? the democrats should be, if they want to move and live. all he wanted is what power.

>> host: betty, you said the trump administration is doing a lot when it comes to the issues, specifically what? >> host: such as what? >> caller: border, crimes and everything. everything he's done since he became president. these people are lying and saying things about that man and you know what - i heard what comes around goes around. >> host: okay. >> caller: he's a good christian man and his whole family are good people. >> host: hello, let's hear from greg in ohio. hello. >> caller: this is why we are critical of president trump. i quote, "i will lower prices and inflation on day one." he

repeatedly said that. janet jackson used to have that song, "what have you done for me lately"? he's done lately. an executive order will not lower prices. a president has no control over the free markets the republican party has not put any legislation together to lower prices, except the lincoln riley bill. how is that more money in your pocket? doge is not putting more money in your pocket. drilling oil is not going to lower my mortgage. >> host: republicans making the case reducing spending overall will reduce inflation, what do you think of the argument? >> caller: those are two separate entities. the government are always going to spend money. each presidency is going to spend money. that's just the way it is.

there is no correlation to lowering inflation and he is upsetting a lot of people by laying them off. people who voted for him and given us democrats ammunition to win in 2026 and 2028. i will leave with the famous quote from "star wars," "who's the worst?" >> host: jack in florida, good morning. >> caller: yes, inflation is going to be with us for a long, long time. the president wants to be in isolation. that's going to hurt america and

all these tariffs and everything. there was a gentleman on cspan yesterday and last name was knowels. he was talking about the same thing. they don't mention about the president wanting to be in isolationist. >> host: you said that and started that. how does that relate to inflation specifically, through tariffs or other avenues? >> caller: it will be tariffs. him and musk did away with usa. that was a vital part of showing how good the united states used to be. we are going to have ebola outbreak that's not already happening. that's going to hurt a lot of things and that'll hurt inflation. efb in the world wants the same

thing the united states is having. there is always so much to go away home. it is common sense that we'll have inflation - inflation will never be solved in my humble opinion. >> host: democrats line is next, daniel, hello. >> caller: hi, i am concerned on a couple of levels and giving the new guy a chance. from both sides people have made a comment, economy take wild from leading indicators and inflation definitely from one of those. the two things i see, the risk that he's going about some of the policies and the way he's doing things for inflation to have dramatic changes and maybe could be for the better. as you look at history and some of the callers pointed out, these are worldwide problems. one historical element and i know it kind of flip-flop that democrats talking about

remembering since we had the idea of republicans never forget. that is something that can lead to backfiring with tariffs and this whole doge idea, the marketing of it has to do with crypto currency. i had crypto and i know what it is. i don't think it is the panacea that we think it is. we are threatened with the reserver of some of the rash action. that's my first concern is brisk. i want to see - i am not an economist and i am not going to say the word. there is classical and supply side, we can debate that. i don't see a coherent strategy and if you want to talk about it as a budget of how you handle a family budget, a christian budget, the first 10% is tiding. it is what you give to the

community who are less fortunate than you. you get it back. i would say the wrath of god comes much quickly than his good savory. the second thing is paying yourself first. it does not make any sense to have cuts and grant from basic r&d. whether they manifest inflation or budgetary items, it is something of a lot of risks. that's a thing that makes me really concern right now. >> host: daniel there in dakota. re from northota. the polls were only a wk into trumps term. he can't change things over night. again, texting us, that's the number you can do that there,

202-748-8003 if you wish to communicate your thoughts that way. bob is next. he's in indiana, republican line, hi bob. >> caller: good morning, how are you, pedro? >> host: i am well, thank you. >> caller: you can't change the prices in a month. it is so true. we do know and when people are talking about if you can reduce energy cost, it is going to be a big deal towards the cost of shipping things. prices of gas in indiana have dropped since the president was elected. i think taking actions towards lowering energy cost is a big thing about getting and being able to lower prices. doge is doing what doge is supposed the do. it is what we knew during the campaigning that we are going to have doge. if they are going to reduce

waste and reduction in the government is so big. >> host: how much are you paying for gas compared to when the president took for office? >> caller: i can buy it for under $3 and on election day was $3.29. so, at least that's what you find when google it. my last point is usda is predicting that eggs will go back to normal prices to $2.50 by the end of april. definitely, they'll continue to decrease by the third quarter. that's the usda's predictions. so, i don't know what the democrats are going to say then if the eggs go backup. so, that's my comment and i thank you and i love living in indiana. a great red state. >> host: let's hear from ohio, gerald is there, independent line. good morning, you are next up.

>> caller: yes, good morning, pedro. >> host: you are on, go ahead. >> caller: to the first caller from delaware saying trump and everybody is stupid and this and that. well, trump is doing a good job. first of all, trump would not be in this mess if it was not for biden. biden put us in this mess. he was the dumbest president ever. and i want the say -- >> host: what do you think of the efforts on inflation and what the trump administration are doing about it? >> caller: well, you can't do it over night and it takes a while to do it. to all these democrats, they can do it over night, you can't do it and it takes time to do it. it takes time to do it.

>> host: go ahead, finish your thoughts, joe. >> caller: he'll get it done. that's what republicans put him in the house for. he'll get it done. >> host: gerald there in ohio. kevin haas talked about inflation, here is kevin hassin. >> he had to do that. he did it with policies that made no sense. a lot of time you hear people say to us, our friends and journalists, "why are you doing that?" i like to think why did they do that and spend so much money and why did the fed print so much

money so we have inflation as high. why do we do that? we are addressing it. we didn't have to address it in the first term because it was in the ones. how are we doing it? with a plan that president trump and i talked about it in the oval that involved every levels. we are cutting spending with negotiations with people on the hill and advice of the it consultant, elon musk and looking at inside things like restoring trump's tax cuts or ex pending new factories so there is an explosion of supply, a reduction in government in demand then inflation goes right down. one of the things you want to say is what are you going to see in when the markets believe that we'll get inflation under control is that ten-year treasury rate goes down because that's how they think of future

inspected inflation. we'll see memory of biden's inflation, it is not going to go away in the month. 40 basis points because markets were optimistic of our ability to fight inflation, 40 basis points is not a fun thing to say, economists talk that way, i apologize. for a typical mortgage if that affects the mortgage rate then it is going to affect a typical family buying a house about a thousand buck a year. >> host: here is matt, he's a democrat in north carolina. hello. >> caller: i think a couple of things, i want to put out the number one statement that i am super concern about of elon musk and trump being together. if they have a fallout, i am concerned that elon can do some

harm to the president by putting a bunch of massive information that's false. i am a democrat but he's still the president so i got to protect him before i protect a billionaire. concerns of inflation - the problem with why we have inflation is twofold. number one, the united states is focused on profits, that's all we care about. there are two major stores, albertson's and kroger trying to combine. they own all the big grocery stores that everybody goes to in the entire united states. they control the pricing. there is no motivation to lower prices and reduce profits because that's what america is all about, it is all about profit. kamala or the biden administration was attempting to prevent albertson's and kroger - whoever, those two big

companies from combining, you know what i mean? then, they can set the price for whatever. what's their motivation to reduce pricing? the only way we can do that is reduce monopoly and the meat producers, there are only four meat producers in the united states that produce the meat. everything is profit-based. there are 0 motivation for big companies to give us better pricing. at the end of the line, that goes to wall street and profits and people in roth ira and reduce those numbers and you don't have much in your retirement. it is a lot more than just reducing it. he can't do it. there is no reason for fuel company to reduce less fuel or more fuel and reduce their profits and pricing. there is no motivation.

the american people are poor because it matters. they gotten an algorithm that all they want to do is maximize profits and tweeting as hard as they can and there is no motivation for them. have a good day. >> host: matt in north carolina. we'll go to larry, republican line. go ahead. >> caller: pedro, inflation is caused by too much money. printing all that money during the biden administration and trump administration, spending $2 trillion more than what they take in is what's causing inflation. trump is addressing it right now with all these cuts. it is right before our eyes. he told us in the campaign it would take a year to get the energy price and everything down he was going to address it on day one. inflation is going to get it

under control but it is going to take a little time. >> host: how much of that do you think is connected to the doge effort that people brought it up. >> caller: doge is what's getting done. we have to get it under control so we are not printing too much money. the treasury comes down, the feds could not reduce interest rates, the market will do it. the person that spoke just before me, the market do bring prices down. there is incentives to bring prices down. it is free market capitalism that'll do it. >> host: larry there in michigan giving us his thoughts and another perspective from virginia. this is alan on our independent line. hello. >> caller: good morning, pedro. my favorite folks at cspan. keep up the good work.

hey, i have a couple of points to make quickly. i want to go back four years. we had four years under donald trump which was pretty good years. we had four years under biden which is miserable. trump is giving an overall approach, he's not giving examples. elon musk is doing - second thing is have these foreign countries to step up and pay their fair share, the u.s. has been paying it all. it is time for other countries to pay their share instead of the u.s. paying for everything that's going on. i think president trump is doing a good job. i think it is going to take some time. things don't happen in 30 days and again, if it goes back and compare - there is no comparison. the main thing i want to say is it is common sense that's being

used now. we need some common sense with some brains that we didn't have before. thank you and keep up the good work. >> alan in virginia. the main contributors there are shelter, insurance services. 53% of the increase over the past 12 months. car insurance accounted for 11% of both the monthly and annual inflation rates and services accounted for more than two third of 64% of inflation over the past month. 90% of the 12th month increase in prices excluding food, energy and shelter, prices would have increase 1.9% a year ago. the feds preferred 2% goal post. when price pressure peaked

injun, shelter was driving 20% of the annual increasing prices. energy was driving about a third of inflation while food prices was driving about 15% of inflation. roger in kansas, democrats line, hello, you are next up. >> caller: yes. this is roger, i am from kansas and i am also involved in agriculture. i am kind of sick and tired of hearing about eggs. if you have a chicken after it is born, it is seven weeks before it becomes an adult and then it can start laying. also, i would channel any one out there to buy 20 chickens and see if they can make enough money. they would not do it. agriculture is a hard business to be in. this brings back the question,

what came first, the chicken or the eggs? >> host: republican line, james from texas. >> caller: hi pedro, how are you doing? >> host: good, thank you. >> caller: i am glad you are having this. we need to talk about inflation. if you look at the last four years of money we spent, we found out to doge that simply, he's finding out what we have been over spending. the point is until we figure out what the problem is of common sense, with usa, we found the $47.5 billion, they don't know where it went. well, the treasury is paying our tactics. that's fraud and misused. until we understand what the problem is, we can't solve it.

