and comments live. then, efforts to avoid a government shutdown with erik wasson, congressional reporter at bloomberg news. reuters white house correspondent nandita bose previews the week ahead out the white house. also, jeffrey rosen of that national constitution center will join us to discuss president trump's use of executive authority. c-span's "washington journal" starts now. join the conversation. ♪ host: good morning. it is monday, march 10, 2025. the house is in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the senate at 3:00 p.m. we begin with president trump's efforts to reduce the size and cost of the federal workforce, with new agency cuts being announced just this morning and just days to go before a potential government shutdown.

we are hearing from current and federal -- former federal workers only, asking what is your view of the department of government efficiency? if you are a current or former federal worker in the eastern or central time zones, the number is (202) 748-8000. if you are a current or former federal work in the mountain of pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. you can also send us a text this morning, that number (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media. on x, it's @cspanwj. on facebook, it's facebook.com/cspan. a very good monday morning to you. federal workers, current and former, start calling in now. we are hearing from you only in this first segment of the "washington journal" today. this tweet from secretary of state michael rubio announcing more changes at the usaid

program. after six weeks of review, he wrote, we are officially canceling 83% of the programs at the u.s. agency for international development. he said the 5200 contracts are now canceled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, and in some cases even harmed, the core national interests of the united states. he said, in consultation with congress, we intend for the remaining 18% of programs we are keeping to now be administered more effectively under the state department. particularly there, marco rubio thinking d.o.g.e. -- thanking d.o.g.e. and our hard-working staff who worked very long to achieve this overdue and historic reform. that tweet coming amid other headlines, including this one from the new york times. the weather agency, the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, is preparing for more staff cuts. new dismissals coming to the tune of approximately 1000

workers at noaa, as it is known here in washington, d.c. one more headline, this about the health agency. some 80,000 federal workers responsible for researching diseases, inspecting food, and administering medicare and medicaid under the auspices of the health and human services department or emailed an offer to leave their job for as much as $25,000 in payments as part of new government cuts. those are some of the headlines about changes in the federal workforce. we want to hear from federal workers, current and former come about your view of the department of government efficiency. the numbers to call, (202) 748-8000 if you are a federal worker in the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 if you in the mountain and pacific time zones. as you call in, cnn had this

discussion around federal workers. on cnn, it was rick scott, the republican from florida, the senator, defending elon musk and d.o.g.e. and the changes in the federal workforce have already been made under the trump administration. [video clip] >> we have seen experts in nuclear weapons fired then rehired. we have seen air traffic controllers, temps to fire them. sean duffy says he stopped that from happening. we have seen people from the veterans crisis line fired and then rehired. we have seen people investigating pandemics, infectious diseases, fired and rehired. beyond that, as musk takes his chainsaw to the government, about 30% of our federal workforce in the united states are veterans, and a majority of that are disabled veterans. meanwhile, the v.a. set to slash thousands of jobs.

you are a veteran, you served in the navy. are you concerned about that? >> well, step one, i very much appreciate anybody who served. my dad did four combat jumps in the second world war. i have the opportunity to serve in the navy. i am very appreciative. when i became governor of florida, we worked every day to make sure veteran on a plumbing. our unemployment rate. it took about a year or so. we have to rein in the size of government. we have to make sure everyone can get a job. you do that by reducing regulation, by streamlining the programming process, growing the private sector, not growing the size of government. government in washington is too big. it is causing our inflation, causing our interest rates to be high. when donald trump took office, there was no accountability in government, and there was no transparency. that is what elon musk, what donald trump is trying to bring

to the table. they will do it. they will figure this out. donald trump promise to balance the budget. as governor of florida, this is all doable. do some people not like accountability? sure. do some people not like transparency? sure. they just want to have a job. but get back to work. this idea you do not have to go into the office. if you work in a grocery store, you have to go into the office. federal workers have to get back to work. >> yeah, i did not -- >> the american people are fed up. they are tired of this. there is no common no accountability. i just went on the campaign trail. nobody said i am so excited about our federal government. host: republican senator rick scott yesterday on cnn. asking you this morning to call in if you are a current or former federal employee. we want to hear from you about d.o.g.e., about changes in the federal government, efforts to

reduce the federal workforce. (202) 748-8000 is the number to call if you are a federal employee in the eastern or central time zones. (202) 748-8001 if you are a current or former federal employee in the mountain or pacific time zones. by the way, this week, we are looking at a government funding deadline. the government set to run out of money friday evening if no deal is made between now and then gave we will give you an update on the status of negotiations to move legislation to keep the government funded. a bill in the works. we will talk more about that in our next segment of the "washington journal." as the washington times editorial board notes, the government funding bill could very much have an impact on the size and scope of the federal workforce. the editorial board talking about this process of keeping the government funded past friday, saying should the

temporary funding extension proposed fail, non-essential federal employees will be sent home. essential employees will have to keep doing their jobs, but the paychecks will be delayed until the situation is resolved. they know it has been left leaning federal judges who have been issuing very restraining orders to thwart donald trump and elon musk's trimming of the federal workforce. meanwhile, 76% of the public backs trump's effort to slash wasteful spending. he said i funding lapse would mean those nonessential employees cannot be put back on the job, and in this way, shut down would bypass those meddling jurists. that is the editorial board of the washington times. we are hearing from you, asking for federal workers, current and former, only specifically to let us know about your stories and your experiences. (202) 748-8000 is the number in

the eastern or central time zones. (202) 748-8001 if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones. regarding the veterans affairs administration, it was doug collins who released a video on social media this weekend, addressing proposed cuts at the v.a. [video clip] >> in response to president trump's department of government efficiency and workforce optimization initiative, the v.a. is the part -- conducting a departmentwide review of its organization, operations, and structure. central to these efforts is a pragmatic approach to eliminating waste and bureaucracy, increasing efficiency, and improving health care, benefits, and service to veterans. this will be a thorough and thoughtful review, based on input from carrier v.a. employees, senior executives, as well as top v.a. leaders. our goal is to reduce -- from our current level of a proximally 470,000 employees. that is a 15% decrease.

