♪ host: this is "washington journal" for saturday, march 1.

yesterday, an oval office meeting between president trump and ukrainian president zelenskyy turned into a shouting match. reaction to the heated argument between the two leaders, which played out in front of the news media, include praise for president trump, shock and astonishment, and concern about what it means for peace deal prospects. to start today's program, we want to hear from you with your reaction to the trump-zelinski oval office meeting. here are the lines. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text your comments to (202) 748-8003. be sure to include your name and city. you can also post a question or comment on facebook at facebook.com/c-span or on x @cspanwj.

good morning, thank you for being with us. your calls and comments in a few minutes, but first a little more information and some headlines that are in today's newspaper. this from "the washington post." fury boils over in oval office, shocking globe. the wall street journal, trump-zelinski meeting and loads. the secondary byline, your country is in big trouble. that was a quote from president trump in that meeting. this from "the new york times," trump and vance school zelinski in blowup. the new york times sub headline is, visit abruptly ends imperiling a deal for peace. impart the united states relationship with ukraine erected in a storm of acrimony on friday as president trump and vice president jd vance prorated president lome zelinski --

president volodymyr zelenskyy in a showdown and abruptly cut short a visit meant to plan for peace. mr. trump and mr. vanc -- d sought to strong-arm him into making a peace deal on whatever terms the americans dictated. it was that meeting that that exchange happened. [video clip] pres. zelenskyy:, first of all during the war, everyone has problems, but you have a nice ocean and you don't feel it now, but you will feel it in the future. pres. trump:, you don't know that. don't tell us what we are going to feel. we are trying to solve a problem.

don't tell us what we're going to feel, because you already know position to dictate. you are in no position to dictate what we are going to feel. pres. zelenskyy: you will feel influence. result robbie allowed yourself to be in a very bad position. pres. trump: you are not in a good position come you don't have the cards right now. pres. zelenskyy: i did not come here to play cards. pres. trump: your gambling with the lives of millions of people. you are gambling with world war iii. what you are doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country. pres. zelenskyy: i respect this country. vp vance: did you say thank you once? you went to pennsylvania and

campaigned for the opposition in october. offer some words of appreciation for the united states of america and the president who is trying to save your country. pres. zelenskyy: you think if you speak more loudly about the work -- pres. trump: your country is in big trouble. no, you've done a lot of talking. your country is in big trouble. pres. zelenskyy: i know. pres. trump: you are not winning this. you have a chance of coming out ok because of us. pres. zelenskyy: since the beginning of the war we have been thankful. i said thanks in this cabinet. pres. trump: we gave you 350 billion dollars and military equipment. if you didn't have our military equipment -- if you didn't have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks. pres. zelenskyy: in three days,

i heard it from putin. in two weeks. vp vance: say thank you. accept that there are disagreements and let's go litigate those disagreements rather than try to fight it out in the american media when you are wrong. you know you are wrong. pres. trump: i think it's good for the american people to see what's going on. i think it's important. you have to be thankful. you don't have the cards. your people are dying. you are running low on soldiers. you are running low on soldiers. then you tell us, i don't want to cease fire. i don't want a cease-fire. look, you could get a cease-fire right now. take it so the bullets stop flying and your men stop getting killed. pres. zelenskyy: we want to stop the war, but i said with you with guarantees.

ask our people about a cease-fire and what they think. host: following yesterday's meeting, there was a statement that was posted president trump's truth social account that said, we had a very meaningful meeting. much was learned that could never be understood without conversations under such fire and pressure. it's amazing what comes through emotion, and i have determined that president zelenskyy is not ready for peace if america is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. i don't want advantage, i want peace. he is disrespectful. he disrespected the united states of america and its cherished oval office. he can come back when he is ready for peace. this first hour, we are getting your reaction to that oval office meeting. again, the lines for democrats are (202) 748-8000. republicans, 248 -- i am so

sorry. (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. al in florida on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i am old enough to remember with the reagan term, disgruntled politics ended at the edge. that's not happening any longer. trump policy wasn't politicized. democrats now are using their smear machine against --putin invaded twice. under obama and under biden. it never happened with trump. it has been occupied only five weeks under a republican administration. number one. number two, it was mitt romney

during obama that said that russia was our biggest problem. everyone laughed at him. the left-wing media laughed at him. so, we can go on and on. this is a democrat-caused problem, another issue that trump has to handle. i would remind the democrats, you are the folks who wanted to end endless wars very badly. you didn't want to get rid of saddam hussein, who murdered and executed people. democrats politicized that, getting rid of hussein. drive george w. bush's numbers down. democrats caused this. they own this. now trump wants to put an end to this. clearly, what we saw yesterday, zelenskyy was advised from democrats, the smear machine.

this needs to end. host: carolyn in virginia on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: i have been on here for a while, but i've seen the interview yesterday. i've never seen such despicable in my life. i don't understand what he's thinking. i knew he wasn't going to help him because he didn't want the president to help him at all, but if putin wins that country he is going to march over to the other country, and then we've got to get involved. trump acts like that is what he wants putin to do because he and putin are in it together. everyone is going to -- it's going to affect their children and grandchildren and this country bad. i don't understand what's going on in people's heads. putin is over there killing

people now. i don't understand what's going on. come into our country and dictate to the people of the united states, take their jobs and their homes, and be hungry. what is wrong with these people? republicans, they are going to realize that their grandchildren and children are going to be caught up in this stuff? i don't understand what's going on. are people going to let him do what he want to do? host: we will go to sandra in atlanta, georgia on the line for independents. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, i can. caller: yes, ma'am. i am an independent. i didn't vote for trump and i didn't vote for kamala, but on this issue, the don is correct. it is time to stop funding a war that can't be won. we need the money in this

country. i think with zelenskyy, people want to help zelenskyy. what he really needs is boots on the ground. i want to know, what size do you wear? if you want boots on the ground for yourself or your children, what size boots do you wear? so, i'm incomplete agreement with the president -- in complete agreement with the president on what he did yesterday. on other issues, no, but on this one i happen to agree 100%. thank you for taking my call. host: let's hear from tom in ohio, the line for republicans. caller: good morning. thanks for the platform. the whole situation yesterday was terrible and embarrassing. i believe that it was a set up. i think it played out just the way trump wanted it.

thanks for the time. host: tom, are you still there? caller: yeah. sorry, tom. i was going to ask you, embarrassing for who? we will go to eddie on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, everybody. it's embarrassing, what this president did. the backstabber in office. he backstabbed all of us. republicans, wake up. i'm telling you that what he did yesterday to zelenskyy is disgraceful. you know, we need them, they need us. trump, vance, and all of them just showing off, you know. i'm glad we in a money-grabbing

war with the prices that we going through with our rent. trump ain't going to do nothing for us. we are going to be so bagged up and in trouble with trump in this office. trump ain't nothing but a backstabber. host: kevin on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i stand with our allies. i guess everyone forgot about world war ii, pearl harbor and 9/11. for 25 years our allies were with us in afghanistan and iraq. for 25 years they were there. our allies were there when we needed them. now when our allies need us to

help defend, this country tells our allies to take a hike. that ain't right. we lost our allies yesterday because of king trump. our intelligence, our fbi agency, we are in bad shape as a country right now. i tell you, in four years trump is not leaving that office in four years. i think america better wake up and that's all i've got to say. host: kevin in connecticut. it was president zelenskyy who also responded after yesterday's meeting on social media posting this on x. "thank you america. thank you for your support. thank you for the visit. thank you potus, congress, and the american people. ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working for exactly that." president zelenskyy also spoke yesterday after the meeting on fox news.

during the interview he reflected on the meeting and what it means for the future of u.s.-ukraine relations. [video clip] >> the public spat in the oval office in front of the media, you think it served ukrainians well today? pres. zelenskyy: i think that this kind of spat is not good for both sides and -- both sides in any way. i cannot change our ukrainian attitude towards russia. they are killers for us. this is very clear that americans are the best of our friends. europeans are the best of our friends. putin with russian, they are our enemies. it doesn't mean we don't want peace, we just want to recognize the reality, the real situation. host: back to your calls, let's hear from cindy in connecticut

on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. it was very upsetting what happened yesterday. i don't think we are supposed to blame trump for all of this. zelenskyy should not have started that in public. he could have talked to president trump in private. this was a first step. security talks might have come later. let's remind people in 2014, the ukrainians have been attacking the russian-ukrainian in the donbas region where thousands of those people who want to be russian have been killed. ukraine has been totally innocent and all of this. it's horrible what has happened. russia was wrong to invade. you know, there has been fighting over the donbas region for decades. you know, thousands -- ukrainians killed thousands of

ukrainian-russians. people forget about that. you need to go back and look at history. everyone just wants to be on donald trump. he has nothing to do with this war started. blame your ex-president for this happening with the talk of a little incursion that gave russia the green light to go in. yes, i agree with the previous caller. what zelenskyy is boys over there, and i'm not sending my only son over there to die for this. host: bobby in oklahoma on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: yes. mr. trump needs to figure out -- everybody in the united states didn't vote for donald trump, and we sure didn't vote for elon musk. jd vance is a clown. also, they made an ass out of

themselves yesterday talking to zelenskyy. if i was zelenskyy i wouldn't give them nothing. not nothing. these people voting to get these medicaid bills, they are gone. the republicans in our state is gone if they vote against medicaid. host: that was bobby in oklahoma. let's hear from new york, line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning to you. it was a disaster. i can tell you that. i've never seen on television like that. this could have been done and you might hear about it, but zelenskyy didn't do anything. he defends his country. they are a small country against

a superpower. he is the people of ukraine and he has to defend their interests. he wants a cease-fire with the security guarantee. we have seen what happened from 2014 until now. domestic issue, we know that. ukraine, russia, all of these problems boiled up and trump was angry. it should never have been done. i'm siding with ukraine, because ukraine is saying we need a guarantee and trump says no. congress should say -- somebody said zelenskyy should resign. how dare. for what?

we don't do that. we are not bullying anybody. the united states, we should work with our allies. this is north america versus ukraine, the whole world, the united nations is behind all of these things, we need to pick. we don't want to big country bullying a small country. thank you very much. host: it was yesterday after the meeting that president trump was leaving for mar-a-lago. he stopped and he spoke with the press, talking more about the reaction to the meeting. here is a clip. [video clip] pres. trump: we had a meeting today, you know, with president zelenskyy. i will say it didn't work out exactly great from his standpoint. i think you very much overplayed his hand. we are looking for peace. we are not looking for someone who will sign up a strong power and then not make peace because they feel emboldened. that is what i saw happening. i'm looking for peace.

we are not looking to go into a 10-year war and play games. we want peace. it was my impression that if we do that, if we sign up, he is looking for something that i'm not looking for. he is looking to go on and fight, fight, fight. we are looking to end the death. he has to say, i want to make peace. he doesn't have to stand there and say about putin this, putin that, all negative things come he has to say, i want to make peace, i don't want to fight a war any longer. his people are dying. he doesn't have the cards, just so you understand. i can tell you. host: back to your calls, let's hear from ron in maryland on the line for democrats. caller: yeah, good morning. i don't know. it looked like president trump is afraid of putin. you know, i wonder what would

happen if putin attacked this country? would we just give up? just like the other callers have said, our allies have supported us for years. now we are going to support putin? putin is the one who invaded ukraine in 2014. that was their country, and we should support ukraine. i feel that this president is going the wrong way. i tell you one thing, if they cut our social security and medicare republicans are not going to be in office too much longer after 2026. that's all i have to say. i hope americans stand up and watch what is going on, because this president is taking us in the wrong direction. he's not doing anything that he said when he was running for president. he said on day one he would cut the price of food.

since they came in, groceries have not done -- they have not done one thing to try to lower the price of groceries. not one thing. they haven't even talked about it. americans, we need to do what's right. i think the republican party, they look like they are taking us in the wrong direction. host: we will go on to north carolina, line for republicans, good morning, francia. caller: well, i listen to everybody, but first of all i don't trust the line talk. that is all our president has been giving us. it was a disgrace what he did yesterday. if he was going to talk to ano ther foreign leader, it should have been behind closed doors. everybody forgets the -- what he tried to do with biden.