functional leadership was our nation have been wrapped up many years. the american people don't work for them. democrats blaming republicans. we need to come together on this. this is the first time i turn to your show and i appreciate you doing this. we need to understand what we are doing and why we are doing it. common sense comes in. president trump didn't do any of these. all we are doing is throwing money out through the biden administration. those individuals who's been elected committed fraud. i ran into a lady, a grandmother, she didn't know that the tax money, $47.5 billion have gone to other areas and other nation. why? it is sad to me. we have --

>> host: go ahead and finish your thought. >> caller: simply, common sense and leadership were two areas. it takes humility and integrity. do the rig thing. we don't see that a lot in leadership. >> host: okay, james in texas there. andy beshear with a recent discussion with governor on politico site. he talked about the trump administration's plans for tariffs and how it could affect states like his. >> we'll do everything we can but it will hit us and hl hit us hard and it is already hitting the american people. so, kentucky is setting export record and every economic record. our economy is booming. this is the biggest threat i see aside from the pandemic since i

became governor. canada is about 22% or 23% of all of our exports and we are not alone as a state in those numbers. i believe donald trump ultimately became president because of the last group of movable voters thought he would do more to bring down prices. we see inflation going up. we see these threaten tariffs and the ones put in effect and raising the price of gas, raising the price of groceries. if this president continues to focus on the cultural war issues and ignores what's happening in our economy, uses tariffs to try to get non economic concessions, that's gambling. the price of everything gambling on inflation. i think the american people will end up feeling betrayed because they believe he was less distracted and do more. he's doing everything but addressing prices. >> host: here is gio in ohio,

independent line. >> caller: how are we doing today? thank you for having me. i want to say to governor andy beshear, how can you make a statement about him doing nothing to reduce prices and groceries. he's only been in office -- the other president was in office for four years and could not do one thing. all the democrats give him a pass. this guy has not been in office long enough. everybody is worried about elon musk and what he's doing and all this, they have great advisers that are attorneys and best advisers that you can imagine. do you think they're going to be doing something they should not be doing? it is common sense. plain and simple. you got to put things in

perspective and assume they are doing the right thing. >> host: joe in ohio, this is willie in georgia. democrats line. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. all these stuff going on with elon musk and doge and stuff, follow the money. he's tricking the media while they're talking about this stuff going on with the treasury and all that. why he's on his way to saudi arabia to pick upsome more money. >> host: we are talking about the trump administration on inflation, what do you think about that? >> caller: inflation, biden had it going on pretty good. he's not doing nothing. the little money he collecting, laying off people, he's not doing anything. he's a liar and criminal. what do you expect? just watch

"follow the money." >> host: one thing to watch out our network at 1:00 p.m. this amp, the principles first conference. it will featured john bolton and jeff duncan and others will speak at that annual principles first conference here in washington, d.c. this event is an alternative of what is known as cpac which we have been showing you last week. you can find it online. if you are interested in this principles first conference, 1:00 p.m. is the time at cspan and our website at cspan.org. here is bob in pennsylvania, republican line, hi. >> caller: good morning. >> host: you are on. go ahead. >> caller: there is finally promise in the world. this is the most exciting thing

that happened to the united states. >> host: if you are talking about inflation, what do you mean specifically? >> caller: they finally caught the democrats with their hands in the shells. >> host: okay, that's bob in pennsylvania finishing off this hour of calls. thanks to those of you participated. two guests joining us to talk to you and answering questions. george beebe talks about the trump administration to bringen end to the ukraine war. later on in the program, we'll run amanda littman talking about her group efforts to support young progressives running for office. those conversations coming up on washington journal.

♪ >> 100 years ago this past august was the beginning of what has often been called the great war. world war i had casualties of over 9 million. our guest has written nine books since 2003 on subjects that include german history, russian history, the ottoman empire, communism, world war ii, and one titled "july 1914." his last book would be our topic of conversation. world war i was triggered in late june of 1914. with the assassination of archduke franz ferdinand and his wife.

they were gunned down by a serbian 19-year-old. >> author sean mcmeekin talks about his book "july 1914: countdown the war" on book notes+, which is free on c-span now or wherever you get your podcasts. >> looking to contact your members of congress? 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 contact information for every house and senate member of the 119th congress. contact information on congressional committees, the president was a cabinet, and state governments. the congressional directory cost $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase

helps support c-span's nonprofit operations. go to c-spanshop.org to preorder your copy today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is george beebe joining us with the quincy institute, the director of brand strategy. he served as former special advisory to vice president dick cheney. a lot there. we welcome you back. remind people what the quincy institute is, the position it takes on foreign policy and specifically for ukraine-russia war. guest: the quincy institute is a transport is an organization, which means we plan to bring the left and right side of the political spectrum together around the notion that the united states needs to reinvigorate diplomacy in its approach to the world, that we need to focus less on trying to transform other countries internally, less on wars and

regime change, for example, and more of restraint and keeping american interests foremost in mind, using diplomacy as the first resort to try to manage conflict in the world. host: how is your organization financially supported? guest: we don't take any money from foreign entities. we don't take money from defense contractors. we do take money from foundations and from individuals. we try to be very transparent about where we get our money. host: on the issue of ukraine, we are approaching three years since russia invaded ukraine. what is your assessment of the last three years to be? guest: well, this war has lasted longer than i think a lot of people thought it would, and it has been quite disruptive, quite destructive, and has threatened to turn into a direct conflict between the united states and

russia, which would likely go nuclear. but right now, the momentum on the war is on the side of the russians. they have turned this into a war of attrition, where their superior population, superior military production, is having an impact in wearing out the ukrainians. they are slowly running out of men, and the west is running out of weapons to provide to ukraine. so i think that creates a situation where this war does need to end fairly urgency in some sort of compromise. host: now that you see efforts by the trump administration, and riyaz last week, talking at least with some of the party members. what is the caution for the trump and administration, specifically for the state department in moving forward with negotiations? guest: the challenge that the trump administration has here is to find that sweet spot between russian, american, european, and ukrainian core interests.

find out where they overlap, and manage that situation so that we can compromise in ways that respect everybody's red lines on all of this. that's not going to be an easy thing. we are seeing that already with a fair amount of controversy that has spilled out into the public domain on all of this, but i do think it is possible for them to pull this off. so far, i think they are taking the right step. host: how so? guest: well, the biggest challenge that we face on the russian side is russia's skepticism that we talk about what for moscow is the core issue at stake, which is the expansion of the nato alliance eastward, to incorporate ukraine and other parts, in ways that russia believes threatens russia's core security interests. the russians have been urging us to discuss that issue with them

for decades, quite honestly. the united states has said no, that is not on the table. we are not willing to talk about whether ukraine will be a member of nato or not. that is something that will happen sooner or later, and the russians have said, well, no. we either have to compromise on that issue, or russia will use force to prevent that from happening. so the trump administration has got to signal to the russians that we are willing to talk about that, but they have to do so in a way that does not actually make a concession that russia does not reciprocate. the russians are going to have to make a compromise, too. now, the europeans and ukrainians don't want us to talk about that issue. their diagnosis of this war is one of imperial conquest, much like going germany undertook in world war ii, and

then you don't ever offer diplomacy to an inferior -- to an aggressor state. that will make the problem worse. the truck administration -- the trump administration's diagnosis of this, which i happen to share, is things that the west has done that make sense from our security point of view threatens russia's security concerns. russia intern was very aggressive in countering that, and we got ourselves into an escalatory spiral that will continue unless there is diplomacy to end that spiral. so we have to convince the europeans and ukrainians that that is what is necessary in all of this, and that is part of what you see the public arguing over. host: the editor of the "new york times" this morning saying the very act of discussing an end to the war without the presence of ukraine or any other ally at the table violates the fundamental principles of the united states, as proclaimed in the outset of his support for ukraine.

nothing about ukraine without ukraine. that alone is a huge victory for mr. putin, who portrays his war as a struggle for spheres of influence among great powers rather than the brutal landgrab that it is. guest: that helps you understand how we got into the situation we got in right now could i think the "new york times" is saying no, this is like world war ii. this is imperialist language. you don't actually negotiate with an aggressive state. the trump and administration thing well, that is a misdiagnosis of the problem. we are in a situation that actually requires diplomacy. it requires compromise. and you have to signal to the russians and to our own side in this that that is the direction we are going. so i think so far, the trump administration has done a very good job of signaling to the russians that we are willing to talk about things that they

think are necessary to talk about. we are not putting anything on paper yet in formal concessions. i think to get this treaty, the russians will have to make some concessions, too, but we are sending the right signal that we are willing to talk about this issue, and we are also signaling the europeans and ukrainians that at the right time, they are going to be a part of this process. i think that is absolutely clear. the trump administration has said that they will have a role to play. but this is going to be a sequence to set of negotiations, and the first step is between moscow and washington to make clear that we are willing to talk about some of these issues that the russians have concerns about. host: george beebe is our guest, and if you want to ask him questions, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. an independents, (202) 748-8002.