we will, since without making cuts to health care or benefits to veterans and v.a. beneficiaries. v.a. will always the full its duty to provide veterans, families, caregivers, and survivors the health care and benefits they have earned. that's a promise. and while we conduct our review, v.a. will continue to hire for more than 300,000 mission-critical -- there are many people complaining about the changes we are making out the v.a. but what most of them are really saying is let's just keep doing the same thing that the v.a. has always done. not going to happen. the days of kicking the can down the road and measuring the v.a.'s progress by how much money it spends rather than how many veterans it helps are over. host: the v.a. secretary doug collins talking about potential cuts at the v.a. we are asking current and federal employees to call in and

tell us your stories. we will also open up phone lines for all others. a phone line for current and federal employees, (202) 748-8000 to call in. all others, for comments on cuts to the federal government, (202) 748-8002. we will have this conversation in this first hour of the washington journal today. some comments from some federal employees, and some all others already on our social media page. anthony writes in it seems like they come referring to those who have been making these cuts, do not have the authority to fire people without cause and impound federal funds that were appropriated by congress. it is going to be a bonanza for lawyers, is what anthony says on x. we will actually be talking about the constitutional issues involved in this process and in the first 50 days of the trump administration, jeffrey rosen of the national constitution center joining us in our 9:00 hour.

ryan on facebook saying they, again talking about those trying to trim the government, stay on stopping out fraud, waste, and abuse, that is great. they are losing, though, highly qualified, hard-working government employees through a quick moving, inaccurate method of ripping through mass firings., saying they are making many pay for the fraudulent mistakes of the few. here's is one more. eddie on facebook saying d.o.g.e. has been needed for years now. too much government waste over the years, and with d.o.g.e., we are beginning to cut some of that waste. again, (202) 748-8000 for current and former federal employees. (202) 748-8001 -- (202) 748-8002 for all others. as we talk about d.o.g.e. cuts this morning, the department of government efficiency, it was president trump who was speaking to reporters aboard air force

one when he was asked about the danger of cuts at places like the federal aviation administration, especially in light of recent plane crashes in this country. [video clip] >> there was just another plane crash. secretary duffy's concern is his department has been gutted. he has been dealing with these crashes since he has been sworn in -- >> that has nothing to do with the department. that was a small plane, and that would have happened whether he had a big department or a small department. they have space like this. they have times when things happen a little bit more often than normal, and then it goes back, and you go many years without having a problem. host: president trump on air force one. a few more of your comments from social media as we wait for you to call in. henry on facebook saying

d.o.g.e. is unconstitutional and lacks the force of law. if you want change, d.o.g.e. isn't the route to take. if it is, why is elon musk seeking congressional sanction? again, we will talk more about that, but we want to hear from you on the phone lines this morning, asking for your view of the department of government efficiency, d.o.g.e. ron out of liverpool, pennsylvania, at first this morning. go ahead. caller: if they were really going after fraud and abuse, they would not have fired the inspectors general that they fired right away when they got into power. he would go in there with accounts, not hackers -- accountants, not hackers. they not getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse. the wall street journal fact-check elon musk's first claim of saving $55 billion. they fact checked it down to

$2.5 billion. he is lying, just like trump is lying. they are both traitors. host: this morning, marco rubio, the secretary of state, talking about usaid, that some 80% of their programs they are officially canceling. he said he worked with d.o.g.e., that his agency and d.o.g.e. work together to come up with these changes, keeping just about 18% of their programs. caller: that's a life, too -- that's a lie, too. they will be spreading famine and hunger by doing that. "60 minutes" did a story on them since they started in on usaid. rubio turned into just another republican liar. host: usa today with this story, truth social post and dinner, donald trump seeks to quell the reported feud between elon musk and marco rubio.

the story going into a meeting last week in which marco rubio disagreed with some of the cuts elon musk was making. that was the report from that meeting, from those in the meeting. donald trump taking to his truth social page to say elon and marco have a great relationship. of course, "saturday night live" not taking that line, one of their centers over the weekend showing marco rubio and elon musk going at it in the oval office. this morning, we are talking about cuts made by d.o.g.e. and made by these agency heads, asking for your view of the department of government efficiency. andrew is in baltimore, good morning. go ahead. caller: hey, just want to talk about a few things here. i am a software engineer, working for the government. i just want to remind people how

much of software and i.t., which includes systems managing, operate -- managing the operations, as well as antifraud systems, are already contracted out to private industry. by cutting the actual federal workforce to oversee the contracts, which are billions of dollars, including in the department of defense, if we cut out the subject matter experts to help the contractor offices oversee these contracts, it allows contractors to waste more and more money and take more time and charge more. if you have an expert on staff, to ensure progress is done, efficiently, that is where the money is supposed to be made. everything else is a smokescreen to sell off as much of the american taxpayers' dollars as

possible. host: you mentioned the government contractors. this is a new york times story today. it is an accounting firm that has made some estimates on what job losses could be in this country in relation to cuts being made in the federal government. they put the number at perhaps one million. they estimate that one million would include 500,000 government contractors being laid off, alongside perhaps as many as 250,000 federal workers, and another 250,000 job losses at state and local government levels. what would it mean to lose some 500,000 government contractors? caller: yeah. [laughter] a lot of the contractors i work with are fantastic. if they go, and we are already experiencing this through attrition, the systems will just be left running without anyone, in addition to the federal employees, to make sure they are

actually working day-to-day. if something pops up in the contractor we pay to oversee it is not there, they will just die quietly. it will create even more waste -- host: have you thought about leaving government? caller: yeah, i mean, i get offers every day from linkedin. i'm not terribly afraid of getting cut, but i am not in it or the money. i'm in it because i want to do the most good i can for my kid'' future and for the country. host: how long have you been in it, how long have you been a government employee? caller: it will be my 10th year this summer. and also doing it for public student loan forgiveness as well, which would be nice. host: how much do you have in loans left, after 10 years? caller: i work with phd biochemists right now, and these guys are just amazing. i don't understand why anyone

would want to get rid of the smartest people i've ever worked with. host: thanks for the call. from baltimore this morning, andrew indicating that he could have some options, at least talking about his linkedin offers. the new york times story on the impact of the loss of federal workers goes into that on some skills highly sought in this country, some very specific to the federal government. those pushed out of health-care roles come about 60% of the federal workforce, are likely to find plenty of options. -- those pushed out of health-care roles, about 16% of the federal workforce, are likely to find plenty of options. scientists who have lost their jobs face a double where me. institutions also rely heavily on federal grants, which the