host: that was francia in north carolina. benny in stockton, california on the line for independents. caller: thanks for taking my call. this was the most embarrassing thing that i saw in television yesterday. jd vance interjected his opinion . just lambasted the president. he didn't disrespect america. that is they are talking point n -- their talking point now. i wish could be impeached along with jd vance. thank you very much. host: diane in ann arbor, michigan on the line for democrats, good morning. caller: thank you.

yes, president zelenskyy went into this meeting. his number one asked was for security. that trump would guarantee that putin would not re-invade or start up the war again and break any treaties. trump would not give that to zelenskyy. trump wanted the mineral deal. i think this was a shakedown. this was a shakedown where he put, tried to put, zelenskyy on his back foot and was abusive. so was vance. it was two on one. what kind of policy can zelenskyy expect when he is jumped on like this? i think zelenskyy handled himself very well. i even noticed that trump touched zelenskyy. if zelenskyy dared to touch trump, it would have been a blowup. it would have been called assault.

we have to understand. it is like a father slapping down a son. every time zelenskyy tried to say something, trump piped up louder and louder. it was intimidation. i thought that zelenskyy was very strong and he stuck to his ask to get security. even though trump wouldn't give it. i'm sure that putin is dancing in the street. it makes me even question what trump is, a u.s. president or russian operative? which? it didn't look like a u.s. president for sure. they have to give zelenskyy some security. i wouldn't even say an agreement, because we backed out on ukraine before. they have to put that in the contract, that putin will stay out of ukraine if the u.s. gets the minerals. this was embarrassing. this was a disgrace from trump

and vance. vance should not even have been there. it didn't even look right. it looked cruel. if that is what is in vance and trump's hearts is cruelty, that is an even diplomacy. it was a laundry list that trump ran. even when he was at the end of the meeting, trump said, "that was good tv." this was a set up for tv. zelenskyy went in being honest and sincere and it was nothing but a chauffeur trump and vance -- show for trump and vance. host: donna on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. watching that yesterday, or watching it today repeated over, i believe that people don't realize that this set up for this program thing to happen yesterday had already been discussed about what was going

to happen. they already knew that they were trying for a cease-fire. so, why would zelenskyy come in and try to change the terms kind of? the cease-fire is only to stop the war and then have the big discussions about what would happen with russia and ukraine after the fact. so, you've got to kind of take that into consideration, that this was just to stop the war, as in, stop the fighting currently. then make all the negotiations between them all later. so we have to remember that this was already, you know, decided currently. host: that was donna in michigan. let's hear from francis in florida on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for having me. i want to reiterate, i think

zelenskyy forgot why he was there. we understand he has been at war for three years, but he needs to start to understand that america is not going to fund an endless war and we will not put our boots on the ground and his country. there does need to be something in place to stop putin and his aggression. thanks for having me. host: francis in florida. yesterday, it was secretary of state marco rubio who was sitting in on that meeting with president trump and president zelenskyy. he was on cnn last night talking about the meeting. here is a clip. [video clip] >> what specifically do you want to see president zelenskyy apologize for? >> apologize for turning this thing into the fiasco for him that it became. there was no need for him to become antagonistic. this went off the rails. i believe you were there. it went off the rails when he said, let me ask you a question,

to the vice president. what diplomacy are you talking about? thousands of people have been killed. thousands. he talks about things that happened to prisoners of war and children. all true. all bad. this needs to come to an end. we are trying to bring it to an end. the way that you bring it to an end as you bring russia to the table to talk. he understands attacking putin, no matter how anyone feels about him personally, trying to goad him into attacking putin, calling him names, maximalist demands of russia paying for reconstruction, all of the things you talk about in a negotiation. when you talk about this, the president is a dealmaker, you won't get people to the table. people perceive that maybe zelenskyy doesn't want peace deal. he says he does, but maybe he doesn't. that active undermining of efforts to bring about peace is deeply frustrating for everyone who has been involved in communications with them leading up to today. wasting our time for a meeting

that was going to end the way that it did. host: it was secretary rubio who also tweeted after the meeting yesterday, this is what he said. "thank you, potus, for standing up for america in a way that no president has ever had the courage to do before. thank you for putting america first. america is with you." in response to that post, a congressman from california tweeted, "bro, did you write this? we all saw you. you tried to shrink in your chair. you look at trump like he was some crazy pops who was embarrassing you on your first date. don't bs us. grow a pair." getting your reaction to the oval office meeting between president trump and president zelenskyy. let's hear from terry in atlanta, georgia on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, everyone.

happy march. i have to say, as an american citizen, i expect my president to be diplomatic. what we saw yesterday, there was no diplomacy. i have to say, the vice president in the past has never spoken out of turn the way that jd vance did. they looked like bullies on the playground. you can't tell me what to do. you can't tell me what to think. you don't know what we are going to feel. i think they wanted to bring zelenskyy in, president zelenskyy in to the white house and belittle him. you have to look at the photos that have come out of ukraine. ukraine is pretty much destroyed. so, let us say that he does want to end the war.

let us all say, factually, that ukraine did not start this war. russia attacked ukraine. ukrainians were minding their own business. putin attacked them. i'm not hearing anyone talk about the fact that president putin attacked ukraine viciously. they have viciously continued to kill people in ukraine. and the second fonts around donald trump -- the sycophants around donald trump are giving him glory. he's wonderful. apologize to america. jd vance was one of the people who voted against aid to ukraine . he is in there saying, you should be grateful to us for giving you this aid. they were part of that. they didn't support that. i don't think they support it now. zelenskyy wants peace. everyone wants peace except the

man who started this war. so, let's bring him into the war, and then let's try -- let's bring an end to the war in then try to help ukrainians get back on their feet. not with u.s. funding. we've given them enough funding. i think that europe should step in, the europeans should help the ukrainians to get back on their feet. but the first thing that has to happen is, putin has to be stopped. he has to be stopped. the troops need to be pulled out, sent home, and this were needs to end. thank you very much. i hope that our next president brings diplomacy back to the white house. everyone have a great day. thank you. host: that was terry in georgia. eileen in new york on the line -- arlene in new york on the line for republicans. are you there? caller: yes, i'm here. hi.

i'm reading the television and i don't see that i am on. what i want to say is, the democrats are looking for a moment for the republicans to implode. well, it was yesterday. trump did it. he had no right to treat zelenskyy that way. yes, zelenskyy wants peace, but at what price? a cease-fire that putin will not stand up to? why trump is aligning with putin is beyond me. putin won't break the cease-fire because i'm trump? please. he's using the playbook. that's all i have to say. thank you for taking my call. host: brad on the line for independent. good morning. caller: i just want to tell you

thank you, and i hope you're having a great day today. i want to reiterate a few things about history and the truth that, frankly, zelenskyy was trying to speak about. first of all, the budapest memorandum put in that we are supposed to protect ukraine with the u.k. from any attack on their sovereign territory. russia was part of that agreement. that is all zelenskyy was telling them, the truth. so, if everyone has such a problem with the truth, then maybe they shouldn't be in a position where they would have to hear it or handle it. really, he was only telling him, and even showing pictures of what has happened to his own people. they bombed a children's cancer hospital. vladimir putin is a murderer. anyone who appeases him and thinks that they are going to

get him to change his mind, even rubio and all those people, they know better. they are hypocrites or something. i can't figure it out. anyway, i hope they ask for forgiveness and maybe start looking at things more clearly through the truth. thank you. host: that was bred in ohio. other members responding -- that was brad in ohio. other members responding to the meeting include hakeem jeffries, democrat of new york. he was on cnn yesterday. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> do you believe, leader jeffries, that the relationship between the trump administration and president zelenskyy can be salvaged? >> it has to be salvaged for the good of the free world. if america is going to continue to play that role. again, our leadership of the free world in the aftermath of world war ii to create a

rules-based society all across the globe is in america's national security interest. it's designed to keep our people safe and secure and free of the type of global conflict that cost so many lives, including american lives during world war i and world war ii. it's certainly the case that we will need to see some mature leadership from the trump administration. >> do you think there will be mature leadership from the trump administration? >> congressional democrats in the house and the senate will urge that this breach be repaired and that we stand by ukrainian people for the good of the american people, for the good of our national security, for the good of the free world and our continued leadership in that regard. we shouldn't be bending the knee to vladimir putin and russia. putin is a sworn enemy of the

united states of america. it's not in our national security interest to be supportive of him. it is in our national security interest to support the ukrainian people and our allies in western europe and throughout the free world. host: other members responding include this room senator bernie moreno. finally we have a president who will speak the truth and stand up against washington's and lessors. american taxpayers have been funding this war, it's time to stop the killing and stop risking world war iii. this from representative mark takano who says, "watching trump and vance serve as putin's mouthpieces in the oval office was one of the most shameful moments in american diplomacy. every republican must publicly condemn it. every. single. one." 20 minutes left, back to your

calls. cynthia, line for democrats. caller: good morning. i will give you a good example. i will use emily as reference. -- family as reference the republicans are ukraine. the democrats are russia. the independents are on their own. i would like to know, when someone attacks your family, you protect it, right? so, you don't have enough strength to protect your family. so, you ask for the usa to help. yes. i believe ukraine should pay us back the money we spent we paid them with interest. and if they need more help, we pay them the same way with interest. your president trying to rip

this country off of, and that would be a solution to solve the problem. what trump did to this man yesterday was not right. i have one more something to say. everyone, go and read what the republicans passed. they are going to strip us out of social security, medicaid, medicare, food stamps, and everything else. don't listen to what your people are saying. my husband said, read. read, read, read for yourself and you will see, as republicans, democrats, and independents, as what congress passed last week. host: richard in tulsa, oklahoma, line for republicans.

caller: hi, how are you? host: doing well. caller: i was going to say that people need to look at the budapest agenda that was signed by president clinton, prime minister john majors of great britain, the president of ukraine at the time, i think his name was something like luka, and putin where they agreed, ukraine agreed, to give up their nuclear weapons if the united states and great britain would guarantee their sovereignty. we did. we signed the agreement saying that russia wouldn't be able to invade. of course, they did in 2014. in 2014, we should have responded at that time. we did not. that told putin that the united states is not going to follow up on our mutual defense treaty and

that they can come back again. so, he did. now he has taken a big chunk of more of ukraine, including their strategic mineral areas. it is unrealistic to ask the president of ukraine, zelenskyy, to say, yes, sign away your rare minerals to us, and we will get back with you later about how much of your country you get to keep, and how much the russians get to keep, and we'll have a cease fire. no. if that was the united states and china invaded the west coast and took part of our country, we would not be willing to say, well, let's just have a cease fire and you keep the land you got, including our strategic minerals, and we will worry later about how we stop the war. we would never do that.

we would have to allow other countries the same leeway that we claim for ourselves, which is first we get the bad guys out of our country and we get them stopped with an agreement that they cannot come back in unless our mutual defense treaty partners come to our aid. they lost their nuclear weapons because of us. host: this headline in "the wall street journal," today, the future of the ukraine peace deal is in doubt following this meeting. for zelenskyy the bloke ruined a critical opportunity to secure stronger -- the blowup ruined a critical opportunity to secure stronger backing for ukraine's long-term defense. for trump, it was a setback to his goal of forging a new peace deal between kyiv and moscow.