you can also text us questions or comments, (202) 748-8003. you said first steps. when i have ukraine as part of the first step? -- why not have ukraine as part of the first steps? guest: a couple of reasons. number one, the has considered this war bilateral between russia and ukraine. it's up to ukrainians to decide if and when they will seek an end to the war. and that the source of our leverage in that kind of a ukraine russia negotiation is to maximize ukraine's battlefield success and also to isolate russia diplomatically and put the squeeze on the economy so that russia has to say "uncle," essentially, and to be too late. that did not work. -- and capitulate. that did not work. the russians found a way to cope with economic sanctions. the only way they are isolated in the world diplomatically is

in the west. the rest of the world, asia, africa, the middle east, they still have relations. in the momentum is really on russia's side. they have successfully turned this into a war of attrition. so what i think we need to do is not at the start signal to the russians that it is between moscow and kyiv. we need to show the russians we understand the broader geopolitical context that this war is taking place in, the broader tug-of-war from what the european security architecture is going to look like, and whether russia will have any role in that it will be entirely dominated by nato, which the russians objected to. that is something that has to be a conversation between moscow and the west. once that happens, once the

russians understand we are willing to look at a new relationship between the united states and russia, then i think the russians are actually incentivized to make some compromises with ukraine, to end this war, to allow ukraine to embark on a path toward, for example, european union membership, to contemplate economically construction of ukraine, and settle essentially bilateral issues with how you deal with territory, how you deal with treatment of ethnic minorities, war reparations, those sort of things. but the bigger context has to be addressed first, because that is an enabler that will allow compromises on the bilateral issues that are so difficult. host: first call for you, george beebe, comes from samuel in colorado, independent line. you are on with our guest. go ahead.

caller: yes, sir, how are you doing this morning? guest: very good, thank you. caller: i want to say a couple of things. the whole thing with you right wingers is you expect ukraine to give us everything and russia to give us nothing. and it is just as lopsided as can be. and i think, you know, trump lied and said ukraine started the war, which is a lie. the war was going on during the first trump administration, which he lies and says it wasn't. i mean, you've got to get your head screwed on straight, buddy. that's all that there is to it. host: ok, let our guest respond. guest: well, in terms of russia giving up nothing and ukraine giving up everything, i think if you look at this war as primarily a bilateral conflict between russia and ukraine, then that context makes sense, what you are saying looks like it

fits the situation, because russia is not going to give up land that it currently occupies militarily. that's quite clear. ukraine cannot compel russia to give up that land, and they tried to do that, particularly in 2023, with a counter to fix offensive. it failed quite spectacularly. the only way the united states can tell russia to give a plan and now occupies in ukraine is to go to war directly with russia, and that would not end well. so the question then becomes, what kind of compromise is possible if it is not territorial compromise? and i think they what russia will have to concede and ultimately will concede is that ukraine will be an independent and sovereign country, the russians are not going to be raising the flag over the ukrainian capital, and russia

will not occupy the vast majority of ukrainian territory. and i think russia will concede that ukraine has a viable path toward membership in the european union. that will allow ukraine to reconstruct economically. it will allow ukraine to attract the migrants, the refugees that have fled ukraine since the start of this invasion, and i think ukraine can become a viable, prosperous state that is answered economically in europe, but it will be neutral militarily, it will not be part of the nato alliance. those are significant concessions for russia to make, and i think we are on a path for that kind of compromise. host: republican line in virginia. michael, go ahead. caller:hi. good morning. i would like to know if you have any insight as to why the media here in the united states is not covering this conflict the way

it does, you know, every other conflict, where daily we would see the deaths, we would see the destruction, we will hear stories, personal stories of people suffering because of the war, you know, the way they did in syria, iraq, you know, everywhere else. you know, the point is, you know, as far as ending the war, the way it is now, russia has more blood to spill, and ukraine does not. if the war does not come to some sort of end, it's going to escalate, and, you know, more nations will be involved. i would like to see, you know, what you said earlier, that russia is not going to give up land that is already conquered, but yeah. we could support ukraine, has strategic partnerships with ukraine, with minerals, the rare

earth minerals that ukraine has, the strategic interest for the united states, and, you know,, i think, will lose anyways, because they are so much weaker now internationally than they were when this conflict started, and, you know, these european nations, they are still buying oil from -- natural gas from russia. even nato allies are buying gas from russia. it does not make any sense to me how they can say they are supporting ukraine and arming them while at the same time they are buying oil from russia. and, you know, the energy -- host: let me pause you there, caller, you put a lot for our guest. guest: well, yeah. i do think the ukrainians are in a difficult position overall,

and that has been underplayed in western media coverage. this is a big topic of why the war is being covered the way it has been covered. i will simply say that i think there has been an information war, so to speak, that has been going on over how to understand why the war started, what is going on in the war itself, and what the way out of this situation is. in most western mainstream media coverage has bought into that "new york times" line that pedro alluded to earlier, that this is a war of aggression by russia, much like naz germany in world war iii, and a way out of that situation is not to seek a diplomatic compromise, that only makes a situation worse. i think most of western mainstream coverage has fully bought into that, and you've seen, i think, from the very beginning of this invasion

western mainstream media has used the word "unprovoked" to describe russia's invasion. they simply asserted that there was no possible reason why the russians would do this. the only way to understand this is that the russians and simply wanted to take over a country on their border. and i think what trump has done, and what a number of experts on this have argued, although they have not had a lot of impact in mainstream media coverage, is that the war is actually more complex than that. that as far as the reasons, they are close to the reasons why world war i started. you had action and reaction, in which both sides thought they were taking defensive steps, and it escalated over time. the way you handle something like that is through diplomacy, and that is at the heart, i think, of the arguments that you are seeing right now, in western

coverage of this war, in european ukraine reaction to what they tried to do. host: the president spoke last night at cpac and talked about what he thought the timeline when it comes to possibly ending this war. what is your perception of how long these negotiations could take, and ultimately some site of result or resolution be found? guest: well, if you think of this war is a sequence, a series of negotiations, where you start with that core issue of the u.s.-russian relationship, you make some progress on that, and that enables you to then make progress on the russia-ukraine part of this. i think this is going to take a little bit of time. it's not like the russians are going to sit down and say, sure, we are willing to have a cease fire, because continuing this war is their primary leverage in

achieving their key goal, which is to prevent ukraine to be part of the nato, and to secure a commitment from the united states and from nato that we are willing to say that is not going to happen. then we are going to hammer out a lot of details on how you end the actual fighting, and the details are going to be difficult. it's going to require understanding where the lines of contacts are come exchanging of prisoners, monitoring perhaps some sort of peacekeeping force that might be put on the ground, those details will take some time. then you are going to have to get into things like the size of the ukrainian military. the russians want to keep this very, very small, so it is not a threat to them. ukraine and the west obviously have an interest in making sure ukraine has the ability to defend itself.

those will take a long time to handle outcome and they also -- to hammer out, and they also raise questions about what russia is concerned about, and that is one of our primary sources of leverage in this. we cannot make the ukrainians win this war in ukraine, but we have a lot of control over our posture in europe, and the russians cannot address that posture simply by defeating the ukrainian army. that's where the negotiation will have to be a part of this. that's going to take a lot. but what i will say is, we can walk in some sort of armistice and end active fighting in ukraine sometime this year, even if we don't have a fully developed, comprehensive peace treaty done by that time. host: this is george beebe joining us from the quincy institute. from london, england, independent line. you are next.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm from london. i would like to ask mr. beebe, in his opinion, why the west is being such obstructionist and keeping peace in ukraine, why the western europeans are offering nothing for either war or peace, actually advocating, no plan is the best plan. also, another point i would like to ask his opinion, they have this unrealistic demand you've been mentioning. how will the trump administration admit that these unrealistic demands are not possible to achieve and unrealistic under any negotiation? and number three, the europeans keep talking about the threat of russia, prussia, russia, yet the spending has never increased more than 2% of the gdp for the military. so there's irony here also on the side of the west, europeans.

guest: i think there are a couple of good reasons why the europeans are doing what they are doing in all of this. one is that they genuinely believe that compromise with russia makes the problem worse, not better, for all of the reasons that i've laid out. but the second reason is that they don't want a fundamental change to the transatlantic relationship, to the way the nato alliance works. they want the united states to continue in the role that it has been in for 50-some years, which is we bear the primary burden of european security through the west military, and europe is then freed up to focus on economic growth. they don't have to spend a lot of money on their own defense. they've outsourced that to the united states. and i think, for many years, not just with the trump administration, the united states has said, you know, you

actually need to bear more of the burden, to supply more of your own defense. and that pressure has grown under trump. he has said, rightly, that the united states cannot afford to focus on what it regards as the primary geopolitical challenge in the world, which is the rise of china, and continue to be fully responsible for europe's own defense. the united states needs to ask europe to step up, to play a role in this evolving multipolar world, so that russia can be a counterbalance, so that europe can be a counterbalance to russia, not just outsourced security to the united states. so the pushback we are seeing from europe is essentially rooted in their desire not to

see this change happen, either in the way we deal with ukraine, but i think even more importantly in the broader transatlantic relationship. host: the first president will be visiting this week with president trump also, a visit with u.k. prime minister. what message do you believe that the president or the administration will send to european leaders about ukraine? guest: well, i think they will continue to send a very stark message, and there will be two aspects to it. number one, they are going to tell europeans, if you are not going to be able to put a stick in the spokes of the you ukraine peace process. you will have a role at the appropriate time, but that role will not be to prevent progress in the peace negotiations. the second message is going to be, you are going to have to step up and provide for your own

defense, and be a real entity with real military capabilities and real diplomatic weight in this evolving, multipolar world. host: let's hear from minnesota, democrats line. hello. you are on. go ahead. caller: good morning. first of all, i am a proud union man from minnesota. november, elected, he has no business in this situation. he needs to get out of it. he's nothing but a, he said it in the campaign, he wants to be a dictator, period. i want him out of this situation. russia needs to pull back to where they started this war and get out of ukraine. leave ukraine alone! and i'm telling you right now, this country had better realize that donald trump is taking us over, and he has no right to a third term! host: ok, that is our viewer in

minnesota. let's go to patrick in georgia, unless you want to respond to anything he said. guest: well, i will only say, when it comes to ukraine, and a lot of people believe that russia simply should withdraw from ukraine's territory and end the war. that has been the crux of american policy since this invasion began three years ago. the real problem is not whether that should happen, it is, how do you make it happen? in the united states, i think, has done its best to make that happen, and we have very limited ability to force the russians to withdraw from ukraine, so we have to view the situation realistically come and i think that is what the trust administration is trying to do. host: it is on true social -- truth social that president trump characterize president zelenskyy as a dictator, saying that he wants to keep the gravy train going when it comes to ukraine. how these sentiments

weigh on negotiations and ukraine ultimately? guest: part of it as the changes in video technology over the decades. back in the old days, these sort of big, diplomatic negotiations were largely conducted behind closed doors, and what came out in the press came out in press conferences. and unauthorized leaks, which would occasionally happen, but you did not have people in social media talking about what has been going on. and that has changed, obviously. social media has changed how this is done. and i think the other problem that is going on here is, zelenskyy does not want to see a negotiated settlement. he does not want to see a compromise. i think he has fully bought into this notion that russia simply needs to capitulate, and that the united states should put maximum pressure on the russians.