trump administration has sought to curtail through cuts to the national science foundation and the national institutions of health. and while the government employees a lot of lawyers, the legal market is being flooded. law firms often prize attorneys with government experience who advise clients on compliance and dealing with federal investigation. but if the new administration dolls that on oversight, as promised, those firms may struggle to keep their existing lawyers busy. that from the new york times this morning kate asking for your view of d.o.g.e. (202) 748-8000 if you are in the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 if you're in the mountain or pacific time zones. this is edward in manhattan. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning to all the c-spaners out there. i'm a vietnam -- a proud marine corps vietnam vet and been using

the v.a. for 25 years here in new york. i can say that the mental health capability needs to be improved. i do not know how it is around the rest of the country, but here, certainly, mental health needs to be improved. there just not enough therapists to do therapy, and it is rationed out -- host: are you talking about -- caller: i submitted two claims to the v.a., which were approved, thank god, for my ptsd , depression, and anxiety. you know, caused a that. the counselor who helped me during covid, the counselor at the v.a. who helped me, his parents died of covid. his uncle and his cousin died of

covid. but he persisted. he kept on. i was just amazed at the dedication of this young man, what he was doing for me and, i presume, other vets -- host: are you worried that people like that young man -- caller: my quick view of d.o.g.e. is i approve everything musk is doing, but i am not a federal employee. host: are you worried about people like that young man will leave federal service, in light of efforts to drastically reduce the size of government? caller: my sense is that, as collins said in that clip, they want to improve service to the veteran. that's their goal. and i hope it is, hope he is not just saying that. but yes, what you said is a direct possibility, sure. host: that is edward in new york. this is roger in california. good morning to you. caller: yes.

i think you are saying the point of all this. the point is where is the justification for these positions? why does the government hire hundreds of thousands of people? in the total workforce, i believe, is 2 million -- host: if you are not counting military. caller: i am talking civilian workforce. all these people, and they cannot justify, and almost 100,000 so far have gladly said they would leave tomorrow with a buyout. what does that tell you? it tells you a lot of these people are not doing much of anything. the fact that the democratic party will not endorse a single job cut, not one -- their position is every single position in the federal government is needed, or the world will end, and that is what c-span should be doing.

and quite frankly, only having former government employees or retired government employees talking, without having the rest of the country participate in this discussion, is biased. you need to know that. host: that is roger in california. allowing folks to call in. (202) 748-8002 for all others. if you are a current or federal employee, (202) 748-8000 in the eastern central time zones. (202) 748-8001 if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones. also looking for your comments on social media as well. this is larry, responding to a previous call or come asking why the trump administration let go of many of the agencies' inspectors general. larry saying if the inspectors general have been doing their dog, they would not have been the hundreds of billions oof bs -- of bs in the budget that d.o.g.e. has been

finding. this from frank and marilyn, if i were a federal ploy, no way i would call into this segment and risk my job, talking about the green card holder phd student at columbia who is now being detained because he protested gaza. one more from kristie, saying the government was never meant to be this bloated and fraught with so much waste and abuse of the system. carry on putting it back down to at least half of what it is now, and that would be a great start. too many things have been turned over to the fact that you have been at the state level or private sector. (202) 748-8000 to call in if you are a federal employee. (202) 748-8001 if you are a federal employee in the mountain and pacific time zones. (202) 748-8002 for all others. this is cheryl in florida. caller: hi, thanks for taking my call. first of all, you are so good-looking and so nice, probably one of the nicest hosts

on c-span. i want to get that out of the way. host: so what is your feeling on federal employees? caller: after spending almost 20 years involved with the federal government and serving in the united states army, honorably, i am happy about d.o.g.e. and every american taxpayer should be shouting from the rooftops. it is the most inefficient, biggest waste of taxpayer dollars on planet earth. the federal government, there are so many, thousands, of employees who do a fantastic job. but there are thousands were paid to do not have a whole -- to do not a heck of a whole much. there inefficient. i get medical services from the v.a. clinic. not a single one of them has

lost their job, and they do their job. they are not cutting everything a person doing their job -- host: what are some places you saw it in your time? what are specific examples? caller: sir, it's everywhere. i worked with people directly in the military who came to work -- or didn't come to work. they got paid. they did nothing. they went downtown and went shopping for hours or they went to lunch or played games in their offices. this is happening all the time. but there are those who do the work, go above and beyond, and they help the people they are there to serve. so they are like every other industry or business. there are excellent workers who go above and beyond, and are worthless pieces of trash that need to be fired. we are paying millions of paychecks and benefits for inefficient workers. that's the point.

the fat needs to be cut. the government needs to be reduced in size. this is long overdue. this should have been done decades ago. the congress should have done it. host: that is cheryl in florida. this is foster out of maryland. caller: hello. i work in the federal government over 35 years and worked at seven different agencies. h.u.d., fema, us met, nih, the department of education, the fda, in budget and finance. i didn't see any fraud, didn't see any lazy employees. the first thing the trump administration needs to do, each government agency has to do a financial statement. you have to send it -- it tells

how much money is spent, how much obligation there is the other thing is they need to go to the inspectors general. they are the people who look for waste and fraud. -- when i was in the government, i had 4400 hours of sick leave. i had 4400 hours of sick leave. 35 years. host: and you never took them? caller: when you first come in, you go on probation for three years. after that, you become a career employee. you can transfer after 30 days of working permanently, you can go anywhere in the government. i may have applied 200 something for other jobs, going to another agency. sometimes i would submit 40 a month. to me, a government job is the best job in america. host: why do you think that

there are americans like the caller before you that have a poor view of federal workers. she said of course there are good ones, but said that there are -- there is a lot of waste and abuse, a lot of lazy people, as she described them. caller: i had a college degree when i started at the federal government. college degree people have a different kind of personality. work hard to be promoted, see what i'm saying? a lot of times it's rumors, you know? when i was at fda, i worked three days a week at home. but i didn't do it, i came in, i'd liked being in the office. for the fda, they were like very professional, very career oriented. very customer service oriented. host: anything else you want to add? caller: another thing, government employees are paid maybe $10,000 less than people in private industry. ok?