ukraine wants a deal that returns much of the country's seized territory and removes russian troops from the battlefield. zelenskyy also wants security guarantees that deter russia from launching a renewed attack, which even he says would be most efficient if they came from the u.s. trump needs kyiv to agree to stop fighting as part of the peace agreement, although he also said that he would meet soon with russian president vladimir putin. trump has insisted for weeks that putin is generally interested in peace, alarming ukraine and transatlantic partners who feared the white house was preparing to negotiate a peace deal closer to moscow's terms than their own. the display of disunity between trump and zelenskyy, even before the planned peace talks are underway, risked emboldening putin who has voiced support for halting the fighting but on

unacceptable terms for ukraine and its allies. the article goes on to say that trump did not rule out another meeting with zelenskyy but didn't back off of his sharp criticism of the ukrainian leader. saying zelenskyy wanted to return to the white house on friday but was rebuffed. back to your calls. marianne in maryland on the line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. hello? host: go ahead, marion. -- marianne. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am incredulous that what my eyes saw yesterday at the body language exhibited. i had the volume muted and was just watching. oh my gosh. the body language that was

exhibited. the staggering amount of finger-pointing. it was aggressive. it was invading his personal space. it was a violation. putting his hand on him. that is what it appeared like to me, an open palm, almost pushing him back. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: we will go to gary and charleston, west virginia on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want to say that the president is right on the most part. and, same time, we need to get putin out of ukraine. pull your troops out and then we are going to look at ukraine and say, let's do a cease fire. you've got your country back.

we will support your country, but, economically speaking, we need some money to reimburse us, because if we don't get our money back it is like everybody is america's piggy bank. we cannot continue to support economically. look at our economy. we cannot economically support the world. we need to get peace, look at russia and say back off, or we just need to go over there and do our thing. it's one of the two. host: what do you mean, do our thing? caller: go to war with russia. i will say it straight up. if we are going somewhere,

ukraine, let's go over there, let's take over russia, let's take over ukraine, and then that will end it all. host: that was gary in west virginia. let's hear from joe in north myrtle beach, south carolina on the line for democrats. good morning, joe. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say, wherever you are on the political spectrum, russia is a significant threat to our security. he's not anyone's buddy. friends don't have nuclear missiles pointed at each other's cities. supporting ukraine i believe deteriorates russia's ability to carry on the war. there's nothing to say that we shouldn't have economic relations with russia. that strengthens everybody, but whoever is in charge of russia needs to know that their

aggressiveness -- we just cannot have that in the world. it threatens europe and the united states and our way of life. i'm just saying that if we were friends they would act like it, and i don't see them acting like friends. that's what i have to say. host: that was joe in south carolina. yesterday's meeting, it was vice president jd vance who was also there. he, during the meeting, asked the ukrainian leader if you would be open to diplomacy and said that he should be more thankful for american support. here's a clip of that. [video clip] vp vance: for four years, the united states of america, we had a president who stood in press conferences and talk tough about vladimir putin and then putin invaded ukraine and destroyed a significant chunk of the country. the path to peace and the path

to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy. we tried the pathway of joe biden, of something our chest, and pretending that the president of the united states' words matter than the united states' actions. what makes america the good country is america engaging in diplomacy. that is what president trump is doing. pres. zelenskyy: can i ask you? he invaded big parts of ukraine, parts of the east and crimea. he invaded in 2014. during a lot of years, not just speaking about biden, but that was obama, then president trump, then president biden, now president trump. now president trump. him. during 2014, nobody stopped him. he killed people. pres. trump: 2015.

pres. zelenskyy: 2014. result trump i was not here. pres. zelenskyy: 2014-2022 come the situation is the same. people have been dying on the combat mine. no one stopped him. we've had a lot of conversations, bilateral conversations. we signed with him, and 2019, i signed with him the deal. i signed with macron a cease fire. all of them told me that he will never go, we signed. after that he broke the cease-fire. he killed our people and he didn't exchange prisoners. we signed the exchange of prisoners, but he didn't do it. what kind of diplomacy, jd, do

you mean? vp vance: the kind of diplomacy that will end the destruction of your country. mr. president, with respect i think it's disrespectful for you to come to the oval office and try to litigate this in front of the american media. right now, you're forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. you should be thanking the president -- pres. zelenskyy: come to ukraine to see what problems we have. come once. vp vance: i've seen the stories. i know what happens you bring people on a propaganda tour, mr. president.do you disagree that you've had problems bringing people into your military? do you think that it's respectful to come to the oval office of the united states of america and attacked the administration that's trying to prevent the destruction of your country? host: just about five minutes left. we will go to yuri in maryland. line for independents.

caller: i appreciate you giving me the opportunity. in the cold war time, the russians and the americans understand that the russians want to change their system. now, every country to be part of whatever they want. now -- the west are pushing towards russia. bill clinton and all are pushing for all this to be part of nato. the russians told them, we agreed not to push nato. we want peace but we want to live together.

pushing and pushing, now they want to push ukraine to be part of nato. russia said, this is not right, we don't want to see this. look when the soviet wanted to establish in cuba. what did kennedy say? you will start the third world war. they discuss. why the establishment want to push towards russia and the ukraine war started because they wanted ukraine to be part of nato, and the russians said no. it is not in our interest. so, the war started. host: we will go to cindy in pennsylvania on the line for republicans. caller: hi, how are you? i'm calling to say that i think president trump did an awesome

job yesterday. the man was not thankful. he had billions of dollars of ours. i'm a taxpayer. i want that money back. it's not fair. i know people are getting killed, but president trump has to be really strong, just like john f. kennedy was during the cuban crisis. you have to be tough. you can't be a wimp. he isn't. i know he wants peace. everything was all settled, but this guy is backing out. he is a little dictator, and i really believe that, and he doesn't really care that much for his people. i think he would sign the agreement and start the process, because we need money for our country. our country is falling apart right now. i'm poor. i'm not rich, and i paid all the tax dollars in. biden gave billions away,

billions of our money without our consent. i don't think that's right. i really appreciate what president trump is doing. god bless america right now. host: that is sending in pennsylvania. our last call in this portion of the program is teresa in roanoke, virginia on the line for democrats. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i felt like this was a disgraceful display. president zelenskyy was trying to speak for his people when they would let him speak. trump speaks for himself. then he concludes this is good tv. these are ukrainians' lives. he calls marco little rubio, then to hear rubio say trump diplomacy? i saw nothing diplomatic. that trumpet showed strength when it comes to this? no, he's a bully. there is a short distance between strength and ignorance. then jd vance speaks up just to

get a moment of trump attention. i was surprised musk wasn't there. what are our allies thinking? look what they witnessed. a minor point to some republicans come when the reporter asked president zelenskyy who had just been berated, he was set up and we know it, when he asked president zelenskyy if he owned a suit, you can put a bully in a suit but they are still a bully. this was a moment for the republicans and tv. we know that putin has no intentions of a cease fire. he won't honor it. we know that, and i'm surprised that the republicans don't. i'm very embarrassed by this. we need a president who will act like a president and we need leaders who are going to speak up against this kind of -- this isn't diplomacy. host: that was teresa in virginia and our last call for this portion of the program.

next, we are going to continue our discussion of yesterday's oval office meeting between presidents trump and zelenskyy with max bergmann of the center for strategic and international studies. later, they kff vice president robin rudowitz will discuss the state of medicaid and the impact of potential cuts to the program. as house republicans seek to offset the cost of their budget plan. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. this weekend on the civil war, historian kelly hancock talks about the lives of mary todd lincoln and farina davis, the wives of the civil war leaders. a visit to the college park aviation museum of maryland with lou perez to explore -- luke

perez. watch american history tv series first 100 days, as we look at the start of presidential terms. this week, we focus on the early months of president lyndon johnson's term in 1963, following the assassination of john f. kennedy. he called on members to pass civil rights legislation. on elections in history, usc sociology professor brittany friedman on the evolution of american prison gangs in the 20th and 21st centuries. exploring the american story, watch american history tv every weekend or watch online anytime at c-span.org. >> tuesday night, watch c-span's live coverage of president trump's address to congress, the

first address of his second term and less than two months since taking office. c-span's live coverage against at 8:00 eastern with a preview of the evening from capitol hill followed by the president's speech at 9:00 eastern. and then watch the democratic response. we will take your calls and get your reaction on social media. on c-span two, you can watch a simulcast of the evenings coverage, followed by reaction from lawmakers live from capitol hill. wash president trump's address to congress live on tuesday, beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. our simulcast on c-span2, on c-span now, also online at c-span.org. c-span, bringing you your democracy unfiltered. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now to discuss yesterday's oval office meeting between presidents trump and president zelenskyy is max bergmann.

he's the europe, russia and eurasia program director. thank you for joining us. guest: good morning. thanks for having me. host: we will jump right in. i will start by asking you, if you had to judge by yesterday's event, to what degree is the trump administration standing by ukraine? guest: i think it's pretty clear that they are not. i think president trump made that clear where he said they were not on any one side, the united states is on the world's side. and the big shift that has happened here is the united states has moved from being a steadfast ally and partner of ukraine to being, essentially, a neutral arbiter. we have gone from having a ukraine jersey on the putting on the referees jersey, if not taking more of the side of

russia in seeking an opportunity to have a better relationship with russia. the united states is not pretending to be neutral or ukraine's partner in this and that was abundantly clear yesterday and the president said it directly. host: president zelenskyy was here in washington. he was expected not only to have a press conference but also to sign or at least talk more about a mineral deal. neither of those happened. instead, it was this heated conversation between those two and vice president pence. what -- vice president vance. what made it take that turn? guest: a lot of people are trying to analyze this. i think ultimately, the united states, the trump administration, president trump and jd vance, do not want to be supporting ukraine anymore. they sat down with the russians in saudi arabia. and i think they realized that

there is no quick negotiated fixed to this conflict. and that they have leverage over ukraine but have almost no leverage over russia except if they were willing to put more money in behind ukraine. and so, i think they saw the writing on the wall that negotiations aren't going anywhere. and with that, they wanted ukraine to agree to something they would not agree to. and i think what you saw is the united states being ready to just essentially walk away from these talks. and a degree of hostility toward president zelenskyy that president trump has had for a while, jd vance brought up president zelenskyy's visit to a pennsylvania ammunition factory in september, when he came to the united states, viewing that as a partisan activity. there were some axes to grind. normally in a diplomatic

meeting, you don't grind those axis pop -- axes publicly. when they saw that president zelenskyy was pushing back, not even that strongly but a little bit, they did not hesitate in order to start grinding those axis they had -- axes they had with president zelenskyy. it's like two colleagues that don't like each other but are sitting at a conference room table and then instead of it being a passive aggressive conversation, it gets aggressive. that's not what president zelenskyy wanted. the minerals agreement he mentioned was not something ukrainians were desperate to sign. if the united states pushed that agreement in a direction they didn't want. ukraine proposed the idea hoping it would entice the united states to provide more military aid to ukraine. when that became not on the cards, they just decided to sign

it. it's is not something ukraine wanted. it's very hypothetical. there would have to be peace in ukraine for any of these minerals to be extracted. i don't think either side was excited by not signing this agreement. it was intended for ukrainians part two signaled the united states support for them. after a meeting like that, there's no point in signing such an agreement. host: i want to share an opinion piece in today's wall street journal. it's by daniel, the director of public engagement for ukraine. the headline most trump supporters also back ukraine. it's talking about some recent polling they did. the majority agreed russia is the aggressor at 69% with supporting continued weapons assistance at 60%. they say they are more likely to

support the aid for ukraine when told russia has kidnapped more than 19,000 ukrainian children. that was 71%. what's the potential impact of president trump's actions yesterday among -- when it comes to republicans who support ukraine? guest: i think it will be positive for their support for president trump. but we shall see. foreign policy tends to not be a top-tier political issue. the ukraine-russia war broke through in 2022 because it was so ghastly. a country in the middle of the night being invaded and children being woken up from their beds and parents fleeting -- fleeing. children being separated from their mothers while the men stayed back and fought and now many thousands have died. this is an atrocious conflict.