and he also wants a nato-style security guarantee for ukraine. if you can't be in the nato alliance per se, he at least once the united states to commit itself to go to war to defend ukraine. and he is putting a lot of pressure on the united states, through his public comments, to that. and i think the trump administration is pushing back. it's saying, number one, there is going to be in a negotiation, there's going to have to be a compromise, and part of that will be between moscow and washington. i don't think trump has any intention to get involved in things that are ukraine's sovereign decisions to make. but the broader relationship, those are not something for ukraine to make. trump is saying very clearly you are not going to make those

decisions. this question, is zelenskyy a dictator and should there be elections, this is sending a signal to zelenskyy. he is not going to call the shots when it comes to these bigger geopolitical issues between the west and russia. host: patrick, hello. caller: thank you, sir, i believe we finally have an adult in the room. i would like you to come if you will, asked him what happened in the donbas region up until february of 2022 and if you would give us some context on agreements wanted to and also early on, the russian military had kyiv surrounded, the and prudent a deal for the russian troops to withdrawal.

basically, russia call this a special military operation and for nearly eight years, ukrainian military has attacked donbass because they did not agree, they did not believe that they had a legitimate government and they had no representation. the people of donbas had no voice in their government, they were not allowed to vote in their government. so after russia took over crimea because that is where their naval fleet is, they navy only has access to warm waters, they could not allow crimea to be controlled by what i consider to be a fascist regime in ukraine. i've been following this conflict since the coup and

you're the first one that i further actually speaks the truth. host: we will let him respond. guest: this is an authentic subject, and we could talk about this broader topic for hours. suffice it to say that i think this conflict is one that has multiple dimensions to it. one of which is an internal ukrainian dimension, as you mentioned, between parts of the country in the east and south that are largely culturally russian and linguistically russian, who are uncomfortable with the central ukrainian government pulling ukraine away from russia in economic, political and military dimensions. and there has been this internal conflict which erupted into

military conflict with ukraine after the revolution in 2014. and the russians intervened covertly, all but overtly in that conflict back in 2014. and that is one dimension of this war, and if there is going to be a settlement of this conflict, part of it has to be between russia and the west, part of it has to be between russia and ukraine, part of it has to be between ukrainians themselves to try to heal the rifts inside ukrainian society that had been a part of this conflict. and those are all very difficult things to do. even if you get a durable armistice that ends the active fighting, it would be a lot of work to rebuild this country. that is going to have to take

place not just economically, but also socially. host: some of this stems to the u.n., the trumpet ministration calling on ukraine to withdraw their annual resolution at the u.n., condemning russia's war and instead wants to replace with a un-sponsored state calling to an end to the conflict that contains no mention of russian responsibility cord into officials and diplomats from other countries. what do you think of this move when it comes to the international community at the u.n.? guest: what this really comes down to is this division between schools of thought that i mentioned earlier. what really caused this war and what prescription flows from that diagnosis? ukrainian draft resolution that europeans help draw off is firmly of the opinion that this is imperialist aggression and must be resisted by force. and the trumpet ministration has

said we don't agree with that diagnosis, we think this is like a world war i slough problem where you have to have diplomacy, but i think they are also looking very clearly at what the ultimate goal ought to be. the trumpet ministration's goal is we need a compromised, diplomatic solution here. does the ukrainian draft resolution increase the chances of getting that or does it reduce the chances of getting that kind of outcome? the trump administration has said but the ukrainians have proposed actually makes a compromised solution more difficult than otherwise. so this is a very fundamental disagreement that we are seeing play out here with profound locations. host: independent, jeffrey, your next. caller: yes, thanks for taking my call.

i'd like to ask your guest, first of all, i'd like to say i don't agree with a lot of what trump does but i definitely agree with the fact that this is a war that never had to happen. i'm interested in what he thinks about what is going to happen with the lenski -- zelenskyy when they don't end the war. there a lot of rightly ukrainians who said they are going to fight until the death, and i think zelenskyy has that pressure on them, so i'd like to know what your guest thinks about that. and definitely this is a war that never had to happen. i don't think it ever had to happen. anyway, thanks for taking my call. guest: this is a very good in question of what is going to happen ukraine politically. zelenskyy's elected term of office expired earlier this year. he is rolling under martial law

which president trump has pointed out. part of what has to happen i think, if ukraine is going to be a member of the european union, which i hope is the path that we envision for ukraine, it's going to have to have elections, it's going to have to bring ukraine into conformity with e.u. membership requirements. i think that is a good thing for a couple of reasons. number one, if we are going to have a durable ending to the sliding, -- to this fighting, there has to be strong popular support in ukraine. it can't be in agreement that a few people at the top of the ukrainian government sign but doesn't have substantial support within the ukrainian population. one of the best ways of ensuring that it does is to hold elections to live with a kind of legitimacy that is required in that sort of situation. this also might be an artful way of addressing russian concerns

about leadership in kyiv. russians can push back on and ukrainian government. they're going to have to deal with the outcome of that election, and i think that helps put firm roots in whatever treaty gets negotiated out of all of this. so where zelenskyy might fall if there is an election, i'm not sure anybody can say at this. there are people on the far right in ukraine who strongly oppose him, there are people that are more on the left that also have concerns. where the bulk of the ukrainian people will come down is very hard to say. in a war situation it is very hard to measure popular opinion in ukraine right now.

that's not unusual. host: we have if you are asking about the news of rent days and at the president asking for rights. what do you make a fat ask and how does it fit into the whole picture of what is going on? >> there's an awful lot of confusion in media spin and speculation that has attempted this issue. what i think we can say from authoritative, public statements i trump administration officials, secretaries of state, rubio, vice president pence, secretary treasury scott bessent, they are saying that this is not a naked asset grand or money gram on the part of the united states. and in fact what we are envisioning here is a joint exploration and exploitation of these minerals with ukraine in which the united states provides

technology, allows the ukrainians to take advantage of mineral wealth that they have, and accrues benefits both ukraine and to the united states, and i would add, probably to europe in ways that cements economic cooperation between ukraine and the west, helps ensure that ukraine will be prosperous and can reconstruct itself after this. i think that makes a lot of sense. and so cutting through the spin that is being applied to all this, and the war that we are seeing of words over how to approach negotiations of this, in principle i think the approach that the trump people are taking to this issue has a lot of potential to the constructive if it is handled right. host: democrats line from south carolina, hello. caller: hello, good morning.

i don't think ukraine should trust the united states ever again. they had an agreement after the cold war was over, we gave weapons to russia for control of the country because the united states guaranteed purity. i don't want those people to trust us, either, or south korea. let's go back to that date. let's give them the nuclear weapons facts. you might as well give it to them. let them no longer negotiate and not commit to it. that is all i have to say. guest: a couple of things on

this. he's referring to the so-called budapest memorandum in which ukraine relinquished any claim to the soviet era nuclear weapons that wound up on its territory after the soviet union's breakup. in raton -- return for joint commitments of all the signatories to guaranteeing ukraine's territorial integrity, its sovereignty and independence , and self-determination. in retrospect, i think there's been a lot of confusion over what exactly we are committed to. this was not a security guarantee since article five of the united states with regard any attack on the ukraine as an attack on the united states.

we did not commit ourselves to go to war to defend ukraine if it was attacked. and the commitments to sovereignty and territorial integrity went both ways. the russians interpreted this to mean that the united states was not going to meddle in you means internal affairs. that is what they interpreted the sovereignty and independence to mean. and this gets back to what the previous caller had to say about the revolution. i think the russian perception was that the united states was heavily involved in that revolution, and that that constituted interference in ukraine's internal affairs and sovereignty. and so this is a very complicated issue. the final thing was ukraine never really had control, the lodge lodge codes always remained in moscow. so what they were giving up was

not control over those soviet era nuclear weapons. they were giving up claims to controlling those nuclear weapons. that is an important factor in all of this. host: one more call, oregon, democrats line. a little short on time. caller: on the same issue, that was 1994 that ukraine agreed to transfer weapons to russia for dismantlement next change for their independent and sovereignty, and i think we told them we would protect them, and i think you're giving up a lot by not honoring our word. i hate to see that. host: since you interested, what are the next steps you are watching for in this process?

caller: -- guest: after the discussions in saudi arabia between the u.s. and russian officials, which as far as i can tell did not actually get very deep into the question of a ukraine peace settlement, other than saying that it was our intention to pursue a peace settlement, they really focused more on the broader context. how do we normalize things, how do we staff out our respective embassies, which have been quite severely cut over the years. how do we refer dialogue about bigger issues like cooperation, strategic stability, nuclear arms control, those words of. i think the next step as i understand it is to flush out some working groups, people at the export level that can start to make progress on these

different issues. one of which is going to be the peace negotiations and you rain. i think that is the point when the ukrainians and europeans start to play a more active role in all of this. that is something we should keep an eye on. host: george serves as the director of strategy for the institute. in a little while we are going to hear from the president of a group called run for something, and their efforts to support, recruit and train young progressives running for office. you can participate by calling (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrat. (202) 748-8002, independent. we will take those calls in washington journal continues. ♪

announcer: tonight on c-span's q&a, former mafia associate lewis for untaken shares his book -- lous ferrante shares "borgata." he explains further details of what he says with the mafia's involvement in the affirmation of resident kennedy and discusses robert kennedy's battle with monster carlos marcello, possible the one at that mafia from the late 19 the early 1980's. >> a major reason why he feels that he has an archenemy that will stop at nothing, and if you are a mafia don who has lived his life with the idea that i will stop at nothing to get what i need to do and now i am facing someone else will stop at nothing, it is life and death. that is when i think he made a

decision it is going to be me or the kennedys. >> the book "borgata: clash of titans." you can listen to q and day and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. weekends bring your book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books here's a look at what is coming up this weekend. "relentless,"'s life is a political activist and organizer in the latino community. then the call turner lee with her book "digitally invisible: how the internet is creating the new underclass" contends that lack of internet access is creating economic disparities in poor and rural communities. and professor eve l. ewing, with "original sin's," arguing the

united states educational system reinforces racial inequality at the expense of black and native children. she's interviewed by associate press editor alia wong. watch book tv every weekend on c-span 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch any time at book tv.org. washington journal continues. host: again, its open forum, the numbers are there if you want to dissipate. patrick in pittsburgh, republican line. caller: it is stunning that c-span had on an acolyte of dick cheney who is literally the most infamous man who has ever lived in american history. who is responsible for the death of over 2 million people, and this man, he is still on your show acting as if he has a geopolitical voice in the new administration, which he doesn't.