when private industry comes back up, they go back. they go back to private industry. host: that was foster in maryland. david, good morning, delaware. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. host: are you a federal employee? caller: no. host: what is your view of federal employees? caller: i don't really have a view of the employees, per se. i mean, i think they are just normal americans who are trying to do their job. host: do you think that the changes we have seen in the past 50 days have been a good thing? caller: i do not. i generally agree that the government could run more efficiently and that there is probably a lot of waste in it. but i think that the way that it has been handled is completely

wrong. i think it is the result of decades of congressional incompetence that has resulted in them yielding the power to change the federal government to the executive branch. whether it is constitutional or not, the republicans are giddy. the democrats are impotent in their rage. but they have only themselves to blame, because they have not been able to change the programs, make the programs better, you know, in the appropriations. make the government work more efficiently. and so, the voters are responsible for putting this process in place.

i think, in general, we are screwed because of the political situation. but the way that this is being done is just wrong. host: headline today from "the new york times," science and anxiety with politics mixing at a rally." "the trump chopping of jobs and funding." "a protest on friday at the lincoln memorial called for a stand up for science. the protest including federal workforce members, those who support them, members of congress with a lot of government jobs in their district, including jamie raskin of maryland, one of several dozen stand up for science rallies held on friday in cities around the country, jamie raskin putting out a tweet about it, tons of marylanders rallied at the lincoln memorial with dr. frank -- francis collins, and

bill nye, the science guy, with thousands of others to tell maga to let our scientists get back to work for the common good. back to your phone calls, asking for your view of doge from all over the country, especially from current and former federal employees as well. john, ohio, good morning. caller: hopefully i can put this in the right terms. so, doge is supposed to turn the government to bring in the revenue without spending revenue , you know? paying it out. so, by taking some of the government employees and having them maybe reemploy in the private sector, you are going to bring more tax dollars into the private sector rather than the

government paying them money from our tax dollars that goes to the government employees. i don't know, i think i'm making sense. i think that's the whole premise of trump, trying to bring more private sector jobs in, with the tariffs. hopefully that will work. hopefully we will have some more manufacturing or what have you coming in, re-employing our government people that are being , you know, laid off, if you will. they will go into the private sector. the tax base will go up from the private sector into the government. the government money, the tax base that was paying the government workers, will be saved. maybe we can pare that down a little bit? you know, it's going to take time to pare that -- pay that

debt down, by the way. prices won't go down in a year. it will take time. hopefully, in four years we can all look back at this and all get together united and, you know, get our country back on track and before one another, not against each other. that's about what i wanted to say. i hope that people, let's just get together, man, be united. host: carl, gaithersburg, maryland, good morning. caller: hello, good morning. i'm a current federal government employee. that was on a contingent higher. i had a two-year conditional employment. fortunately, i still have my job . i am very grateful for that. although i can appreciate those who have lost their jobs. as far as doge is concerned, i think that what they are doing is necessary, but like most

people i don't like the way that they are doing it. recently, at the recommendation from c-span, i listened to tom coburn's book, debt bomb. i think he has a much more sane approach to doing it. he was in favor of eliminating obama and for eliminating the department of education. i especially liked this thing where he was looking at the inefficiencies of government and the report from the general services organization where they were officially reporting that the federal government was duplicating services. i think they should go after those things first and do this more gradually. host: in terms of duplicating services, do you see it in your work? caller: not in my current work.

i've been a federal government employee for about 19.5 years now. i spent the first probably 19 years working in the office of the inspector general. i don't know that i ever saw duplicate work myself. i did have exposure to that gao report. one of the things i had wished that my office had done was to take that report and investigate or just do reports on those suppose it or alleged duplications to see if money could be saved. host: what got you turned on to the late senator tom coburn of oklahoma? you mentioned his book, "the debt bomb, a bold plan to stop washington from bankrupting america," it came out in the 2010s. caller: that's right. because i was listening to my favorite program, c-span, somebody had mentioned the book

earlier this year. they were talking about what doge was going to do and how doge should go about it, a caller recommended the book, so i decided to get to my local library. there is a service called hoopla that gets you audiobooks through the public library in montgomery county. i got the book and listened to it as i was driving around. host: you can also listen to it and watch the interview from 2012 where he sat down with peter for our "in-depth" program when we talked to authors about their favorite various books. you can find on our website, december 2, 2012, a sit down with tom coburn. c-span.org is where you can go. carl, appreciate the call. stephen, west palm beach, florida, good morning. caller: john, please be patient with me. what i want to try to do is give the audience a feel for what

goes on when a large organization is downsizing. when a company is restructured like an bankruptcy judge of the workforce is eliminated? what's your guess? host: you tell me. caller: the answer is roughly 50%. five zero. i was involved with two different companies. one before they were restructured and one after. one was affected by terrible mismanagement in the semiconductor industry, which is why we are going to have a hell of a time getting that industry up and running again in this country. i'm an engineer by training. the other, of all places, was ibm, the most powerful company on the earth at the time in the early 90's. just to give you folks an idea, 50%, 50.

you will easily have to reduce the federal workforce by minimum 50% -- 15%. minimum. host: why is that the minimum? caller: i'm just saying that's the minimum, if you will allow me to move on. margaret thatcher, when she came into power in 1979 in the united kingdom, the government was hugely bloated and tied in knots by the labor unions. she got her majority riding a wave of conservative, conservative way all over the country. so many look -- labor voters were democratic voters, they voted for her. she wanted to downsize the united kingdom, the british government. these people supporting her of course went into cabinet positions. thatcher asked for a 10% cut across the board in all departments. she had all kinds of problems with the very people she had brought in her cabinet, including with her most ardent

supporter, the chancellor of the exchequer, the number two in charge of that government, a guy by the name to jeffrey howe. do you know what he said? he wouldn't do it. do you know what he said in his memoirs? that's for you find out about these things, in the memoirs. he said that if he went back and started implementing that that he would be viewed as a failure by everybody in the department. host: stephen, bring it back to right now in america. do you think that donald trump is facing pushback from those he has brought into his own government? >> you bet your life. you bet your life. host: what secretary are you most concerned about? which cabinet secretary are you most concerned about? caller: they are all that way. the budgets are their power. the whole idea is to spend your entire budget. once i read a story about for example the swiss defense department. you know switzerland doesn't go

to war with anybody. at one point they hadn't used up their budget for the year. they went on maneuvers and the minister of defense told the soldiers just have fun, use up all the ammunition. why? to get a bigger budget the next year. please let me continue. host: stephen, i've got other folks waiting. but i appreciate your comments. louis, highland park, illinois next. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for putting me on. i'm impressed with how traffic runs in this country. it's pretty smooth, there aren't problems. i'm impressed with, when i turn on the faucet i get cold water and i get hot water. the water is safe to drink. the air is not perfect, but it's ok to breathe. so, i think government works pretty good for us. you hear about crime a lot on certain of these programs, but i have never seen anyone shot.