really, not since world war ii in europe have we seen anything on this scale of destruction. so, i think many americans see that. many republicans, many democrats. it was bipartisan in congress in support of ukraine. we saw a republicans in congress were incredibly critical of the biden administration for what they described as weakness for delaying certain delivery of weapons systems. but then with trump reemerging onto the political scene in late 2023 and this time last year, the republicans have become more divided in their support for ukraine. and indeed, this time last year, the republican congress was not passing a ukraine military supplemental support package. that eventually passed. but i think what we will see is that we are a very partisan country. i think some republicans will be what happened yesterday as a real staying on america's global

leadership and a betrayal of a country that we were backing. others will see it, i think you had some callers say this, that the united states has been doing too much in the world and that it is time for us to stop spending our money. i think there is some threads of importance to both of those comments. when i look at this politically, i think what we are ultimately seeing is the united states really pivoting to a more isolationist approach to the world. maybe not intentionally. but when i look at european reaction or the reaction of european leaders and you look at the european papers, there is a deep sense of betrayal and that europe is on its own. i think what happened in the oval office has a broader impact on u.s. foreign policy. it's not about the billions we

are providing to ukraine but how are allies around the world see us. it makes them on edge and they don't see us as reliable. in trump's perspective, that might be a good thing because maybe we can extract more. but i think it means our allies and partners will begin to hedge and look to other friends and for other potential deals they can make, perhaps with china or other u.s. adversaries that we may not like as much. i think we're headed in a new and complicated direction, globally. host: our guest for the next 35 minutes or so is max bergmann. if you have a question or comment for him, you can start calling in now. the lines are broken down by democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8003

--(202) 748-8002. i wanted to get your reaction to what president zelenskyy tweeted after the meeting. he said thank you, america. thank you for your support. thank you for this visit. thank you, potus, congress and the american people. ukraine needs just and lasting peace and we are working exactly for that. president zelenskyy saying -- talking about efforts to come to a peace deal. how have they done so far in that regard? guest: i think first, jd vance, the vice president accused president zelenskyy of not being thankful. and you could argue he could have been more thankful to the u.s. in his oval office meeting. but let's be clear, he has come to the united states a lot. he spoke to a joint session of congress in december of 2022 where the entire message was a thank you to the united states.

and i think where president zelenskyy was deeply concerned about the direction of the trump administration was this shift from the united states being a firm supporter of ukraine, a partner for ukraine, serving in ukraine's democracy, providing vital military assistance to ukraine, to then positioning itself as a negotiator and a neutral arbiter in the conflict with russia. but then also meeting with the russians but not with the ukrainians. if you remember, the meeting in saudi arabia, it was the u.s. and russia across the table from each other and ukraine was not there. normally when the united states engages in diplomatic talks directly with an adversary, whether it is the iranians or the russians, which the obama administration did as well, and over the heads of our european partners, we seek to reassure

them. we go back to our allies and partners and say don't worry, we have your back and we are looking out for your best interests. that's not been the approach of the trump administration. i think what president zelenskyy was after is a degree of reassurance that the united states was not going to proverbially stab them in the back. and i think what he got was the opposite. was the united states directly telling them, a stab in the front, we will not back you and support you. this meeting was a disaster for president zelenskyy. that's not what he was after. and i think what you see with those tweets and other expressions of gratitude is that he didn't mean to not say thank you. he has said thank you in the past. in some ways, he's trying to have a bit of damage control or damage mitigation. even if the united states, if the trump administration does not go back to congress and ask

for more military funding for ukraine, there's a lot of other things the united states could do to undermine ukraine's warfare. there is a degree of concern in kyiv that the united states won't be neutral in this conflict. what i mean is the united states will stop providing aid to ukraine. the aide that has been obligated where the contracts have been written will continue to flow. but that what the united states will begin to do is become an adversary of ukraine. whether we will sanction the ukrainians, whether we will remove sanctions against russia is a key concern to ukraine. we can make it a lot easier for russia to fight this war. i think what ukraine wants at the very least is if the united states will not support it, then it does not take actions to undermine ukraine's warfare and enhance russia's.

president zelenskyy is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. for president zelenskyy, he never saw negotiations going very far. they agreed to a settlement in a men's process in december of between 19 for russia to do a full-scale invasion. i think what they see is russia wanting to end ukrainian democracy, to subjugate ukraine and the broader goals have been changed. a temporary cease-fire that would allow russia to continuously rearm while western aid would dissipate for ukraine was a situation where we are only setting up this conflict for a round. the first round being russia seizing crimea in 2014.

round two being from 2022 until now. if ukraine is outside of the european union and outside of nato, they are not able to receive the same levels of western support. it's the ability to build its armed forces that might be curtailed. russia has a war machine going with its defense industrial bases, aided by china. ukraine does not like those odds of freezing the conflict and that in a few more years, russia comes back and i think that leads to a lot of insecurity in ukraine. i think i was one of the major problems that president zelenskyy had with the trump administration wanting a quick cease-fire. ukraine does not see a quick cease-fire as being in its interest. host: we have callers waiting to talk with you. we will start with donald in hillsboro ohio. line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call.

he came to the united states with a good heart and wanted something fair for its people. the trump administration let this man down. what i believe is the european union should go ahead and get together, put up a defensive line and stop the russians from taking over the ukraine. also, the only thing the russians have that can stop them, i feel like they are beaten now, is nuclear weapons. and i'm tired of living under somebody's boot heels that is keeping the people down and taking their freedoms from this country and other countries. and i thank you. wake up, america. thank you. guest: thank you for that comment, donald. i think what you are seeing in europe is, we are waiting to see

what will happen in europe. i think the events, not just yesterday, i think yesterday was confirmation for many europeans of what they saw after the munich security conference, this big, grand jamboree of security officials where jd vance spoke at. also, pete hegseth, when he went to europe, said the united states would reduce its forces in europe. you know, there's two ways to look at this. on the one hand, i think the american perspective on europe is that these are free riders. the europeans have not gotten their act together and they are not spending much on defense. and we are tired of taking care of european security. i think that's not just a trump administration perspective. in some ways, it's very bipartisan. the other way to look at it, this is how europeans look at it is look, the united states has told europe not to get its act

together. the european union does not do defense. because the united states, in large part, has told it not to for the last 35 years. the european union was created in 1993. there was a conversation about the e.u. creating its own movement in the 1990's. the clinton administration told them not to. that has been bipartisan policy for a long time. what we have wanted is for everything to go through nato. and why we have wanted that is because we are central to nato. the nato. -- the north atlantic treaty organization. ultimately, we want the european -- to dock in the u.s. europe is dependent on the u.s. for its security and such, the europeans follow us in our

wars. in afghanistan, nato was there. in iraq, there was a vision but many countries in europe were fighting alongside us. it's not because they were enthusiastic about invading iraq. it's because they felt this degree of loyalty to the united states. when they go to europe now and say we are concerned about european technology adding to china and helping the chinese military, we turn the screws on the europeans and the europeans follow through, to immense economic detriment, they have followed us on many of our sanctions and export controls. then we have this ready built coalition that whenever we want to do something in the world, the europeans are there with us. we have more influence in europe than any other region in the world. that's been the grand bargain, where europe remains dependent on us for security but the europeans basically follow us around and tend to do what we want when we have a real

priority. there are differences on economic and trade issues. but those tend to be rather small. so, what we are seeing now is whether europe will go in a new direction. what they the european union will begin to have more of what is described as a defense identity. i ready piece saying if you are going to create a european union army, which has been talked about since the 19 50's, the eisenhower administration was in huge support of creating a european union army. here are some ways you would go about it, get rid of the french, polish and german military. and maybe create an additional e.u. military. the last point i would make is it is true, this is where i give the trump administration credit, the europeans can do more. they have been doing more than us in support of ukraine. the e.u. is an economic

superpower. their economy is the same size as the united states and china. europe has the capacity took, i think step up and stepped in, should the united states step away from ukraine. the issue is they can't do it instantly. they have to wear pope -- ramp up their industrial production and have a change in direction. i hope if we pull away from ukraine, we do it rather slowly. the europeans can do more. what we are waiting to see is what comes of all of these meetings and things that are happening in brussels. did they advocate more funding from the e.u. level. there is a lot of play. host: our guest, max bergmann, just mentioned one of his recent pieces that he has written for csis. if you would like to find those or look at more of his work, you can find it at csis.org.

let's hear from john in ohio. line for republicans. good morning. caller: if we are just going to focus on this white house meeting, the biggest problem is that the only thing that previous callers and people in the media or democrats and perhaps your guest, they only saw the five or 10 minutes of the video when it went off the rails. and the 30-40 minutes before that, was president zelenskyy pontificating and throwing pictures at trump's face. i'm not a big trump fan. but, the statements that it was ambushed by jd vance, by trump, if you watch the entirety of the video, that's not what happened. i don't know how much of the video that your guest saw. maybe he saw the whole thing. but if you didn't, it's a disservice to everyone. thank god for c-span for showing

that video last night, in the middle of the night. i saw what happened. it doesn't look like trump and jd vance were bullies. it looks like they were ambushed by volodymyr zelenskyy. that's my statement. thank you. guest: thanks for that, john. i think you are right. the entire meeting, everybody is looking at the last 10 minutes of the meeting. i think what you saw was the tension sort of building and president zelinski was trying to make a case for himself and ukraine throughout the entire meeting. all senior-level politicians have great belief in their persuasive capabilities. and i think what president zelenskyy was trying to do in the first part of the meeting was to show president trump and vice president vance directly

what was happening in ukraine and to demonstrate that ukraine was the victim of this conflict and needed u.s. support. and i think that was grading on vice president vance and the president. and as i said earlier, this is sort of two colleagues effectively that don't like each other, that probably talk about each other behind each others backs in the hallways with their other colleagues. and then in the meeting, they -- it's a very passive aggressive meeting that eventually explodes. what people are going to focus on is the explosion. i think what i would say is i don't quite understand why all of that was being made public. most of these oval office sessions where the press comes in are very quick. there one or two questions to

the british prime minister. i very much appreciate president trump's transparency and keeping it open to the public. but i think in this case, it was in some ways too transparent. it would have been better for the u.s.-ukraine relationship, for ukraine in particular if that meeting was behind closed doors. but there was an intentionality to it. i don't want to call it a trap that jd vance or anybody laid. i don't think they went into it with that intention. but i also think they were not that concerned about creating a real rift in the relationship. normally, diplomacy is often times about sitting on your hands, not saying the thing that you were thinking. i've been in many diplomatic meetings where i'm like man, i wanted to give it to the other person. that wasn't going to be the right diplomatic thing to do in that moment. i think what we saw was a very

undiplomatic meeting. you can accuse both sides of doing that. i think president zelenskyy got this wrong. and then the trump administration, president trump and jd vance were willing to create an open rift in the relationship in public. and so i think you are right. viewers should go back and watch the entire meeting. unfortunately, people don't have as much time as perhaps you and i. but the last 10 minutes are what the news media is going to show because it is frankly what history will show. that's what history will focus on. the last 10 minutes was historic. i think it will be the moment historians look at where there was a real shift, not just in u.s. support for ukraine, but also perhaps in the direction of the transatlantic alliance. host: i wanted to let our audience know that if you have not seen the entire video and would like to, you can find it

on our website, c-span.org. it's just under 50 minutes as max pointed out. maybe you don't have the time to dedicate but it is broken down. they highlight key points during that meeting if you want to look at it that way as well. max, i wanted to ask you about the relationship, not only between what this means for the relationship between the u.s. and ukraine, but what it could mean for the u.s.-russian relations. it was earlier this week that president putin praised trump for reopening and trying to repair relationships with the kremlin. what do you think president putin and russian leadership, how do you think they are viewing yesterday's meeting? guest: i think they are fairly ecstatic. i think one of their goals, and i've been quite cynical about the potential, about the

prospects for peace negotiations resulting in a lasting peace because i have not seen any signals or signs that vladimir putin has shifted from his penultimate goal of subjugating ukraine and ending ukrainian democracy and bringing ukraine back into russia's orbit and russia's control. i like to sort of note that vladimir putin is in his late stage, something i'm going through and lots of older american men go through where they can become obsessed with history. prior to the war, he wrote a whole -- whole treaties about how ukraine was part of russia. and how he has been the leader of russia for 25 years and is thinking about his place in history. he wants to be called vladimir the great. he wants to be perceived as this great russians are. in order for that to happen, he has to win this war. i don't think he's shifted in his grand ambitions.