the fundamentals, the damage and the people lives that were destroyed because of dick cheney are almost beyond belief. people today are waking up with cancer as a direct result of the utilization of technologies like depleted uranium shells and microwave energy weapons. the highway of death is just so disgusting seeing this man who was directly connected to him. if i was sitting there with him i would say how do you get up in the morning knowing that you had a direct relationship with a man who caused absolute chaos in the mideast, who walked away with $300 million plus in halliburton profits as a direct result of multiple wars that had no legitimacy. host: let's hear from jan in washington state, democrats line. caller: hello.

yeah, i just kept calling and calling, i hope that means there's a lot of patriots in this country that are willing to stand up to a ruthless dictator. we've always had these wars of attrition in the united states and i've never agreed with them at the same time that he is going in, he's actually taking out the joint chiefs. i was a veteran of the cold war, and we need to understand that that step should be happening now, but i don't know what is going on. host: independent line from chicago, illinois. go ahead. caller: good morning. i've been watching and reading and following geopolitics since

i left vietnam. we are $36 trillion in debt. we won't stop being stupid. here's the basic analogy. if china were doing in mexico what we've pulled off in ukraine, a coup and installing a hostile government, hostile to the united states and invited to join a nuclear power nation in a mutual defense treaty, we would be invading mexico next week. host: ok, that is, in chicago. you can participate in on the open forum phone lines. (202) 748-8001, republican's. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8002, independent. today in germany elections take place. talking about the importance not just for that country buffer

geopolitics, kate brady of the washington post. good morning. >> good morning morning, or afternoon as it is here. host: we talked about these elections, for to them as snap elections, can you expand that means today? guest: it is a snap with a bit of a delay. the chancellor, he's centerleft government collapsed back in november, and this election that is taking place today has 59 million people eligible to vote. they are all heading to the polls across the country in this early election that should actually have been taking ice in september, and is ultimately a budget issue, a spending issue for this year, 2025, that brought down then government. so the polling stations have been open for several hours now, since 8:00 a.m. this morning, local time, and we are expecting the early prognosis to already trickling around 6:00 p.m. this

evening. of course as you mentioned, huge global geopolitical issues have been raised in the selection as well. this election really does come at an extremely pivotal time and for germany, for europe as well as what germany's future role might be in this shifting world order that we are seeing right now. but of course domestic issues have also played a huge part and certainly they've been the most prominent topic of discussion during election campaigns, starting off with economic issues. germany's economy is still stagnating, hasn't really recovered ssent the pandemic, but it is migration that really has become the topic and call for a clamp down on and migration policy during this election campaign. host: you briefly mentioned it, but who are the key contenders towatch

guest: so you have four main candidates but it is worth pointing out maybe that voters today won't be voting for a chancellor, for a party. it's a parliamentary system and it will be the new parliament that later appoints that chancellor. but of course each of the named parties, strongest parties to have a chancellor candidate and at the moment it looks like the next chancellor might well be the leader of the conservative christian democratic union party , and they've been ahead in the polls for quite some months now drifting between 28 and 30%. but of course with germany's system, it is usual to form a coalition, so the question will be who with? but we are also watching out for today is what is probably going to be a historic result in a far-right alternative for germany party. they spend pulling for about a year and a half now if not longer in second position, but because of what we call the firewall here against the far in

germany, all of the parties have ruled out forming a coalition with the afd, which currently leaves a couple of other viable options if those opinion polls that we've been seeing in recent weeks are true. so that would be neither a coalition with the social democrats as the party of the current chancellor, although he said that he wouldn't want to be taking on a ministerial position himself, or we could see the conservatives teaming up with the greens as well, because it all ultimately comes down to the numbers. and what we are seeing right now is although the afd don't like likely to have an election win right now, their strength in numbers is already starting and potentially, depending on tonight's results, it could have an impact on coalition building and we are seeing this increasingly fragmented little -- political spectrum here in germany which is making the coalition building certainly more difficult. host: you described afd as

far-right, what makes them so? guest: afd began its life as a euro skeptic policy that really jumped on the issue of migration and backlash against germany's open border policy and migration crisis of 2015. they really gone on to taboo after taboo. there are now under surveillance nationwide. the party at national level is classified as a suspected extremist case, and parts of the party are also designated by domestic intelligence as being an extremist group. and that comes down to they have been accused of kind of harboring nativist, anti-migrant and far-right tendencies and also sharing those views that we here as well from far-right extremist groups. there are some extremely polemic

figures within the party. one of the arguments is perhaps being out today speaking to some voters myself, they said we are not all extremists, there are some people among the party, and that is something you hear quite a lot from that party base. but there have been concerns of those borders between the far-right afd and known extremist groups overlapping. one of the most high-profile politicians in the party, he himself is classified as an extremist and has twice been convicted and fined for using a banned nazi slogan. host: also talked about when it comes to the afd, the supported has received not only from elon musk, but vice president jd vance. guest: we saw this originally back in december, elon musk sending out a post on x saying that the afd was what he said

was german, it was the only place for germany, and he has reiterated that several times, pulling a live x speech with the co-party leader of the afd and also the chancellor candidate, and he appeared livehe appearedn afd rally and even within the past few hours has been posting some more support for them. we heard from the vice president jd vance at the munich security conference leading the political establishment here and the established parties in germany and said there is no firewall and encouraged political parties hereto work with the far-right afd which is an absolute taboo in germany and that is all part of of course germany's history and part of its processing and atonement for the atrocities of the holocaust and the crimes committed by the nazi dictatorship. host: what is turnout expected to be like for today?

guest: it is usually quite high, we can expect in the 70% range. but what's interesting is a lot of voters have said i think it was about 20% even up until the final days of the election campaign said they were still undecided. it seems there's been a boost of voters among the youth as well. being a particular difficult group to motivate. the question is who will they vote for. we've also seen a surge in the polls for the far left party. a lot of people want to vote for them and get them in -- get them to stay in parliament, there's a threshold of the crossover to get into german parliament which is 5% of the votes. and there's a hope a lot of their voters that they will then be able to ensure there is a voice in the german parliament that is more left than the

current centerleft parties hurried it's also interesting as well that the afd, the far-right afd has a strong youth base especially on tiktok that's really managed to and gain a lot of younger voices through social media before a lot of the other older parties and the more centrist parties manage to really get to grips with social media. host: you can find her work at washington post.com. you can follow her on x. kate brady, thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: back to your calls an open forum. jan in oregon, a democrats line. thanks for waiting. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was really interested in the quincy foundation. sounds like a member of the ku klux klan to me.

i just am really curious, i am probably a lot older than a lot of your callers. i grew up with my younger siblings doing duck and cover out of fear from nuclear weapons from the soviet union. and, you know i don't understand why we would ever trust a communist dictator to talk with us -- talk with anyone about negotiating anything. i still remember khrushchev kicking his shoe off pounding the desk and saying we will bury you. i think there's a history there that we need to remember about

the russians. host: john in michigan, independent line. caller: good morning pedro. independent line, i haven't voted democrat or republican in over 10 years. and i never will vote for a democrat or republican. i think you should have more independent lines or take more calls because americans more identifies independent and you know -- so, i think the two parties are horrible but i would like to see washington journal talk to independent media personalities like my favorites kim iversen, those are great people to talk to about current events. host: thanks. let's go to bob in arkansas. republican line. >> hello.

>> yes. i just want to preempt the fact we go back to the budapest agreement. and the fact that the russians and putin is a dictator and all of that. but the thing is the key to the whole thing, the reason why essay is the price of oil was about $70 a barrel. if we flood the world market and the price comes down to 30 or 40. that's going to take money away from russia. that's going to take money away from iran. and when trump is negotiating right now he can use that as a tool. in other words we can supply the europeans with all the oil and all the gas that they need. that will take the sales away from the russians from gesture the united states. in the thing is that is the key. another thing is europe and us

don't take care of ukraine situation and we get out and give putin a victory there, is europe going to support us if the chinese attacked taiwan or attack us? that's another question. >> james from houston texas, democrats line good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i wish i could talk to miss brady. for two tours i went to war in iraq. coming back. in the extremist or getting bad. it's like 91 or 92. the hitler's salute. you go to jail for that. all these people talking about

elon musk. people understand this. elon musk got rich off of government subsidies, our tax dollars. and now he's been paid $8 million a day and firing people to make 100,000 $200,000 a year. come on people. you how many companies they closed since this man went to office. >> james in texas finishing off this round of open forum thanks to all who participated. next up you will meet a lit -- amanda litman noticed -- from the group known -- run for something red that effort to recruit and train young progressives for political office. that conversation coming up when washington journal continues. ♪

>> democracy is always an unfinished creation. >> democracy is worth dying for. >> we are here in the sanctuary of democracy. >> great responsibilities pursue -- before once again to the great democracies. >> american democracy is bigger than any one person. >> freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected. >> we are still at our core a democracy. >> this is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom. ♪ >> democracy it isn't just an idea, it's a process, a process cheap by leaders elected the highest offices and entrusted to a select few regarding its basic principles. it is where debates unfold, decisions are made in the nations courses charted. democracy in real-time.