i feel safe in walking around my neighborhood. host: do you think that there are areas that could be cut or trimmed back, efficiencies? caller: efficiency is not extermination. closing down usaid is not a surgical relief to any problem. you know? when we help people around the world who are hungry or who are in need of medicine, it makes america look good. from what i see in the news, we have to look good. we can't continue bombing and killing everybody in cities and countries that don't agree with us. i think it's a great pr mechanism, to give money through usaid. just exterminating the entire program? to me that is not well thought

out. host: marco rubio announcing today that usaid is canceling 83% of its programs, its contracts, 5200 contracts now canceled that he said spent billions in ways that did not serve the interests of the united states. that tweets -- that tweet came early this morning. ruth, hyattsville, maryland, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you. so, i haven't heard anyone talk about the consultancy in training and technical assistance. you just mentioned the severe cuts coming through usaid, but a lot of that is actual services being provided. there is a whole class of folks in the u.s., and the boundary is the most porous between the federal agencies and the consultants across the country. so, you will have someone from

an agency that provides training consulting services go into, say, the u.s. department of housing and urban development as a senior advisor, overcomplicate regulations for simple solutions like housing, housing vouchers, homeless shelters, and then go back to their consulting agency, get a contract to de-complicate that on the ground in the country. and that isn't just a big ticket item that hud could immediately cut. it has implications for the communities. you have seen homelessness get worse over the last 25 years. you can look at the consulting line item for assistance on plans to end homelessness, the same people that talked about homelessness. that line item has increased at the same level that homelessness is increased. so, i just wanted to offer that. the federal workforce is the

problem. maybe it's a small slice of the problem. but the bigger problem is the folks coming in and out of the federal government have direct contracts with their own consultant organizations. host: how do you fix the revolving door? caller: first, you have to eliminate the technical assistance in training light i -- line item. how do we know about section eight from the 1970's? it's ridiculous to think that you would need more training and technical assistance. it's a complete boondoggle. number one, eliminate it. but to prevent folks from coming in and leaving and like with the dodd frank act, where you can't benefit from your role at the federal government, there is like a two-year hiatus or something like that. there are ways to fix it. but the folks in these consulting agencies are essentially running other regimes at the federal agencies. i hope that doge takes a look at

that. thank you. host: that was ruth in maryland. new york, brooklyn, good morning. caller: yes, good morning, thank you for having me on. i don't know, i think that doge is a scam. i keep hearing this common thread where everyone praises it for uncovering fraud and waste and abuse or what have you, but my thing is this -- if they are -- first of all, they should be going through congress, that's the first thing. that's the first red flag for me. second of all, if elon musk is uncovering all of this waste and fraud, how come they are not telling us what they are going to do with the waste and fraud they are uncovering? this is coming back to the american people? are they going to use it for their own dark projects or something like that? they never actually explained to you, you know, when uncovering waste and fraud, where that money going to go?

what are you going to do with it? just on that note alone, i think there's something fishy with them. i'm not part of this court is that's going to say that doge is this or that. no, i want to know what you're going to do with that money. host: one of the things they say they are going to do with it is simply just not spend it, to reduce federal spending. bringing down the deficit each year and not contributing to the overall debt of the country. caller: ok, but how does that benefit the american people? host: in terms of not adding to the debt? caller: yes. host: are you concerned about the national debt? caller: the national debt is going to be what it is. they are not going to a race the national debt. i got common sense to know that. what is it, $37 trillion?

host: you are just about right. 36.5 trillion right now. caller: this is what i'm saying. what exactly are they planning on doing with this money. how is it going to benefit america and the american people? donald trump made an agreement with the japanese president, ok? they will bring their people over there to get these high check jobs. you've got tim scott, allegedly going to invest half of a billion dollars in america. you got 13 billion under doge. we really think these people have america's best interest at hand? host: that was richard, brooklyn. kim, boston, good morning, you're next. caller: hi, good morning. i was just calling to say that america is working how the president works. dirty, disrespectful, a criminal . that's what america has turned into. that's exactly how we look.

no one cares about the next person, everyone for themselves, it's all about the dollar bill. the people in washington are not worried about us. it's all about them and their money. it's time that we get rid of everybody and star clean. host: what does that mean, cam, fire everyone in congress? caller: they are not there for us, they are there for them. when you get power, power does something to you. it turns you into a different animal. that's our money that they are spending and doing whatever they are doing with it. like if you are at your house and you have a budget, you go line by line by lack -- byline. you don't just take a cut to this and that. host: if they are not working for their constituents, why do so may meet -- so many of these members of congress keep getting reelected year after year, oftentimes without much competition? caller: you can talk anybody

into anything with a good game, good conversation. we really need to start looking at these people, their finances. i assure you, all of these people if they weren't rich before, they are rich now. they all own stocks and something. even though i'm a democrat, nancy pelosi, look at all of that money. you didn't have all that money. how did you earn all that money? stock tips? advance knowledge of stuff. it will be better in america if we start to treat everybody equally. equally. the money, everything. in the end, it's the money of the american taxpayer. everybody in america has their social security number in the number on their birth certificate. i don't know how many people know that. it's an account. host: ben, bolingbrook, seven minutes left in this first segment, go ahead. caller: i want to say you are probably c-span's best host.

i got a problem dear to my heart. i heard it on tv a couple of days ago. we give up that $2 million per day to planned parenthood. it would be an excellent start. you are talking a billion dollars per year. that's something that is easy, it's moral. i tell people that and that -- people say that how do you know that? i heard it. 5 billion here, 4 billion there, million, i should say, you are talking a billion dollars per year they could save. the government should give that money to something like the st. jude's research hospital where every penny goes to saving little children rather than taking little children off the planet. john, once again, you are the best host c-span has. host: what are your views on scientific research grants, concerns about cuts to those programs?