i think what he wanted to achieve in saudi arabia, it looks like he's achieved it, which is to effectively sideline the u.s. from this conflict and have the u.s. pullback from its support for ukraine, the united states is ukraine's most important and pivotal actor. if you can get the united states to turn off the taps to ukraine, the sense is that ukraine will grow rather thirsty. that what we saw last year without aid to ukraine, the ukrainian military began to shrink they had to begin rationing its ammunition and artillery. gave russia a real military advantage in the war. i think he will be quite ecstatic. what he saw was a real rupture. i will give -- it will give vladimir putin real hope that he can win this war. putin is likely to double down and continue to go forward. what i would say is i think there is a wrong analysis about

where ukraine is in this conflict. ukraine is producing more than one million drones a year. they have immense capacity to hold back the russian military. one of my colleagues at the carnegie corporation described the russian military right now as a car that has had its transmission blown. it can rev up the issue in and get to 20 miles per hour but it can't do the kind of effective combat operations to be able to punch through ukrainian lines and move forces very rapidly. this is a war of attrition. and the ukrainians are on the defensive. the advantage goes to those on the defensive. i expect we will see ukraine both doubling down on its fortifications and, in its own drone production. what will give vladimir putin some concern is i think what he was hoping for was a years long

negotiation that did not result in much but then led everyone to be talking about what happens when there is peace when i don't think there was going to be. the europeans don't really step up to fill the gaps left by the americans. i think what we will see over the next few weeks is the europeans doing a lot more, allocating a lot more money potentially, to try to fill the gap left by the u.s. they won't be able to do it fully. he will be concerned about the counter european reaction to what is being seen in europe as an american betrayal. that will strengthen the ukrainians ability to continue fighting. host: let's here from larry on the line for independents. hi, larry. caller: i want to get the guests opinion on this. i challenge trump and the gemma

credit leaders -- democratic leaders to invite putin the way they did zelinskyy on tv and answer questions that the american people have for him and berate him like they did president zelenskyy. i don't understand why trump meets with putin in private. the one time he met with him on tv, he embarrassed himself and agreed with putin over his own intelligence agency. so, i see why he always secretly meets with putin than he wants to come out here and downgrade and degrade president zelenskyy. you can see right through it. another thing is trump, president trump, he always gets other people like elon musk to do his dirty work and he sits back in the background. that keeps his hands from getting dirty.

all the other people's hands can get dirty. i wish the democrats would point these things out. he's so crafty at doing these things that it's just a shame. no one is calling him out. thank god for ms. harris. she came out and told the truth but the american people were fooled. she was the only one i think that really came out and put trump in his place. i don't see why the american people didn't respond. god bless her. host: let's get a response from max. guest: thanks for the question, larry. you are pointing at something a lot of our allies are asking themselves. what they are feeling is a lot of heat from this administration. a lot of browbeating. a lot of criticism. president trump calling the

european union adversaries. and it's all been quite shocking. then they see how the president and his team have been engaging with russia and america's adversaries. and they are really confused because it looks like they are getting the lashings while the adversaries are getting praise. i think some of that you could put down to we have a lot more leverage over our european partners than we do russia. that there is, i think, we don't really have much leverage over russia. we have sanctioned them quite considerably and quite comprehensively. we have been supporting ukraine militarily. i think there's a lot of confusion about why our allies and partners are being treated as adversaries while america's traditional adversaries are being treated more as potential partners.

i didn't respond to one of the questions but what is in a u.s.-russia agreement. i think it is perplexing to some degree because economically, on one hand, you can say russia is a much bigger country than ukraine. there must be a lot there for the united states and russia to cooperate on. russia's major economic product is oil and gas. which the united states now has in abundance. in some ways, russia is one of our major economic competitors, just in the fossil fuel sector. but russia has pivoted to its other major sector, which is defense production. russia is one of our main competitors globally when it comes to arms sales. while russia is a relatively big market of 100 million people, 100 million or more people. it's not the first of an economy. its economy is about the size of italy.

there is little indication american businesses to get back -- are eager to get back to the russian market. there is concern in five or 10 years they would be another war between russia and another country. that their assets could be seized, just like they have been over the last few years. american businesses were in russia. i don't think russia is a particularly promising investment destination for american companies. so, i think there is a lot of confusion on what is the economic gain here. why is president trump seeking a deal with russia when there's not much to gain? that leaves ollies confused about why they are getting that treatment. and i think, frankly, it's very hard for me to see president trump giving vladimir putin the same -- treating putin the way he has treated president

zelenskyy because he sees president zelenskyy as a subcontractor. not as an ally and partner. it is a different worldview in how the president sees ukraine and russia. host: javin in columns, ohio on the line for -- columbus, ohio on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. host: go ahead. caller: you discussed pruden and his desire to be a big czar. with that in mind and with kyiv being an important cultural area for the russian identity and pruden -- putin, it seems apparent to me that putin will not cease to try to target ukraine in the future. my question is if there is a cease fire today with the

current amount of aid from the u.s. now, who would a cease fire benefit the most? russia or ukraine? guest: it's an excellent question. i think one of the challenges for ukraine is if there is a cease fire, let's make a distinction between a cease fire, where you put down the guns, you are not shooting at each other but you don't put down the guns. or a peace agreement where you put down the guns and there is confidence on both sides that both sides will stick to it, that would enable ukraine to turn toward europe and russia and toward itself or back to china. that would be more long-lasting. a cease fire i think could be in ukraine's interest. you could make an argument that ukraine would need a cease fire more than russia because russia

is more on the front foot in this war than ukraine. ukraine has manpower issues as jd vance has highlighted. i was in ukraine last april. in the middle of the night, there were air raids going on because russian missiles are flying. if you have kids and you are told to shelter in the bathroom in your apartment, much like you would during a tornado, that's happening just about every night. every night you have to wake up your kids, move to the bathroom and, a lot of kids and people in their 20's aren't doing it. if you are a parent, you are probably doing it. some people are exhausted. there is a real sense of wanting this war to end in ukraine. i shouldn't -- i don't think ukrainians are bloodthirsty and want to keep fighting. i think they would appreciate a cease fire. but they need some assurances they will not be left on their own. i think what they are concerned

about, but they are concerned about is two things. one is that the western aid, both from the u.s. and europe really starts to go down. and so then what you would have is the russian military rebuilding itself while ukraine is not able to. and they are trying to get their economy going again. but because it is a cease fire, our western business -- our western businesses going to invest in ukraine? some have. that's a fixed target, russia's got missiles that would target it. are you going to pay for air defense to protect it? it's not a great investment destination if you are worried about russia coming back for round three. what ukraine is looking for is two things. a continuing long-term commitment to ukraine's military so we can rebuild its military. this is what we have done with israel. we do not have security

guarantees with israel. if israel gets in a war, the u.s. military is not obligated to come to their defense. what we have done is provided israel every year with the $3.5 billion a year. israel has been our largest recipient of military aid and that has helped build an incredibly strong israeli military so that other countries in the region don't want to pick a fight with israel. that's one path for ukraine. the other path is this concept of security guarantees which would effectively be the united states or nato or other european countries saying if russia violates a cease fire, they are not just picking a war with ukraine, they are picking a war with the united states of america, with europe, with nato. that would be a deterrent to russia continuing to provoke a round three. the problem is what if russia does provoke a round three? then you have a much bigger war. the trump administration has

said we don't want to provide security. there is a third thing. the europeans have talked about putting peacekeepers and european forces on the ground to deter russians from provoking a round three so that they would start firing and if they started, they would kill french and british european forces. europe wants guarantees that if that happens, the u.s. has their back. that the u.s. would come and defend them. that's not what the united states is willing to do under the trump administration and would have struggled to do that under the biden administration as well. ukraine is looking at a cease fire and saying we could be left out to dry here while russia strengthens. we will struggle to match where they are and then two years, three years, four years, five years, russia will come at us again. but this time with a much better invasion plan. and they will be playing for keeps. ukraine is thinking about their

long-term survival. not just man, we are tired in the middle of the night. you see the public not wanting a cease fire that would be damaging for ukraine's long-term prosperity. they are willing to continue through the sleepless nights and casualties that they are facing because they realize that to not do that would endanger them in the long term. host: let's talk with paul on the line for republicans. good morning, paul. caller: good morning. hello. i thought this was to be a mineral deal signing. president zelenskyy wasn't going to sign the mineral deal. that's when i kept hearing this meeting was about. why did he come? why also, why is he trying to talk to the american people over trump? another thing.

when i saw a clip of when trump saw president zelenskyy and he said you are sure dressed up and then the ukrainian ambassador was hanging down her head in shame. this guy, he's -- it seems to me he's trying to out trump trump. he wants to be a star. he wants to say look at me and has these things in public. our senator, i forgot. i forgot which senator it was. but he told him listen, don't be back and forth fighting with trump. trump has been the best friend that president zelenskyy has had. biden and obama -- obama made

him give up his nuclear weapons and biden was so weak that russia said let me get in there and attack these people. i think president zelenskyy is misreading trump and europe is not stepping up. trump is trying to get europe to step up. he had meetings with france and england to step up their protection of the area, of their own area. host: paul, we will get a response from max. we are short on time. guest: thanks for the question, paul. i think the focus on president zelenskyy's dress is a legitimate critique. i think what he would say is he's a wartime leader. his country is at war. he's adopting the dress of a

wartime leader. and that when the war is over, he will put his suit back on. i think there is a little bit -- president zelenskyy's english is not perfect. he's been learning over the course of the war and he's been getting better. the term costume struck people off. oftentimes, that is the -- i think what he was meeting was suit and sometimes the word costume can mean suit. that he would put a suit back on trade we have seen people like instant churchill and others adopt a different dress dealing in wartime. part of what he's trying to convey is that ukraine is not a normal country right now, it is a country at war. trump waited that out and there was a question in the white house about why do you wear this and president zelenskyy tried to explain himself. i guess what i would say, i think the dress, it depends on whether you are sympathetic to ukraine or not. if you are not sympathetic to ukraine, you see this as

potentially disrespectful, as a reason not to like president zelenskyy. if you like ukraine and understand the logic, it's an avatar for that issue. i think what we also have to remember is that president zelenskyy and the ukrainians are very proud. they have been fighting russia on their own. they have been aided by the u.s., yes. but, there have been no u.s. boots on the ground. the biden administration refused to provide -- to put u.s. forces into the conflict. there were talks of no-fly zones. it has been ukraine versus a global military superpower. and the ukrainians are holding their own. and after getting punched in the face in the first few weeks and months of the war, the ukrainians fought back, gained a lot more territory and now they are in this really tough war.

if you are a wartime leader, you never want to show weakness or been the knee to anyone. so, there's a degree of pride here. and i think it's worth -- potentially reasonable to say president zelenskyy could have been more deferential. he could have said thank you, thank you, thank you a lot more. he has in the past. i think here, he was trying to show ukraine is not weak. it's very hard to know what was the right path. do you been the knee? but then trump tends to not respect countries that look weak . or do you look strong and stand up for yourself in the oval office? i could have totally seeing if you are an advisor to president zelenskyy, arguing both ways before the meeting. and then if you argue to be a little strong and stand up for yourself, after the meeting, you might be like that was terrible advice. i don't know if there was a way to salvage the meeting.