this is your government at work. this is seen in. giving you your democracy unfiltered. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through a latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase help support our nonprofit operations. shop now or any time at c-spanshop.org. nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the afterwards podcast and on q&a hear wide-ranging conversations with the nonfiction authors and others making things happen and book notes plus episodes on weekly 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. or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website c-span.org/podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: this is amanda litman joining us, the cofounder and president of the organization run for something. she's the author of the forthcoming book the next generation's guide to leadership. amanda litman thanks for giving us your time today. how do you describe your group to other people? guest: run for something recruits young diverse leaders running for local office across the country. it's pretty straightforward we ask people to run and when they say yes or maybe we help them do it all the way through election day. >> what made you come up with this organization as far as the need that you sought to recruit people to office? guest: work for sector clinton's

presidency campaign for two years right after election day or heard friends say hey amanda, public school teacher in chicago thinking about running for office, what do i do. at the time if you were young and newly excited about politics and want to do more than vote and volunteer there was no where you can go to answer your call so long my co-founder we built a website and then we launched run for something on trump's first inauguration day thinking it would be really small because who wants to run for office. instead we had 1000 people in the first week and as of today we are up to 190,000 young people across the country who raise their hands. >> when someone says they want to run they get your interest what happens then as far as getting them to see where they go further. guest: it works like a marketing fund for you sign up on our website, you can look up all the

offices available to you and your address. you then start getting information and invites to call us where we talk about all the first time questions candidates have. how do i know what to run for, how do i raise money, how does this work. you can then talk to one of our volunteers and you'll start getting emails and text messages from our team giving you resources, trainings, events that we are doing great this is all available to everyone of any age. then we have an application where you can file to get on the ballot and run for something's endorsement. that's where we narrow it down and look at your application, your campaign plan, your budget, and our endorsements are looking at folks 40 and under to make sure we have new leaders into the process. once we are endorsed we have a whole bunch more support for you depending on the campaign. host: because you focus on

younger people, particular progressive people, what drives them in your mind to get to politics? guest: the only thing they all really have in common is a willingness to serve their communities and do something when they are in office. running for representation, housing, for childcare, because the republican incumbent in office hasn't been challenged for decades or because the democrat incumbent hasn't been serving them the way they want. they are also committed to solve problems in a way i think makes their campaigns strong. host: what does that term progressive mean in your mind and how is that different than typical democrat running for office? guest: we have a really expansive definition as we work with candidates from all 50 states heard a candidate running for city council in new york where i live needs to talk about the issues and show up for those issues that may be a school board candidate in alaska or city council candidate in iowa. all of our candidates are

proactive, pro tolerance, pro forma housing and education. pro-climate change is real we have to do something about it. they are already to tackle the issues of gun violence, they are pro-choice and pro-democracy. we ask folks what does that look like in your campaign and how does it show up for you? host: if you want to ask questions about this effort recruiting progresses for political office, 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents 202-748-8002. you can also text us questions that 202-748-8003. there was an article in new york magazine last year featuring you , the headline says you helped more than 1000 young people get elected. i'm sure the number has changed, elaborate on that and who are your standouts? host: we've helped just under 1500 people win elections in the last eight years.

nearly every state except for idaho. you might know some of our alumni including jasmine crockett from texas, sarah mcbride from delaware, emily randall from washington. who are now members of congress. on the state level we have senator malory from michigan. florida representative ron ask amani. down in texas the harris county executive, the state senator megan hunt in nebraska. these are all amazing young leaders who know how to show up for their communities and show up in places to really reach the voters we need to reach. >> you probably seen the news over the last couple of weeks, of the back-and-forth with north carolina republican nancy mace print what you think about those exchanges and her role at least the statements she's making when it comes to politics in congress? guest: she's emblematic of leaders who know that gives in

on the level and this idea of civility or to coram is behind us when it comes to them. so she is ready to call them out like she sees it and do so in a way that draws attention which is really good in this environment. host: pew research says the largest generation is now belonging to those generation x in congress, 180 members. what you think about that number compared to what you've seen in years before? guest: this is i believe the third oldest congress ever and it keeps getting older and we are seeing the product of that in some of the images we are getting out of the fight back against trump right now. seeing leaders really don't understand how to wield attention in this economy. don't really understand where voters are. we've seen i think is really helpful to know some of the leaders of the pushback have been some of these younger politicians. the average age in congress is 68 or something like that.

63 in the house, 68 and the senate. people are just left out of the spaces and i'm glad gen x is making this representative and we will see that analysis. >> do those younger members of congress talk to you and your organization about how they are perceived by older members of congress. >> i've heard that over the years as i've gotten to know some of these younger members and they will talk about how sometimes their colleagues don't understand how they communicate. they talk about things like they don't understand why they use instagram this way or it's there tone, they are really entering an institution that wasn't built for people like them. i think it often creates a sense of disconnect. i love that they are brave enough to do that anyway. >> michael is on her independent line from florida. michael go ahead you're on with our guest. >> good morning. my understanding of progressives is they believe in equality of

outcomes, they do not believe in equality of opportunity. what is your position on that? guest: an interesting question. i don't know if i agree with that assessment. the candidates we've raised we generally identify as progressive. we really see both sides of that equation. they want to make sure their constituents and community members have both the equality of opportunity and outcome. and they have to look at that through things like housing and education, transportation, clean water, clean roads. it's a little bit of both. host: large -- laura next from texas. go ahead part -- go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a baby boomer but i'm on the tail end of it. and i am a bit concerned with the younger generation believing that the older generations don't know what they are doing.

and in some respects i kind of agree with that, but i would hope that the younger generations understand the business of collective effort. we cannot stand against tyranny and dictatorship and even acts of treason committed by the president unless we stand together and this nonsense about generational divide is put aside. i am interested in your thoughts on that. guest: i think we can agree we all need generations to come together. the reason the run for something works with younger leaders is historically young people have been left out of this conversation of leadership. if you looked at 5% of state legislators were under the age of 35. the median mayor of big city was 59. median school board members was 60. even in congress they are just not reflective over the americans are. the median american's 38 or 39. i agree with you, we need generations to come together but

young people have been left out of that conversation for so long and we are just on the tipping point of starting to change that so i think baby boomers of which you are right some really do understand need to make sure they are making space for younger folks. >> somebody asked this is mike from wisconsin about your organization's funding and how that works? guest: a mix of people giving five dollars, $500, a whole range of folks. we have 40,000 individual givers at this point. a couple different entities folks can give to, i am so grateful for every person who contributes because when we started this, so much of the advice we got was a great idea, no one is going to want to run or give to that. i am so glad that eight years and we have proved that wrong but we need to keep it going. host: do you get money from political parties? guest: no i do not think we have

ever gotten money from one of the formal democratic institutions. we work with them as appropriate, but we have not gotten money from them. host: if you a on saying considering campaigning has changed a lot can you explain how run for something turns a newbie into a viable candidate and what's the most critical skill they must have first grade guest: we help people figure out what is the reason for running and how was the office they are running for a opportunity to solve this and why should voters want them to win which is different from why you want to win. voters want to win because you will do something specific and tangible and practical for them. once we help candidates figure out how to tell that story, the rest of the campaign is just logistics. it is hard logistics but it is not complicated logistics. we help candidates figure out how to file, get on the ballot and make sure they are running

really strong voter contact campaigns. it might look like knocking on doors, phones, print ads or radio, a text messaging. we deftly want to think about social media in a way that's genuine. we know how you race in new york city is different from iowa. neither of them are right or wrong, we want to make sure we run the right race for the right place. host: can you describe a winning story as far as one of the candidates and what worked and what got them in congress? host: i actually want to talk about -- guest: i actually want to talk about someone who's not in congress. we recruited summoning justin douglass around harrisburg. he was a former pastor who had been fired from his church for being too welcoming to lgbtq congregants. we recruited him to run specifically for the county commission position which is a position that oversees the

county budget, election administration, deals with the county jail system and a bunch of other stuff. we got him to run against a republican incumbent and justin ran this incredible campaign, he spent maybe $12,000 on the race and he was out there knocking doors, he left this incredible campaign that was like the mayor in jaws to, the mayor in jaws one was still the mayor in jaws two. vote in your local elections. he was ultimately able to be a republican incumbent by 140 some odd votes on election day ultimately fifth -- flipping control of the first time in over 100 years. he immediately went forward to do stuff like make it easier for people to vote in dauphin county pennsylvania and performed the way they were caring for inmates in the jail system. it's a really incredible example of the thousands of candidates we work with over the years who show up and who win in really longshot races. host: let's hear from gary in

pennsylvania, philadelphia this is on the democrats line. >> i just want to salute her for what she's doing and mentioned something the couple met at her work. and we are developing something called adopt an organizer because there's a must one million people working at coffee shops and other jobs and even 1% of those people and it seems there's quite a bit more but even 1% of those people want to become organizers and they don't have rich parents the only option is gofundme. so we are developing adopt an organizer would make it easier for people to quit those jobs and for people to become organized. if you're going to run for something you need a lot of organizers to overturn this fascist coup need a lot of organizing so we hope we can work together and i hope to see what contact because we are

going to make it much easier, we will have people for example donate free housing which is already worth 700 or $800. well-off people that can match. >> i love that and thank you for what you're doing we need every possible outcome -- avenue of support for candidates and volunteers. these institutions are meant for people board independently wealthy. >> another viewer asking this questi. she says or this is the viewer saying i don't think you are getting yoger candidates into this. getting younger voters to vote is the biggest challenge you in your candidates face. >> i think it's a little bit of our solution is part of fixing that problem. young voters are looking for candidates who can connect to them and who can show up in the places they are. on tiktok and instagramming snapchat and discord and can be

in the media spaces where they're paying attention. i think a lot about how money members of congress couldn't go on a nonpolitical space and talk like a real person. the run for something candidates absolutely can because they are ordinary people who do this extraordinary thing of running for office. one of the ways we get more young voters to show up and vote for democrats is to give them better democrats to connect to. >> when it comes to information about a candidate is it social media that will be the primary driver and if that's the case how do you get so much information about a candidate on the platform of your choice? >> it's a little bit of social media and they are making sure they are in the platforms where young voters are it's also an interface relationship. we have found our candidates who knock on doors and talk to voters and show to farmers markets and pta meetings and pick up basketball games at the gym and really get to know people, it's very easy to hate a democrat you see on tv where you see trashing your local paper or

on the radio it's hard to hate a candidate who came to your home and said i'm amanda i'm running for county commissioner, i want to talk to you about paying taxes and then you sit down and have a conversation. i think those face-to-face relationships build that and can circumvent any of the stuff you may be seeing online. >> virginia from california join us for independence. caller: i really admire all you -- all these kids doing this. there was a day that i can remember the last name from the parking area in florida that had the shooting and i've seen them in washington in the past and he's been able to back him in any way or support him, i know that he is a smart and brilliant kid. it's a shame he has to go through this. i'm just curious if he had any contact with him. >> yes david hogg who certain leaders that or raise some money

and does some outside work for the candidates i think nearly every candidate has come through the run for something pipeline i believe we've recommended a most all of them to david and his team to engage with so they are one of our many across the country who work on behalf of our candidates. and i'm really proud run for something is built such a collaborative model. we know it's going to take a village to get many of these candidates elected and we are really proud to be part of that. >> what you think of him being the vice chair of the democratic national committee. >> i think more powerful voices who know how to show up is good. i'm also glad malcolm is another one of the vice chairs of the dnc. him and david and the others are really able to make the case in a lot of places. >> as far as able to influence the democrat national committee the junk people care about. what you think about their ability to do that? >> i think it's worth being clear about what the role of the dnc is.