you talk about st. jude's being a program you support. there is a lot of concern right now about many of these federal grant programs being on the chopping block. caller: what programs, though? host: there are research cuts being proposed for health and human services, some of the buyouts at health and human services. something like 80,000 employees or so are being offered a buyout. cuts to that program. are you concerned about an overall drop in funding for research? caller: well, i have a problem, i was telling my ex-boss about this kind of stuff. he said that if you could make cuts to stuff like this, you won't have research on medicines and stuff. i told my wife that the only difference between now and back in the western days, there was no medical research. i got no problem with that stuff. the trouble with this world is we spend more money on weapons to kill people than money on stuff to save people's lives. you are talking $2 million per

day to save hundreds of babies. you know, i just, everybody said that's a personal thing. no. that's god. that's a person. i don't think it's your right to take another person's life. that's like every, every life is precious, whether it is a dog or a cat or whatever, that's a human life. i just -- this is near and dear to my heart. i'm very passionate about it. i have upset a lot of people. i've alienated a lot of my family members over this issue. host: the abortion issue? caller: you are a wonderful host in the best that c-span has. host: that was ben, in illinois. brent, good morning. caller: two quick points. the doge cuts are performative theater. taking an ax to everything. going on national tv with a chainsaw, firing all the probationary workers. i mean it's performance theater.

if there's one thing both sides should agree on, is that if anybody had a boss like elon musk, coming in and sending emails to scare all the workers, posting everything on his social media platforms, all of us would've quit. he's a miserable boss. all i have heard from 2016 to 2020 was that we need a business man running the country. a business man. well, that's not how you handle business. you don't come in and try to get as many people to quit as possible. you have to go through each agency and find out where the inefficiencies are. he's not doing that. host: there have been callers that have made the point over the last 50 days as we have had these conversations that what they think he's doing something like zero-based budgeting, starting over to say tell me what you need in these agencies and that in that sense, it's a

businessman's approach to this. what would you say to those folks? caller: i think that if that is how you are viewing it, the first step wouldn't be to come in and just make a blanket effort to get 10% of the federal government to quit and resign. i think that if you are actually working with the agencies, you figure out how lean you can get. that wouldn't be your day one approach. two weeks to decide, goes to everybody in the government. my second point is that, it being performative, even if you want to affect the deficit, every economist will tell you that you have to tone back social security, medicare, medicaid, the social safety blankets, as well as start bringing in money. so, trump wants to expand tax cuts? that's not bringing money.

we have heard a little bit about how medicare and social security may be on the table, but let's be honest, that's a pipe dream. until then, everything is just a drop in the bucket. usaid, drop in the bucket. probationary workers, drop in the bucket. host: medicare and medicaid, $1.7 trillion. so security, 1.5 trillion. defense spending, under $900 billion. interest on the national debt, a little over one trillion per year. those are the biggest line items in the federal budget. caller: it would be political suicide to cut those social programs. the midterms would be complete blood. it would always be like that for both sides. host: that was brian in maryland. elaine, massachusetts. three hour show this morning, we

go until 10 a.m. elaine, go ahead. caller: yes, i think that doge is illegal, because the departments of the government have to be, i think, made up by congress. also, muski think everything cog doge seems to be predicated -- predicated on cruelty. they have no idea what these people's lives are like. they have mortgages and car loans and things like that. if you just fire them, what are they supposed to do? it is ridiculous.

i think doge is illegal and should have no authority to do anything. host: stick around, more to talk about this morning including capitol hill staring down a potential shutdown on the weeks end. we will get an update from erik watson from bloomberg. later, a discussion with jeffrey rosen about president trump in the use of executive authority. stick around for those conversations. we will be right back. ♪

>> mr. speaker, on this historic day the house of representatives has opened its proceedings to live television coverage. >> c-span, your live unfiltered window to american democracy. the supreme court and the right hadash white house. >> could you hold one moment please for the president? >> it exists because of brian lam's vision and the cable industry support. all this month in honor of founders day, you can keep democracy unfiltered today. >> to the american people, now is the time to tune into c-span. >> open access to government and ensures the public stays informed.

tune in now at c-span.org/donate or scan the code on your screen. every contribution matters. thank you. >> in the years right before world war ii started in 1939, winston churchill had been out of government. even though he was far from power his country home became churchill's headquarters of his campaign in nazi germany. a curator and historian has managed the house and collections, her new book is called churchill suited out -- citadel. 35 miles from london as his base to collect key intelligence about germany's preparation for war. >> catherine carter with her book "churchill's citadel" on

this episode of book notes plus. book notes plus is available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> there are many ways to listen to c-span radio, anytime, anywhere. listen on 90.1 fm or go online to c-span.org/radio on sirius xm radio and on your smart speaker by simply saying play c-span radio. here our live call-in program daily. committee hearings, news conferences, other public affairs events live throughout the day. with live interviews and analysis of the day, catch washington today weekdays, listen to c-span programs on c-span radio anytime, anywhere.

c-span, democracy unfiltered. >> "washington journal" continues. host: week ahead on the weekend washington. erik, this week is all about the living government shutdown. where do things stand right now? guest: speaker mike johnson released a stopgap bill. this would essentially freeze funding although it is a small increase to defense. mostly programs stay as they are with some exceptions. this is really daring democrats to vote against it and take the blame for a government shutdown that started on saturday morning. this allows elon musk in his doge operation free reign.

that is not in here. if it does pass the house it would go to the senate. democrats, to get this thing through with the filibuster margin, that will be a very interesting vote. this is something that has the votes of enough house republicans to pass because in recent times we have seen some narrow votes and mike johnson and his team putting legislation on the floor. the budget is a method that will greenlight the tax cuts, 2 trillion in entitlement spending. it took arm-twisting, numbers

like victoria spartz at the very last minute switching their vote . thomas has already come out against this. he was a no on the budget vote would have never voted for a continued resolution it will be a very tight vote. host: did think jeffrey will lose some democrat moderates? between cr, keeping funding about where it is is what we asked for in the past. guest: looking at the blue dogs and others in any swing district who would feel the heat for government shutdown we had one member passed away last week, there's a bit of margin there.

it will be a very tight vote. the house republicans, that gives them leverage. we have rebels in our own caucus. we have more leverage in talks going forward. host: who would be the seven or eight democrats to most support something like this or put the campaign to pass something once it goes through the house. guest: it's almost guaranteed that john fetterman will vote for this. people like jon ossoff in georgia, up for reelection in 2026, very vulnerable. people like jeanne shaheen running for reelection, it could be among them.

host: cook back -- come back to a potential shutdown. a lead editorial in the washington times today saying if there is a shutdown, essential government employees stay on the job and nonessential employees go home and don't get paid until there is a funding bill. it would make the point that there is essential and nonessential government employees. guest: there's an upcoming reduction in force the last big government shutdown, where you saw essential and nonessential. those who were deemed nonessential. since that shutdown has occurred