what i would say is the silver lining here is i think it demonstrated where the trump administration wants to go, which is that it does not want to support ukraine. now the cards are on the table. if the ukrainians view this as a stab, the united states is stabbing them in the back, it's better to be upfront and tell them we will not be supporting you. and to make that clear to the europeans and the caller's point -- to the caller's point, i think what we are seeing is hopefully the europeans will step up and president trump, having taken the actions and using the rhetoric he has used, will be the reason for that. it comes with cost i think he could result in europe stepping up. host: max bergmann is the director of europe-russia and eurasia program at the center for strategic and international studies. you can find his work online at

csis.org. thank you for being with us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: still had this morning on washington journal, robin rudowitz with kff will join us to discuss the state of medicaid and the impact of potential cuts to the program as house republicans seek to offset the costs of their -- their plan. but first, open forum. here are the lines. (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. ♪ >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. as a look at what's coming up this weekend at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

they examine the decline of religiosity in america and what it means for the health of american democracy. and then at 10:00 p.m., kevin fagan with his book, the lost and found, a true story of homelessness, found family and second chances reports on the underlying issues of homelessness in america. centered by shaun donovan. at 11:00 p.m. eastern, pagan kennedy with her book, the secret history of the rape kit. watch book tv, every sunday on c-span two and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online at book tv.org. >> next week on the c-span networks, the house and senate are in session. the house will vote on

legislation to repeal biden administration energy and environmental rules. the senate continues voting on president trump's cabinet nominations, including secretaries of education and labor. both chambers are facing march 14 government funding deadline. the house could vote to extend funding to the end of september to avoid a shutdown. tuesday, they considered the nomination of matthew whitaker as u.s. ambassador to nato. tuesday evening, president delivers an address before a joint session of congress. wednesday, the mayors of boston, chicago, denver and new york city testified before the house oversight committee on the policies of sanctuary cities. c-span continues our confirmation -- our coverage of confirmation hearings. on wednesday, dr. jay as the

director of the national institute of health. and then martin makary. also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information. or, to watch live or on-demand any time. c-span, democracy unfiltered. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are in open forum the next 20 minutes or so. we will start with jeff from little rock, arkansas on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. i wanted to mention -- caller: doing well. i wanted to mention it is a sad day. i have never seen such a tagteam bullying.

god bless america. host: let's hear from larry in texas, line for republicans. hi, larry. caller: hi, are you there? host: yeah. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i will try to keep it as simple as possible. president zelenskyy, over the past few weeks, he had opportunities to address this rare orth -- rare earth mineral deals and chose not to on a couple of different occasions. now he ends up in the white house and we end up with this confrontation. the thing is, the united states and russia are both superpowers. in order to make any kind of deal between superpowers, you have to move very carefully. one step at a time. president zelenskyy is wanting to try to call out all of the details and try to dictate to the united states how he wanted

to go. rather than taking it a step at a time. so, just saying that if he wants something truly from the united states, he needs to be able to work within the framework that we can present for him. that's about it. thanks. host: that's larry in texas. let's go to thomas in new york, line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i've been bullied when i was child. i saw the difference between a bully and a brave individual. you have to fight against bullies and this is exactly what it was. he was going into a den of lions where he was outnumbered, trying to state his love for his family and his country.

and here, we have a quid pro quo president who was impeached. why was he impeached? for trying to give a quid pro quo previously. so, if you give up dirt on joe biden, we will provide you with the money. this is it. you are providing aid abetting and assistance to a dictator, a murderer, an individual who plans his bombs and sends his missiles to children's hospitals in ukraine. mr. zielinski, president zelenskyy, you are not a dictator -- mr. zelenskyy,

president zelenskyy, you are not a dictator. you are one of the most heroic people. that's all i have to say, thank you. host: that was thomas in new york. robert in cincinnati, ohio. line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i've seen the conference between ukraine and president trump. i felt that donald trump was very disrespectful in how he presented himself to the ukrainian president. ukraine is a buffer between russia and the western european s. if russia conquered ukraine,

they will go to poland. then we will be in a world war. we have to continue to support ukraine. if not, we are going to have a world war -- world war iii. thank you for your time. time, and god bless the united states. god bless ukraine. thank you. host: i wanted to share some other news, this from today's "wall street journal," trump to declare english official language. the article says that the president is expected to sign an executive order. it would resend a federal mandate signed by former president bill clinton that agencies and other recipients of federal funding are required to provide language assistance to non-english speakers.

officials said agencies will still be able to provide documents and services in language other than english, according to a white house summary of reporters, according "wall street journal to the. -- according to the "wall street journal." it is to promote unity, establish efficiency and the government, and provide a pathway to civic engagement. the article goes on to say though the u.s. does not have an official language, applicants must pass a test demonstrating an ability to read, write, and speak english to become naturalized citizens. most americans, more than 78%, speak only english at home, but millions of americans primarily speak other languages, such as spanish, chinese, and tagalog.

more than 30 states have passed legislation designating english as their official language. back to your calls. let's start with built in albany, new york. line for republicans. hi, bill. caller: hi. good morning. you know, looking objectively, and i watched c-span before the "washington journal." you had the whole thing on, from start to finish. it seemed like everything was going well, and president trump was being very, you know, congenial with president zelenskyy. from the way i see it, using common sense, what touched off president trump was when president zelenskyy said that things could have been in america. he said the ocean was protecting

us, and he says, "it will happen here to you." and you can see come all of a sudden, trump turned from being very polite and very, you know, that really got him. in other words, what president zelenskyy was saying is you are going to be attacked, the united states will be attacked by russia, and that is when donald trump, you know, flew off the handle and said, you cannot tell us what will happen to us. we know what we have. we are strong. that is really what did it, because he was, you know, brought him here, trying to negotiate, trying to get peace, trying to stop the shootings, and i think that's the thing, if anybody goes back and looks it up, you will see at that point was when it happened, when he said the ocean keeps us from being invaded, and it will

happen here, and that is when president trump got upset, and probably in a way rightfully so, because he was saying that we were going to be, you know, attacked, i guess. i just wanted to make that point to people. if you just watch and look at it objectively at that point, you will see it. ok? host: that was built in new york. peter in north conway, new hampshire, live are independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i'd like to offer the following background on the disputed areas between russia and ukraine. 270 years ago, catherine the great annexed that area, giving them access to the mediterranean and the atlantic during the winter, and they built a naval

base there, comparable to pearl harbor. following stalin's death, in 1953, cruise ships wanted to be premier, and he wanted to get ukraine to support him. he gifted the donbas and crimea to ukraine. following the fall of the ussr, in 1995, the united states and russia provided -- agreed to provide security to ukraine, but they would move their nuclear weapons back to russia. they did that within a year. donbas and crimea is largely

occupied or populated by russians. putin believes that the 270-year history is more important than the 70 year since 1953, and that donbas and ukraine -- and crimea should revert back to russia. that's the fundamental reason for the war. thank you. host: peter in new hampshire. nancy, myrtle beach, south carolina, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want to address quickly one thing to a previous caller who said you need to watch the whole entire video. well, i watch the whole entire

video. this was absolutely in ambush, with the russian media, they are telling lies. it was embarrassing and appalling what i saw on the world stage. trump and jd trying to bully zelenskyy into making a deal, signing a deal. the democrats always knew that trump would become a dictator trump would be the one to give up ukraine to putin. although ukraine is trying to do the right thing by getting up 50% of minerals, all he's asking, which is a huge deal, is to make sure his country has security. he does not trust putin and russia, so why should we? we should not trust him, either.

i don't understands why the country won'tc open their eyes to see what trump is and what he's doing is showing weakness, not strength. i never felt so unsafe in my own country as i do now. if we don't wake up soon, we will not have a country. thank you for taking my call. host: that was nancy in south carolina. a headline from this morning's "new york times," in show of force, china puts pacific on notice as u.s. priorities shift. the u.s. says china has in recent weeks staged military drills off australia and vietnam, sending pointed warnings near and far, neither with a full-fledged exercise, but taken together china's recent show of force, experts say, they convey a message.

the region must not ignore beijing's power and claims. three chinese naval ships, including a cruiser with 112 missile tubes, showed up in the waters near australia last month, only announcing plans to fire artillery for practice after the exercise had started. a few days later, on monday, chinese forces held live fire drills in the gulf of tonkin, after vietnam pressed its territorial claims in the gulf. meanwhile, chinese military aircraft buzz the skies near taiwan almost daily. while washington is consumed with other matters, from ukraine in the middle east to budget cuts at the pentagon, china keeps pressing. the exercises, while relatively brief, highlight that china's military reach is likely to keep growing, regardless of whether the trump ultimately tries to confront china or pull it into some kind of deal.

just a few minutes left. let's hear from sharon in south carolina, line for republicans. good morning. caller: no, i'm on the line for democrats. anyway, the comment that i want to make is, that the meeting yesterday, it was appalling. it was disgusting for trump and vance to carry on and bring out the way they were. president zelenskyy was there to make peace. he was there to get some questions answered and to get some clarification. that's what he was therefore. and my thing is, and i want to ask the previous guest that you had, why isn't putin there at the meeting? why isn't he they are to answer these questions, him and zelenskyy get together, and put an end to the cease-fire? why does trump have to stand in the middle of what they need to do for their country to make

peace? ok? he wants to be a dictator, mr. trump, well, you know what? you better watch it. you may bring hell on this country here, ok, and you may be ready to hide in your bunker with your family, but please be careful of donald trump and what he does. he's showing it right now. now my thing is, why can't zelenskyy input and come to the table together? host: that was sharon. let's hear from shawn in idaho, independents line. good morning. caller: good morning. here's the deal. we have 2 million hungry children in america. and we are giving away billions of dollars to ukraine. my best friend is russian, and i have a really good friend who is

ukrainian. my friend from ukraine is a doctor. he was a doctor there. he had to flee the country, because that country is the most corrupt country in europe. we all considered ukraine to be the most corrupt country in europe, and we are giving away all of our money, when we could save our hungry children here in the u.s. this whole thing -- and trump is -- trump is protecting us. if russia takes over ukraine, they will not invade any other country. it is ridiculous, and the media is playing that ukraine is some great country. they are the most corrupt country in europe, and we are giving away all of our money.

host: that was sean. we want to give you a programming note for the upcoming, where president trump is scheduled to address a joint session of congress next week. that is happening on tuesday. he will lay out his priorities and vision for the country during his second term. we will have live coverage beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, with a preview, and that will be followed by the president's speech at 9:00, and the democratic response following that. we will also take fewer calls and get reaction on social media. again, you can watch that live on c-span, c-span now come out free video app, or online at c-span.org. let's hear from kevin on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. host: hi, kevin go ahead. caller: hi, i just want to say,

if people really watched what happened yesterday, they would have an agreement to sign the deal, and once zelenskyy got in there, he started to try to add to the deal by asking for security, but that was not part of the original deal. thank you. host: that was kevin in connecticut. tom is in san jose, california, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is so funny that trump can accuse zelenskyy of being a dictator and invading ukraine when we all saul russia invaded ukraine, but yet his followers, they believe him, whatever he says. i think it is so funny. and now republicans are such cowards that they are not even doing town halls, because so many people are upset with what is going on with trump. even after they gave praise,

these republicans praising, we have these shots of them shaking hands with zelenskyy, after trump and vance ambushed him, they took all those down. what a bunch of cowards republicans are! they are going to just put their tails between their legs and hide! and if you don't vote these guys out, they are going to take over our medicaid, they are going to take away everything that we have fought for, and i'm saying, you know, you cannot convince his followers that their own eyes saw putin invaded ukraine. they just believe whatever trump says! it is disgusting! they are cowards! and graham is a grunt. give me a break. host: mike in california. good morning. caller: how are you doing? yes, i'm glad to see what is going on.

zelenskyy is doing the right thing, and i know trump is booing him and all that. people in red states, when elon musk goes after medicaid, medicare, social security, and everything, they are going to regret who they voted for. they still think trump's great and everything like that, but once he starts tag teaming, taking their government programs away, we will see how they will react, what they will do then. i want to see people in red states, they praise trump come of this and that, but when he starts coming after all those programs, we will see what happens then. thank you. host: our last call in this portion of the program, daniel in florida, line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say donald trump is the best thing that has happened to the united states. he realized that our country is

sitting on huge amounts of methane gas. that we could make our country great with democracy. people out there don't see that we are $7 trillion in debt, and don't realize that what trump is trying to do, trying to get that money and try to put it toward americans, as the one gentleman said about our children starving in america. let's put america first, and let's take the gruffness that has kept people from producing hordes of oil and gas all over alaska. the money is sitting in the ground, wasting away. we are $37 trillion in debt. we spend most of the year paying taxes to pay off a debt. when are democrats going to wake up and realize trump is the best thing that has ever happened to america?