the dnc isn't really setting a policy platform necessarily for the democratic party especially for democrats across the country. they are really a back end support for infrastructure and data and technology for these parties and campaigns into a minister the presidential primary. so i'm really glad all the members elected to really bring some fresh ideas to this process but i think the real power doesn't come from the dnc it comes from the candidates who are out there talking about the issues. host: from missouri, republican line. caller: good morning. i've a question for the young lady. i'm 25 -- i am -- i know because i learned in the last 10 years i just wonder do you think we are in a democracy or republic and do you know the difference? that's my question. guest: thank you for that question. we are a democratic republic and

i appreciate the thoughtfulness here. and hopefully will be able to keep it. >> when it comes to your own political background, your bio says it started by you skipping class and listening to senator barack obama. can you explain that. >> i always knew i wanted to work in politics. i grew up in northern virginia just outside d.c., i went to robinson secondary school. and i knew when i was little that politics was a way to make a difference in the world and it appealed to me. my junior year of high school sender barack obama at the time is doing a students for obama tour just before he announces presents her campaign he went and gave a speech at george mason university just across the street from where was a junior. i skipped school which i never did. and i went and saw him speak and i knew in that moment i would work for someone like him. in fact i wanted to work for him specifically. so i ultimately ended up going to northwestern for college in part because if i'm in chicago

nearby maybe i will be able to work when he runs for reelection and the long-term planning worked out because i got a job at his campaign. >> what did you do? >> i was doing online fundraising for the email team. if you got emails saying hey we are free to meet for dinner that was me on the team. >> what did you learn from your political experience what did you learn than that you applied to the job now. >> such a good question. excuse me. candidate matters. the way that you campaign, the tactics you use and the message you use, the way people respond to you are so dependent on who the candidate is. i think a lot about traveling in the state of florida with governor charlie crist and he was running for governor again in the way he would go up to people and have conversations with them and spend 20 minutes in a gas station in the middle florida having a conversation face-to-face with the guy behind the counter and at the end

asking for his vote in such a meaningful way. i think about that when working for secretary clinton how people in little girls respond to her the campaign rallies and how people engage with us online and it certainly mattered what they were saying. but it also was incredibly important who was the person saying it. when i think about the work they do and the broader conversation for the democratic party, message and the words we say are important but messenger is what matters and what makes a breakthrough. message does not exist in a vacuum distinct from who is doing the communicating. host: as you look to 2028 what you think the state of the party is bringing someone with that message and do they have to be younger? guest: i do think they have to be younger. i do think they need to be younger and i think we are about to see a surge in leadership. a lot of this point in 2017 we didn't know who aoc was, we didn't know who so many of the

people who are now mainstays of our public communications even jamie raskin had just entered congress after 2016. the leaders who we to now for guidance were not on our radar eight years ago. so i think the surge of people who raise their hand, just about 20,000 people of raise their hand to run for something is the election a couple months ago. almost half of them since inauguration. those of the folks in the years to come probably who >> will be looking to for leadership. we surprised with the amount of young people who voted for president trump the last election? >> young people are experiencing inflation and really specific way. i think some studies young people expense inflation higher than those were older. especially about issues or childcare or housing, housing i think is a big one. entering the housing market and likely a renter or first-time buyer. and it is so hard and so

expensive that no i am not surprised young people said i am mad at the quality of my economic life and i want to punish someone who i feel is responsible. so i am disappointed a little bit but i also think those are folks who we can win back in years to come because i don't think what trump is doing will make their life any easier. host: our conversation with amanda litman. up next rick in new york, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i joined a little late so i hope i'm not repeating someone. i would just make a suggestion. i am very hopeful that you guys focus on developing leaders and not just having young people join an organization, that they are creating organizations individually. focus on leadership in civil

rights and economic projects, start ups. that is going to be something that republicans cannot overcome because they are generally followers. but you create every individual with the mindset of a leader and you will have a great ability to overcome anything that they put in front of you. thanks. guest: love that and i think so many of our alum, we have more than 3000 young people who've endorsed. once were going to win serve -- but the ones who lose leadership doesn't end after election day. seeing them go on to start community groups, takeover parties, they have been incredible advocates for their community in a way that i think is really sustainable. host: becky in massachusetts, republican line, go ahead. caller: thank you. i'm one of those baby boomers as well. but anyway, my -- the reason

that i called in is this young lady has a tremendous effect on the young people that are running and what i would suggest is if she has influence on the young people that are running and especially for congress, washington, that it is time we have a term limit because there are way too many old people in congress. and i suggest that we -- that the young people that are coming , so they don't grow old in congress, that they approach the idea of 25 years maximum. in congress. whether you do 10 years in the house. and your limited to 25 years. and you don't get a pension

until you have been in there for six years. because we don't need a bunch of young people coming into congress working two years and then leaving and the rest of us paying taxes and every thing else. paying with your pensions to go on and get money from the government. it is time. host: becky in massachusetts. guest: thank you for that. i don't think members of congress get pensions but someone should correct me if i am wrong. i will say there's a lot of driven structural changes we should make about congress. things like campaign-finance reform, paying members of congress more which in it was kind of a hot take but if we want to make it something working people can do it needs to be more as a higher pay job as it is and it could be in the private sector. and something that people can do. we need to do that for all levels of office for what it's worth. so many of those local positions

are unpaid. i think some state legislators pay their members may be hundred a year. that is not how you get reflective group of people who can run. so term limits or something considering braid age limit something considering braid there's a whole range of issues that i think we should be really expansive but hopefully we get through this fascist takeover and become out on the other side pride one of the ways we can make institutions more welcoming. >> what you think about the role of young moderates in their role in the democratic party. >> i think we need all kinds in every primary is a chance to decide what our party believes. it's why i think in every circumstance primaries are a good thing. i get yelled at by state parties or leaders who say how can you be challenging that incumbent braid if they are running, but good job, they shouldn't be worried and the primary is a chance for us to decide what we believe. so young moderates and

progressives, young across the spectrum democrats as they engage in these primaries will get a chance to make their voice heard and shift us one way or another. >> billy in texas, democrats line per year on with our guest good morning. >> good morning. i'd like to say america is a world leader because we are true nation of god. and we have our leadership doing crazy things. it would not affect us. i'm a black man. we -- because we are a nation of god we will continue to do that. we can't understand why people are trump do crazy things. but we always have been a nation of god that's why the world is looking at us and it's why we will go forward. c-span's let me speak for the last 20 years. they are a station of god.

god gives you the strength and the power encouraged to go forward. i can do anything that god got me to do. host: thank you. guest: thank you for what you are doing billy. i hope you are right. host: this is from crs for viewers about congress getting a pension, there is information if you want to see that csr report when it talks of a pension benefits and retirement benefits for member of congress. to the larger issue of money, i know a lot of people call this program talking about what they would describe as the corrupting influence of money in politics. what's the view of that for you and those who sue -- who you support. guest: for us, the candidates we work with tend to often be outspent. there opponents are well-funded

but they are rarely outworked. especially on local elections, the average school board, 75% of school board races cost $1000 or less. 85% cost $5,000 or less. these are small elections were a little bit of money goes a long way. there are also elections where the candidate can really drive voter conversation by simply showing up and being present. we have a lot to do with federal campaign-finance reform. at the local level there is so much to do to outwork the outspend. host: are there older members of congress or politicians supporting your cause and giving you support directly? guest: we have had support from nearly every age member of congress. senator warren, senator sanders, even president biden over the years has been supportive in some way shape or form whether it's asking people to run for office or sending folks our way or meeting with our candidates

and helping them out. i think it is powerful because there is a way in which we can do intergenerational leadership. it is really a good deed in many ways for the older folks to mentor and bring in that space. >> joe is next in florida. republican line. caller: yes. just wanted to mention some thoughts. a couple of thoughts and just one question at the end. i just want to start by asking amanda how she basically feels about how the progressives have been subsumed and the democratic party and have really driven some of the most radical thoughts of their party. i think for most people in america that feel that the country is moving in a very hard direction, whether it be illegal actions across the border or whether it really is moving away from not just the younger

generation, but just ideas in general away from family and away from overall um -- what i would consider law and order policies. i think that scares a lot of americans and then my question is just really around media. and why she thinks the media is so head over heels. i'm watching abc on another channel and their whole thing is to attack everything that you know um the new administration is doing, just hands down attack and finding no good in anything. those are my thoughts and i wondered about her thoughts around that. >> thank you for the question. on the question of progressives in the ways in which they are disconnected from the american people. on that i will really disagree. we see this in public polling over and over again.