, there is now a permanent law that after a shutdown, they would proactively pay the non-essential workers. they have that flexibility and they could go in and really add a lot more people to that list one of the interesting things, i'm sorry to use the stopgap bills through september 30 is it doesn't contain earmarks the funded project down to the program and project level, it also doesn't contain all of the report language, it's always attached to the law, agencies,

the top appropriator said without that report language, doge would be even more empowered in the court to make these kinds of changes without congressional approval. host: erik wasson with us, it is our week in washington look. if you have questions or comments, now is the time to call in. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independent (202) 748-8002. as we get closer to the south downs the agency's afton have to have the shutdown plan, what will those look like in a second trump administration, will they even put those out? will that give us some insight into where they might be looking as they go beyond usaid and some

of these agencies that have been the early look? guest: we will see friday if we have not made an advance shutdown bill, they will release that, while they have cooperated on the stopgap bill, they are like a traditional omb. host: remind people of omb's rule. they have this unitary boundary. it is not something that has been tested but something that i've been watching very closely. doge and omb is they are allowed to fire people. you are allowed to efficiencies. could they just pocket the money and put it back to treasury?

the 1974 impoundment control act says you have to go to congress and do this fast-track bill. elon musk came to the senate munches -- launches, they said you have to follow this process. you cut the contracts by 83% and let's rescind that money, put it back. that will be interesting, it could be a way to sidestep. it could be whether the administration could not spend money. anti-deficiency, which means you can't spend money congress hasn't given you. if you go out there and start spending money, you could go to jail. there is no criminal penalty. you could be told this is a no no. it could be very interesting for

confrontation. house appropriations chairman very open with this. the trump administration tried it. host: this is why we enjoy having erik wasson on this program. it's not as important as the constitutional issues you just brought up. marco rubio sends this tweet this morning announcing the 83% cuts. make sure at the very end to thank his own staff. that's week coming the monday after reports last week of the dustup between elon musk and marco rubio, donald trump had to step in and settle things, what is your read on all of that? guest: i've covered marco rubio for many years.

elon musk, much more controversial. before the courts the administration has been arguing that doechii is not -- doge is not doing these findings. that could be a constitutional violation right there. the president also made clear they would be firing anybody, that serves the legal case pretty strongly. host: this is chris, woodbridge virginia, you are on with erik wasson. caller: chris year, 28-year-old african-american, i just wanted to bring some concerns and say good morning sir. i've only voted so many times, i

do trust my federal government. everybody a part of this, however you payroll in our government, i thank you. the shutdown, we've had a few of those occurring in the last decade, more than i have seen with my own eyes. are there any more positive and negative impact to this consistent pattern to the organization like the united states government. with ideas like doge coming into play so rapidly, are there any guidelines or parameters that will combat those systems and keeping our fiscal year on track? without putting too much faith in some of these private corporation ideas, is there anything the constituents of the united states could do to call

our local legislation to attest to what is going on or to try and mediate what is going on? lastly, i would like to say the government shutdown again, the continuation of the pattern, does this situation affect our allies and their financial diplomacy as far as on foreign entities, do we need to be worried about how we affect their dollar and not only ours? thank you and have a good day. host: thanks for the questions. where do you want to start? guest: shutdowns and continuing resolutions, are they a bad way? and the stopgaps. full appropriations process, there's a chance for congress through its oversight power to update contracts. we are seeing in the stopgap for defense, it has never operated

in its history under a full year with stopgap measures. the flexibility to move money around and start some new weapons buys. it is especially important for defense contractors that these new weapons systems with submarines, ships, to get underway. the stopgap normally would prevent that. they put some wiggle room language in here. throughout the rest of the agencies they don't have that ability. programs aren't working to move them around. traditionally, congress agrees it is a bad way to run the show. the need for bipartisan group is led again and again to these funding clips and these continuing resolutions. i think that is actually

starting to work. tom cole is the head of the appropriations committee. he was very concerned with doge and elon musk recommending the closure of three buildings in his oklahoma district. he revealed over the weekend he had those reversed. we will see a lot more of that, especially if you have republican members. if you find out the social security office in your area or a federal building, we have seen a lot of cuts to the native american school system, they might be able to get reversed. there were some other questions there. host: about what it means for our allies? guest: the real thing and there is the end of usaid, many people including marco rubio were big supporters of.

they spend a lot on the military. we'll probably have to spend a lot more, sort of posture. with africa especially, you see china and other nations rushing in, russia as well to gain influence. a lot of our critical minerals and resources, especially in africa is spending to combat the aids crisis and other health emergencies, the sudden withdrawal, the lead to global instability. host: we are in fiscal year 2025, we are about six months into the fiscal year. what is going on with fiscal 2026? is there anything happening now to avoid getting into this situation again? guest: you keep backing up and it leads to a continuous circle.

the president's budget is the start of the process. that supposed to be the second week of february. that is pretty typical for the first administration. in the past, president trump talked about major cuts that were never made. the deficit ballooned under his presidency. that normally would get reviewed and the committees would start with their hearings. they have a bunch of subcommittees. supposedly during the summer they will pass individual bills. probably we are already in track. they have a unified control. republicans will put together some deep cuts. they could pay us short term if

they can't get the long-term through. in 2026, the risk will be high. to permanently -- all the programs they don't like could lead to a shutdown. host: what would be a short-term fix to this problem? guest: i think people on the hill are talking about a six-week stopgap. it is an automatic spending cut. when they got into law, that is after april 30. they will back up against that deadline to maybe complete the full bills. they really can't get the long-term stopgap through the house. and then we see things going on for a couple of weeks on that.

host: michael in the bay state, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to have your guests speak to the inefficiency of government. specifically with technology. the distribution of money, which is very inefficient. what unions don't want is they don't want you to discover our nation, technology, anything. it's time to reduce the government and talk about essential workers versus non-essential workers. it is the unions creating jobs that make more jobs. they will keep fighting. employing ai and modern technology to reduce the number of workers, thank you. guest: i think it is

fascinating. i'm not an expert. how could ai really use the streamlined. you are going to have to have decisions made by human beings. the one thing we saw, the predecessor to doge, it was an example of government technology , making it must -- much easier in many states to file their taxes. that is not ai, that is a technological fix with a terrible form and making it easier. even democrats, most of them agree that the government is inefficient. there could be a lot of reforms.