and they should just do a little bit of reading, a little bit of study and to realize. they would do a lot better and be prosperous than poor. thank you for your time. host: next on "washington journal," robin rudowitz will join us to discuss medicaid and the cuts as republicans seek to amend the program. we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. here's a look at what is coming up this weekend, at 8:00 p.m. eastern, ross douthat and

jonathan rauch examine religion and what it means for americans. later, kevin fagan with his book "the lost and the found: a true story of homelessness, found family and second chances." reports on the underlying issues of homelessness in america. he's interviewed by former obama housing and urban development secretary shaun donovan then later, pagan kennedy with her book "the secret history of the rape kit." watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 come and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch any online at booktv.org. >> sunday on c-span's well, --"q&a," we speak with tara

roberts, who talks about underwater wrecks of slave trades. she discusses the work by nonprofit organization diving with a purpose, primarily composed of african-american divers. tara: i saw these divers in a museum, pictures swimming, and it turned out they were part of this group called diving with a purpose, and that they spent their time searching for and documenting slave ship wrecks around the world, and it's like, people who look like me who are living a life of adventure. >> tara roberts with her book "written in the waters," sunday night at eight :00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a." you can listen to "q&a" and all of our podcasts on the free

c-span now app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now to discuss the state of medicaid and the impact of potential spending cuts is robin rudowitz, with kff, where she is vice president and also director for the program on medicaid and the uninsured. robin, thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: when we talk about potential cuts for the program, the house this week improved -- approved a budget that extends expiring tax cuts, but that means they will have to cut about $880 billion. the committee that oversees medicaid is the house and energy -- i'm sorry, the house energy and commerce committee. they are the ones that oversee medicaid, so it could be up to them to reach that goal. is it possible? guest: well, that's a good

question. so, certainly, the house budget resolution, as you said, has passed, and the energy and commerce committee would be charged with coming up with the very specific proposals to meet that target for the committee. we know that energy and commerce, the largest piece of what they have jurisdiction over, is medicaid and parts of medicare, but medicare has been largely off the table in terms of seeking federal cuts, so we know a large portion of those cuts are likely to come from the medicaid program. we are going to have to see how the committee, what policies they might look at to try to reach that target. host: just to give our audience, make sure we are on the same page, how many and what kind of americans are on the medicaid, and what is at stake if spending is cut. guest: sure. so, medicaid is a pretty complicated program in our health care system.

it is a big piece of coverage for people in the country. so one in five americans are covered by the program. that is about 80 million people. particularly children, so four in 10 children and eight inch and 10 children in poverty are covered by the program. one in three people with disabilities are also covered by the medicaid program. it also has other goals. it's important for low income medicare beneficiaries. it helps medicare program work for those people. it provides help pay for premiums and cost sharing and services that medicare does not cover come as a long-term care services in particular. so medicare is the longest pair of long term care services, for nursing homes and people who get long-term care. medicaid does not pay for that, so medicare pays for that. five in 10 nursing facilities are paid for by medicaid. host: when we talk about the

people who are covered by it, and you mentioned some of the programs, in general, what are the requirements for someone to receive medicaid? guest: so, the program is for people who are low income, some people need to need an income requirement, and people need to be just over the poverty level, so that is about $20,000 annually for an individual or about $30,000 for a family of three annually to meet the income criteria. there are some higher level incomes for people, for kids, and for people during pregnancy. but pretty low, you need to be pretty low income standards to be on the program. host: your organization, kff, recently did some polling on medicaid. tell us about the findings, how americans view medicaid and the potential cuts. guest: right, so the program is

really a popular, and that is a cross political parties. consistently, our polling has shown, you know, a large majority, so three-quarters of americans, have favorable views of the program. the statistic that is always shocking to me as we ask about connection to the program, and we know that two-thirds of americans have some connection to the program, either they themselves or a family member or close friend have direct experience with the medicaid program, so that is pretty broad connection to the program. we also know that nearly half think that, you know, as we are about to go into debate about cutting medicaid, we know that about half of americans also think that the federal government does not spend enough on the program, so that is some of these views from our polling, that, as we go into this debate, to keep in mind. host: our guest for the next 35

minutes or so it is robin rudowitz with kff, director of programs on medicaid and the uninsured. if you have a question or comment for her, you can start calling and now. the for democrats, (202) 748-8001. --(202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. an independents, (202) 748-8002 . for this segment, we also have a line for medicaid recipients, and that is (202) 748-8003. robin, this is something that has been talked about in congress, and it was something that speaker mike johnson spoke about on tuesday, specifically the need to weed out fraud and waste. [video clip] speaker johnson: let me clarify what we are talking about with

medicaid. medicaid is usually problematic, because it has a lot of fraud waste and abuse. everyone knows that. we had a hearing in our budget just last week, and they asked the experts, and the estimate is, i think, $50 billion a year in fraud alone in medicaid. those are precious taxpayer dollars. everyone is committed to preserving medicare benefits for those who need it and deserve it and qualified for it. what we are talking about doing is rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse, it is your money, and we wanted available for people who desperately need it. that's what we are about. that's what we want to make sure is happening. we want to make sure illegal aliens who do not qualify are not on the rolls. we know that they are in places. we can achieve a lot of savings and eliminate a lot of these payments. what we are doing is shoring up

the program and making sure that the people that rely on it have it here that is what we are talking about. the president has said it, the members of the house republican congress have said it, and no one else can accept the democrats who are lying about the intentions. that's the fact. the leader just held up the resolution to do a word search for yourself. it is not even mention medicaid in the bill. host: republicans are doing that medicaid spending to cut something by rooting out this waste and fraud, to what extent is that true? guest: we certainly have heard the speaker say that and president trump also talks about fraud in the program. the speaker has said, i don't think you will find many arguments that people don't support fraud in our public programs. i think when we look at fraud in medicaid, there are two things that we know, and we know that there are no good estimates of

how much fraud there is in the program, in medicaid, medicare, private insurance, the health sector is a large program. we know it is not zero, but we also know there is nowhere near $880 billion in fraud, to meet those spending reduction targets. we also know that the congressional budget office are the scorekeeper of evaluating the cost savings for legislative proposals is not likely to score a savings from antifraud measures. and we often hear this talk about error rates or a lotta fraud is a program, and that is referring to some of these error rates. that's not a measure of fraud. those are usually a result of lack of documentation or paperwork problems. i think sometimes we should all be listening for when we hear about those improper payments or error rates, because that is not

a measure of fraud. when we do our polling, people also support addressing fraud, but there is also concerned that those efforts would reduce benefits for people, and i think we are just going to have to watch and see how the debate unfolds and how some of the reductions in spending to achieve those targets might be recast as addressing fraud and abuse. host: we will bring our audience into the discussion. let's start with rudy in leavenworth, kansas, on our line for democrats. good morning. rudy, are you there? caller: hello? host: hi, rudy, you are on. caller: are you ready for my question? host: yes, go ahead. caller: donald trump when he was campaigning said he did not know anything about project .25. that turned out to be untrue. and he has also said recently that he's not going to touch

medicaid. and if that is the case, do you believe him? he should just simply ask congress to take that portion out of the budget. thank you very much. host: i'm sorry, it looks like we lost our caller. we will go to michael in las vegas, nevada, who is on the line for medicaid recipients. good morning, michael. caller: yes, good morning. good morning, robin. i have been on medicaid for about eight months, because my kidneys stopped working. i hope to go on the kidney transplant list, so i can go back into the workforce. but i have been paying into social security since i was 11 years old, and if there is fraud

and abuse in medicaid, of course, get it out, but we know there is something deeper. republicans have been after medicaid since its inception in the 1930's, and it is one of the best run programs in the world, so are they going to get it this time? host: go ahead, michael, say it one more time for our guest, robin. caller: yes, hello, robin. i've been on medicaid for about eight months now, because my kidneys are not working, and hopefully i can get back into the workforce. i've been paying into the system since i was 11 years old. the republicans have hated this program since its inception in the 1930's. it is one of the best run programs anywhere in the world really. and are they going to get it this time?

guest: that's a good question. i think we will have to watch the debate, but i think your experience on medicaid, we've just recently done some focus groups, and we have come over the years, and we know that many people on the program really value the coverage, and they are getting the services that they need, including treatment as well as medications, and are concerned about costs that would affect those benefits. host: let's hear from peter in vermont. line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, medicaid benefits payout to non-united states citizens. thank you. host: that's a great question. medicaid does not cover undocumented immigrants, so, you know, when the speaker was talking about fraud, there is

only, you know, there is no coverage for undocumented immigrants. there are a few options for children and pregnant women who are lawfully present immigrants who are able to be covered by medicaid as a state option. host: when we talk about medicaid and people who are covered, tell us what the budget for medicaid is right now, where it stands, and also explain how it is financed, the state versus federal role. guest: sure so medicaid spending is about $880 billion in the most recent estimates of total spending, but that spending is shared among the state and federal government, so when the program was created in 1965, there were a few foundational pieces of that.

so one is that it is an entitlement, but it is also a guaranteed two states in terms of matching dollars. so when more people enroll or cosco, states pay more, but the federal government matches those dollars. the program is also set up that states have more flexibility to administer the programs within these broad federal roles. people say if you've seen one medicaid program, using one medicaid program, because also to operate them differently. but, again, that financing is shared, and the federal government pays overall about 70% of all the pieces of medicaid, for the traditional medicaid program, so for kids and pregnant people and elderly and people with disabilities. the program and the share that the federal government pays berries across states, and that is based on state's per capita

income. so for poorer states, the federal government pays a higher share of those costs. host: let's hear from mike in oak harbor, washington, washington, live are independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to weigh in in regards to my personal experience. my wife and i are middle class. i'm a retired schoolteacher. my wife has experienced seizures for many years, 44 of those years. medicaid for our family has been a real lifesaver, because her medications are extremely expensive, up to $3000, $4000 a month. and so for us, as a middle-class family, we would be in a world of hurt where we have to live a very low level income

taking care of her. so we are extremely thankful for medicaid, and we are thankful also for the fees for which we were able to get that for her, which was probably around 20 years ago. so that is really the bulk of my contributions here to the conversation. there are people in our situation where the family may not be destitute but certainly a loved one would be in a world of hurt if not for medicaid. thank you for listening. guest: thank you for calling in. i think your experience represents, there are four point 5 million people who get home

care services through the medicaid program, and that involves care for individuals and also support for caregivers, often family caregivers in similar circumstances to the caller. host: walk us through some of the alternatives republicans could pursue to reduce the size of medicaid, besides just. spending cuts. guest: well, there were a number of options on the table. recently, the speaker and the president have moved away from some of those options that have come up. so we don't know if those will be considered, but i think some of them that had been on the table, perhaps on caps on enrollee spending, right now, the government does not have a cap come and it varies on needs and the program and costs, so

one is that the federal government would cap the amount that is sent to the states, in terms of dollars per enrollee. there's also some provisions that have been floated around to address the enhanced matching rate for the expansion population. so as part of the affordable care act, there was an expansion in medicaid coverage, and as part of that legislation and deal, the federal government is paying a 90% of the cost for that expansion population. so there have been some proposals to reduce the federal share for that population, for those people. host: let's talk to bill in pennsylvania, live for democrats. good morning. caller: hello, can you hear me ok? host: yes, bill, go ahead. caller: thank you to c-span for giving me the opportunity to speak.