on the issues democrats and progressives across the spectrum are really able to talk to the issues people care about. i thing about this as a mom of two little girls. when i think about the issues that affect my life, housing and childcare, transportation i don't see the solution to those out of the republican party. i see them from democrats and progressives who are ready to advance an expansive vision for -- to help people and families. as for the question for media, telling the truth is not being in opposition it is simply telling the truth. there was certainly a broad range of media outlets who are doing so in an effective way and i hope they will continue to do so. >> what do you think of the state of progressive media outlets specifically to speak about the issues that those who work with you care about. >> we need more. and we need more outlets who are not necessarily political or especially progressive to be welcoming to conversations about politics and i cannot tell you how many times run for

something, which has a pretty expansive conversation and isn't exclusively partisan, has been told no by a media company or partner who does not want to get into elections or the messiness of politics because they don't think their audience is ready or capable. i vehemently disagree. we need to bring politics into nonpolitical spaces and our political spaces and we have more interesting more entertaining and we need to fund them. >> do you think during the campaign when then candidate the vice president appeared on the call her daddy podcast and called -- caused a stir on those who were not pleased with the podcast do think that was a lesson there as far as those nonpolitical outlets. >> you are never going to please everyone. and those audiences are never going to be in full alignment with your political values but that is good it's how you reach people who are may be outside chamber. we have to have more candidates who can show up in those places and have an interesting engaging

conversation. host: alex in detroit, independent line. caller: good morning. i have a statement and a question. i live in michigan and i helped bernie sanders campaign in 2016 to beat hillary clinton in the state. i'm very proud of that fact. i'm a huge bernie supporter. also was an obama supporter and i believe the two things that those folks had as far as progressives. is the midwestern sensibility and let me just tell you, i am a progressive economically. i think billionaires should be taxed out of existence as bernie does in this country. and -- we cannot have a democracy with billionaires. however, the progressive leadership and even the democratic party leadership is so coastal he based.

hakeem jeffries, schumer from new york, jeffries from new york and especially pull oc and gavin newsom from california do not represent my social values as a midwesterner. and another one that is new on the scene i cannot stand is that jasmine crockett. so i would like to know where is the midwestern sensibility in progressive leadership? host: alex in detroit, thank you. guest: really appreciate the work you put into it. when i think about the progressive leadership across the country i look to people like senator malory mick morrow in michigan. state senator zach walls, she is an independent now but nebraska state senator hunt. zooey zephyr and there are so many others. i think it's worth thinking about why some of the -- the

democratic leadership comes from these blue places. in part because they can stake out positions that maybe wouldn't necessarily be what a swing candidate would be willing to take. they are not as afraid of their own reelection. there are pros and cons of that pride but it's worth thinking about how did they get to that position in the first place. >> dennis in arizona. independent line. hello? caller: hello. let me turn off my tv. ok. my thought is the only way to make government work is to be upfront and show every penny spent, so not one penny can ever be spent without a debate on the floor of the house of representatives and senate. and what you're spending the

money for. without that, the democrats and republicans will fold. put so much money in a bill when they pass it, nobody knows what it is for. so what are your thoughts on that? plus there needs to be 12 year term limits and that's a combination of house and senate. if you have four years in the house and six years or eight years -- six years in the senate , the only thing you can go for his two more years in the house total. combined. what is your thoughts. >> i think vigorous debate about the budget shows you the values as a country is a good thing that really help house republicans control the floor are willing to have an open and honest conversation about what they're willing to cut and how much they will cut things like medicare, medicaid and social security to fund the tax cuts they want to do. because we will need to see that conversation to understand who

they are. >> what's your organization's plans for the midterms and the upcoming presidential four years or so. >> not an off year. they're about 100,000 elections in 2025 alone. we are still aggressively recruiting for them. we as an organization expect to endorse about 300 this year. we are also again aggressively recruiting for 2026 and we hope to add 50,000 people. and work with as many of them as possible. the folks we elect in 2026, the folks that run for something works with will be key to helping gin up more voters to show up for those. we need to flip the house and reduce our margins in the senate. we can win with governorships, and elect the local election administrators, county commissioners like i talked about and others who will

actually oversee the election in 2028 because i do think we will still have elections moving forward and we want to make sure they are as fair and successful as we possibly can. and that is determined by who we elect. so the work we do over the next two years will be critical for those in power now and making sure we hold that. >> the upcoming book is called when we are in charge, the next generation guides to leadership. >> thank you for asking we are about to announce it later this week. it is a guide on leadership for millenials and gen z. so many leadership books treat us as generations who are poised to manage around these nuisances so i wanted to write a thing we had almost a decade ago when i started run for something. a book for people like me who have been online my entire life thinking about how to manage these environments, who believe we should offer paid leave and as leaders take the paid leave we have. i talk about all kinds of things from authenticity to social

media to the four-day workweek. i am really excited to keep talking about it in the years to come. >> run for something.net. cofounder and president of run for something joining us for the first time on c-span. thanks for your time. >> thank you for having me. later on today at 4:00 this afternoon specifically c-span will give you a live broadcast, a simulcast for the canadian broadcasting companies program taking a look at president trump's push to make canada the 51st state. the host will take calls from the u.s. and canada and the show is called cross-country checkup and also on the middle with jeremy hobson. that live coverage at 4:00 you can see that on c-span, c-span now and are free mobile app and at c-span.org. joining us to talk a little bit more about this program is with the canadian broadcasting corporation who serves as their

host. thanks for giving us your time. tell us about the genesis of these programs. caller: -- guest: trumps comments about canada and the terror threats but also his constant comments about canada being the 51st state and our prime minister justin trudeau being governor trudeau, that has had a lot of coverage not just in canada, but it has provoked a lot of anger and anxiety, so i am not sure if it has been a political issue at all in the united states but in canada it has been a huge issue, so our weekly program cross-country checkup taps into the national conversations on key issues and it was clear to us this fit that bill. this is a key issue and we want to have not just a national conversation but an across-the-board conversation. host: a call-in program format. tell us it works. guest: we have three or four expert guests or guests with a

stake in the topic and the normally on the normal week i would be fielding questions from callers across the country. we do have calls screeners so it is not just a free-for-all but we try to do is geographic diversity. gender diversity, we try to get a collection of voices and then the added element now from the public radio program is joining us. he's managed to get more than 100 npr stations on board from los angeles and d.c., chicago, a lot of communities across the united states. we will be sitting here in vancouver and fielding calls. we get a lot of calls from the country. we are hoping to get a lot of calls from the united states as well. i'm hoping u.s. viewers from hearing from canadians. for sure in canada we are eager

to hear american forces as well. host: you talked with canadian response to these threats from president trump and the seriousness to which canadians are taking it. you elaborate on that. guest: look no further than my social media in the last 48 hours and my email at the canadian broadcast corporation. we have taken on controversial topics for and i've received lots of reaction social media. it is nothing like what's happened over the last 48 hours. we have had hundreds if not thousands of replies and there has been a unanimity in those replies. like you i am pretty good at trying to figure out when there is a campaign behind a lot of communication. i do not think that is going on here. i think people are genuinely engaged in this conversation. it goes beyond engagement. they are angry at us for even doing the show for daring to use that phrase 51st state.

we've had a lot of criticism for -- to call it what it is. they are saying it is not about canada being the 51st state it's about a threat to our sovereignty. in fact people have been telling me don't call it comments about president trump, call it threats. don't call it talking up at 51st state, explain that it is an attempt to take away our sovereignty. people are taking this really seriously. there are some who have dismissed the comments as trolling, as opening in tariff negotiations but there are people who are taking it deadly seriously. so seriously that on the call-in and show like ours, it takes on all kinds of topics and we are kind of a thoughtful call-in show and we don't really have people yelling at each other. even on our program, just the idea you're allowing this topic to be discussed is causing a huge amount of issues. >> talking about with the president had said but also do

you expect calls tonight because of these tariffs, of the potential tariffs. >> absolutely. i look at my personal life. an anecdotal example. friends of mine who never talk about politics not because they're trying to talk about -- avoided but they don't think of themselves as political people, week after week after week group of guys i play sports with for example on saturday mornings and we rarely talk about these events but for the last few weeks they have been talking about how they are trying to boycott u.s. products because of the terror threat. because of how offended they are. some people have friends and relatives in the united states and enjoy traveling to the united states and how offended they have been by the terror threat in the 51st state rhetoric. the tariff thing is definitely part of it. people are feeling fragile, they are feeling angry. that hockey game in boston a

couple of days ago took on much greater sort of importance for a lot of canadians. it reminded me of the soviet union games against canada in the 70's and 80's where it was as much about politics as it was about hockey. and that game against the united states had that feel to it which honestly six months ago most of us would never have imagined. the rhetoric in canada and the u.s. has been for years two close allies, friends and neighbors, longest undefended border and then all of a sudden particularly since president trump was inaugurated, the rhetoric has changed, of the feelings have changed and there is a sense of betrayal and anger. host: your prime minister after that hockey game said you can take our country and you cannot take our game. talk about that just now. but as far as where you see relations going between the two

countries, more fragile, where do you see it? guest: again you are talking about long-standing ties between the two countries. a lot of cultural similarities between the two countries. where i am in vancouver we are about a 40 minute drive depending on the weight at the border from bellingham, washington. a lot of people regularly go down to shop at trader joe's which we don't have in canada or have cottages in point roberts that's not far from here. friends of mine who regularly go from vancouver to palm springs or hawaii. there are deep ties that have been long-term affection on the part of a lot of people but i do not think it is overstating this to use the family metaphor. families have good times and bad times. sometimes you cross a line in a family that you wonder will ever be able to come back from. some of the feelings makes me

wonder if we are at that thanksgiving dinner for example were some things have been said and some actions have been taken but mainly things have been said that will be very difficult to forget about and to walk past back from that line. >> the call-in program sponsored by the canadian broadcasting corporation taking a look at issues between the u.s. and canada. simulcast by c-span starting at 4:00 if you're interested in hearing with the canadians have to say and possibly memos of the united states: as well put you can see that on c-span, our app c-span now, our website at c-span.org. joining us from the canadian broadcast corporation, a thank you for your time. before i let you go how can people if our audiences is interested in getting into this. if they have the ability to call in, what is the number they can call in, that kind of information. guest: our number will be mentioned on the air. i don't want to say it now because i will probably get a

digit wrong and create chaos. so once they are watching on your channel, the number will be prominent and we cannot overstress we really want to hear >> from u.s. callers. >>thank you. appreciate your time. >> that is it for a program today. another edition of washington journal comes your way tomorrow at 7:00. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025]