i'm driving to philadelphia at this moment. my six-year-old granddaughter, she has endured surgery, 13 hours of surgery for chemo in her brain, that has been removed, fortunately it is benign, but it had to be removed. she's been in hospital for a total of 11 days. these bills are certainly going to be in the hundreds of thousands for this surgery, and i just want to say, we have been told that medicare will cover -- i mean, medicaid will cover this surgery, as she is a child. and if it does not, somehow, it would be devastating for her health and for the financial well-being of her family.

so this issue is very dear to my heart. . thank you guest: guest: for sharing, and i hope your granddaughter is ok. and, again, your experience is very similar to many on the program, particularly for children. medicare provides a lot of the coverage for children, many children with health care needs and very complex medical conditions, and the program does provide that coverage, which does provide financial protection for families, that they are getting that care coverage. host: debbie in waterford, michigan, line for medicaid recipients. good morning. caller: good morning. hi. i'm a first time caller. i've always watched the show, but this one really hits the heart. i am a recipient. i'm 66 years old, and i have

been on medicaid for about a year and a half. and i'm actually thinking a lot of the fraud and abuse could be in the billing. i know i actually was able to go to a doctor visit for the first time in 10 years, and they built almost $3000. i don't understand this. if the bill is not so high, they would not be getting hit so hard. i'm just so grateful for the help, because it has been almost 10 years since i could even go see a doctor. anyway. thanks for your time. bye-bye. guest: thank you for calling. yeah. there's always a little bit of a disconnect between the bills that providers charge, and i think that is a medicaid, medicare, and private insurance, and how those relate to costs is very confusing. there are some bad actor providers that, you know, are

trying to extract financial gains from the four overall -- from the overall health care system, but as we know, health care bills are very expensive. we know that in private insurance as well as the medicaid program. host: neil in ohio, line for republicans, good morning. caller: yeah. hi, good morning. i just want to know, the people that collect medicaid, do they pay into it? because i pay into medicare, and i've been paying into it for 45 years. every week, they take money out of my paycheck, and i've never been able to collect anything. and now that i'm older, they are going to make me pay another $200 a month just to be on plan b or whatever for medicare. so i don't see, because i've

made a couple dollars more fairly, that i get nothing, and medicaid, welfare, they get stuff for free their whole lives. i don't understand that. that is all i would like to say about it. thank you. guest: yeah. thanks for calling. so there is no dedicated portion of payroll tax that is devoted to the medicaid program. it is supported by federal government revenues as well as state revenues, and, you know, individuals do need to meet income standards. many individuals on the program are working, are working in low-wage jobs, and therefore are eligible for coverage. there are, as i mentioned, a number of low-income medicare beneficiaries who the medicaid program helps. people who do have lower incomes do pay for those premiums for their medicare coverage as well. host: you may remind our

audience about the differences between those two similar sounding programs. medicare is the program for seniors, so people over 65 and, again, people pay into the program, and also for people with disabilities. medicaid also covers some of those people, so those are the people who are dually eligible, but the medicare program really focuses on acute care services, so hospitals and things, now prescription drugs. and the medicaid program wraps around those services and provides think that medicare does not cover for those individuals, like long-term care. medicaid also covers children, people during pregnancy, as well as, you know, working adults through the medicaid expansion group. host: clyde in queens, new york,

on the line for independents. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. you played the clip of the house speaker. i'm an independent, republican kid i used to be a republican many, many years ago. they are very strategic in their words. you've got trump and them using dog whistles and what have you like that to just amass maga people to vote for them, and this is what they voted for. they did not know, because most of the maga people, you know, are uneducated, poor whites, and unfortunately, they voted for this thank them and they are going to get hit the worst. and, robin, he's trying to tell you, and he's trying to be nice about it, but he knows it's going to hit them real bad.

that is pretty much what i have to say. guest: i mean, i would just follow up to say that we just did some focus groups with medicaid enrollees, both individuals who voted for president trump and individuals who voted for vice president harris. i think a lot of people did not hear very much during the campaign about health care more broadly, and particularly about medicaid, so, you know, across voting preferences, individuals on the program valued their coverage, and when the topic of potential cuts came up, were very concerned that those cuts would result in loss of coverage or lost in benefits for, you know, for themselves or other kids that are covered on the program. and many just, you know, did not hear about that. they were voting on economic issues and, you know, did not

think that their health care coverage would be part of this. host: the potential cuts, the budget is in the early stages, like you mentioned. we don't know what cuts could look like, how those could impact medicaid down the road, but he also mentioned your polling, and that it is popular across political parties. if it were to make it into a budget, potential cuts, is it likely those cuts would be put into effect, that they would pass? guest: well, i think the cuts at the federal level are one discussion, so, again, if the senate adopts this budget resolution and committees are charged with coming up with policies that meet those reductions, i think that is going to be hard, given the popular support and those providers, nursing homes, rural

hospitals that all rely on revenues from the program, but if that does happen, what happens then is cuts in federal spending on medicaid then gets shifted to the states. so because states administer the program, then states are left with really hard decisions, and states might make different decisions about how to respond to less federal money. states don't have good options, either. they could either increase revenue at the state level, they can increase taxes, they can cut education, which is the biggest dollars in state budgets, or they can make changes to the medicaid program, which could mean loss of coverage from lower provider rates, less benefits, so it is ultimately the states that will make these hard decisions about how to manage their state programs with less federal money. host: jack in georgia, line for democrats. good morning. caller: hello.

i just want to ask, i think with the united states has is an old people problem. medicare, we think of it as covering old people, and medicaid come we think of it as covering poor people, but you mentioned long-term care, but the people who, especially them maga people, they are imagining the reagan "welfare queen," and i know plenty of old people who are poor who medicare, they have a, they don't have part b, so it is not covering. at least half of all the medicaid spending is spent on old people. in the last thing, the veterans administration is also spending a whole bunch of money on old people, and there's probably fraud and abuse there as well. in all of these veterans, you know, you cannot touch the

veterans, but there are a bunch of veterans getting health care, the same way they are getting medicaid. and do they deserve, like this guy who called earlier, "i paid into the system," you know, we paid into social security, we paid into medicare, but we are getting higher benefits than we pay then, many of us come and stay with the veterans. i mean, half the veterans never left the country, they work in cubicles, and then they go get all these benefits. do you have numbers on how much? we have an old person problem. host: jack, let's get a response. guest: yeah. thanks for pointing out that statistic, and it is when i often make it explaining the medicaid program. the large majority of people on the program our kids an adult, but the large majority of spending, over half of the spending of the program, are people who qualify on the basis of disability or because of age, so they are over 65, so that is where the large majority of

medicaid spending is, even though it represents a small number of enrollees. and it is because those individuals have higher needs, higher health care costs, and use long-term care services, which are very expensive, again, nursing facilities and home care services. host: just a few minutes left. let's go to laura in spokane, washington, live for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm calling to ask, with an $880 billion cost to our country, how it is that you can come to the opinion that there is not very much fraud going on. that is what republican's are looking for is fraud. they are not looking to cut the services of medicaid or social security, they are looking for the fraud, and there is a massive amount throughout our government, and we have not been -- i mean, democrats really did a number on this with their funding of everything, and

everybody for everything, you know. so my question is, if you have not read it yet, how can you say that there are going to be cuts? that is my question. thank you. guest: right, so, there is no bill yet, so there are these spending targets, which are the $880 billion over 10 years that is part of the house budget resolution that was passed, and now the committee, so the committee on energy and commerce, again, if this is adopted in the senate as well, we'll need to come up with those specific proposals about, you know, how to hit those targets. addressing fraud will be one of those, and it could be aimed at doing that. it's unlikely those policies will get to the $880 billion. host: let's talk with alfonso in

goodyear, arizona, live are independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions, ok, if it is not in the bill yet, which the speaker of the house said it was, medicaid is not in there, where are we finding these issues for fraud, waste, and abuse, and if they do come to fruition, how long after the bill is passed will we start to see these cuts in medicaid that everybody is up in arms about? basically that is it. if it is not in there, why are we having this discussion? and if it is for abuse and fraud, why are so many people against it? thank you. guest: i think that's a good question, and the way that the budget resolution works, it is true, there is no mention of

medicaid in the budget resolution. so the target is for the energy and commerce committee, and we just, you know, understand that the energy and commerce committee has jurisdiction over medicaid. and if they need to find spending reductions, that that is the program that makes up the large piece of what they have to work with, so it is just a math issue. parts of medicare under the committee's jurisdiction are off the table. so i think of terms -- in terms of when people, when the policies might take place, that $880 billion is a 10-euro target, so his policies are enacted, they may not start, you know, tomorrow, but then, you know, the spending targets are over a 10-year period. host: jim in goldenrod,

florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a quick question for robin. my sister was on medicare and medicaid, i guess. anyway, they sent her a bill. she just had a hysterectomy and not much else. i'm on medicare. they've been doing me all right. and medicaid. but the thing is, when she went in, she turned around and got a bill, and just for a hysterectomy and they reset her bladder, 248 thousand dollars. she was in hospital for one day. there has got to be a problem with fraud somewhere between the providers and medicare. it's terrible. 248,000 dollars for one day in the hospital. can you explain it? guest: yeah. it's hard to comment on a specific bill and if that's medicare, medicaid, the hospital bill, what is, again, most

hospital bills are, you know, really big, and the insurance does protect and insulate individuals, both medicare, medicaid, private insurance, from, you know, those high bills. without insurance, many people go into an faced very high degrees of medical debt, because they don't have an insurer that helps pay for those costs. but i can't comment on that specific bill. host: we have time for one last call. we will go to robert in virginia, live for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is about medicaid. when they mentioned the numbers for fraud, waste, and abuse, are they talking about over the lifetime of the program, or is this just something that has happened within a year? and how much fraud, waste, and abuse has actually been identified, and the money has been recouped? guest: yeah.

and that is a good question as well, you know, so both states and the federal government oversee broad program integrity in the program, so a lot of that is preventing fraud from happening in the first place, so there is credentialing of providers and making sure that there is data analytics to look for weird billing patterns and trying to address fraud before it happens, but then there's also medicaid fraud units that go after potentially fraudulent activity and providers that may, you know, may have occurred and recover those funds for the program. so i think those things are going on. again, it is impossible to root out all fraud, i think, and medicaid, medicare, overall health care system, but there are a number of systems in place both at the state and federal level that are overseeing and doing audits of broader program integrity in the program. host: do we have an idea of when

we could know more about potential cuts, what they look like, and also, what are you going to be keeping your eye on between now and then? guest: the next step is really what happens in the senate, because the budget resolution that the senate passed does not match what happened in the house, so i think the next step is to watch, keep and i on what the senate might do in taking up or looking at the house budget resolution. if that is passed and if, you know, there are these broader targets, it would be the senate finance committee and the cement that would be dashed in the senate that would be working on these proposals in the energy and commerce committee in the house. we would have to see those budget proposals rise up in terms of a much more specific and how the congressional budget

office, that scorekeeper in washington, scores any of those policies, in terms of meeting those overall targets. host: our guest, robin rudowitz with kff. you can find her work and more information online at kff.org. robin, thank you so much for being with us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: that does it for this morning's "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4 a.m. pacific with another program. until then, enjoy your day. which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] -- [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] >> c-span's washington journal,

are alive to discuss politics and policy. coming up sunday morning, cal thomas will talk about recent trump administration actions and bring us the news of the day and former national security council european affairs director alexander vindman on his book, the fall of realism. how the west deceived itself about russia and betrayed ukraine. washington journal, join the coversation at 7:00 a.m. eastern on sunday morning, c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> saturdays, watch "first 100 days" where we explore the early months of presidential administrations. we learn about accomplishments and setbacks and how events impacted presidential terms and the nations up to present day.

today, the first 100 days of lyndon johnson's presidency. he became president on november 22nd, 1963 after the assassination of john kennedy. he kept the cabinet in place and pushed for legislation on taxes. he declared a war on poverty watch our american history tv series "first 100 days" on american history tv on c-span two. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it is more than that. >> comcast is creating with community centers to give students and low income families the tools to be ready for anything. comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these

other