when you fire all of the probationary employees, potentially young, cheaper federal workers that could bring some new ideas. the president himself in a recent trip social post said he is hearing some of that complaints as far as across-the-board cup. -- cuts. employees from my understanding, people who were just recently promoted, it is actually the best people. maybe in the end we find compromise here. a more detailed approach. we will see, there is a deadline for the reduction in force plans. they gets rid of local staff and embassies. we are getting towards more of a detailed approach across-the-board that even drift some criticisms. host: any thoughts on federal

employee unions? union membership is significantly higher than it is in the private sector. amid these cuts that union members in the federal government are increasing, people are joining unions in the wake of what they are seeing in the past 50 days. guest: their collective bargaining agreements, we see on tsa, the veteran dhs secretary moving to curtail this. that will all go up into the course. they do specify the methods in which people should be removed. there is performance reviews, that is a process. proponents of it say there is a civil service law. they are the ones who maintain this and it is a more politicized job. they are controversial. host: just a number from the

economic policy institute, private-sector unionization was about 7% in 2023. the federal and state workers as well. that is 36%. this is dee in sparks, nevada, good morning. caller: could you hear me? host: yes. caller: i love the show. there was a caller who asked where the money is going, he wants to buy greenland, annex canada, the money will go there. let's not forget he had $8 trillion to the deficit the first go around. he has no intention of lowering the deficit. the government does not run like a private company. musk and trump have no idea how

the government is supposed to work. musk is whatever he's doing. he never paid his bills. the tactics were horrible. he filed bankruptcy all the time. that's all i want to say. i just pray every day we get through this. thank you very much. guest: as far as reducing the budget deficit there is an important point to be made. the house budget, which is a separate process, they will greenlight these 4.5 trillion in tax cuts. trump has gone out and said we will balance the budget. musk has made similar announcements. they are not actually reflective of where defense money, there

are large tax cuts coming down the pipe. there are some spending cuts including controversial ones. they don't even cover the text. in the end, musk will find $1 trillion per year, no one really believes that. the house is going to go forward and likely add $3 trillion in deficits. assuming the tax cuts cost nothing, i could get into that and say why it is controversial. their big plans are to add. host: could i come back to canada, greenland, and the panama canal? what is the reaction to this? the idea of expanding the territorial size of the united states? guest: that is not my specialty. i will say people are probably

pretty skeptical of the idea, invading greenland. the u.s. having its own election tomorrow. it's interesting to see, i think many people believe they will ultimately the constitution the population of green land does not want to become american. it may increase u.s. base presence there, which already we have military presence there. but i think privately at least members of congress are not ready to get onboard with an invasion. host: one more call. bob has been waiting in ohio. independent, bob, go ahead. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i am a former government worker, former veteran. i have noticed that what's going on is kind of chaotic around the

country. everybody knows about the price of eggs, but it's chaotic that they're going to try to drop $1 trillion from the budget to actually have a balanced budget this year. it's interesting what that would take. it would require to take the elderly people in nursing homes that are on medicaid and just not give them any more money. they're only allowed on medicaid in the nursing homes to have $2,000, and so if anybody tries to help them out, it's got to be done so that they never have over $2,000 in any bank account. they would be the easiest ones to save money from. another thing we have to look at is the fact that if you are going to drop at least $1 trillion from the budget, you are going to have to change social security either by increasing the age or by paying

everybody less. they promised not to, but if they are serious about the $1 trillion reduction in the budget, they're going to have to do that. i am so sorry for the people that are in nursing homes on medicaid. their relatives are going to have to make quick plans for what they're doing. government shutdowns in the past were very interesting, how they did it politically. they told the public that in a government shutdown, federal workers that are nonessential would be laid off and not paid. then when the shutdown was over, to please the workers that were left, they took the federal workers and paid them for the time that they didn't work. but that was made known to the public. so they do things by saying we are not going to pay them for not working, which would please

the public, but then when they end the shutdown they will pay workers for not working. that's what they've done in the past when there have been eight or nine government shut-offs. host: got your point, bob. running short on time. guest: he is correct on the shutdown. federal workers who do not work during the shutdown will in fact be paid. this is waste off there off the bat. as far as medicaid, first of all on social security that's off budget, a technical matter. everyone agrees, including the president, they're not going to touch social security necessarily. you said if they're serious about cutting $1 trillion from the budget every year. i don't think they're serious. i think it's a made-up number of the on medicaid that is on the table. they say they won't affect current beneficiaries. two things we are hearing is work requirements. they're looking to cut $880 billion from the program, maybe a little bit less if they go

after children's health insurance. but you can't get there just with work requirements. they're looking at per capita caps. this will shift the cost on to states. so you will see state income tax, state property tax, etc. go up or states will leave the program, medicaid expansion under obamacare allowed insurance for people with higher incomes. my gut suspicion is the senate doesn't have the stomach for that. they'll look at smaller cuts to the deficit and we will see even bigger deficit increases from the trump tax cut extension. host: two good places to go this week as the shutdown showdown plays out, bloomberg.com and on x, follow erik wasson, congressional reporter, bloomberg news. we always appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: coming up in 40 minutes, a

discussion with the national constitution center president jeffrey rosen. we will be talking about executive authority. but first it's our open forum. anytime you want to call in with your thoughts and your ideas, open forum is a good time to do it. democrats, republicans, and independents, the numbers are on your screen. we will get to your calls right after the break. ♪ >> students participated in this year's c-span documentary competition where we asked students to craft a message to the new president exploring issues important to them or their communities. this wednesday tune in to "washington journal" at 8:00 a.m. eastern where we will announce the grand prize winner of this year's competition.

>> looking to contact your members of congress? c-span is making it easy for you with our directory. get contact information for government officials all in one place. this compact guide contains contact information for every house and senate member of the 119th congress. contact information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. the congressional directory costs $32.95. every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right or go to c-span.org to preorder your copy today. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.

these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen. the timeline tool makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling authors and influential interviewers on the afterwords podcast and hear wide ranging conversations with nonfiction authors who are making things happen. booknotes+ episodes are weekly hour long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app and on our website. c-span/podcasts. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: time now for our open forum. any political issue that you want to talk about and any state issue, now is your time to call in and lead the discussion. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, it's 202-748-8002. as you are calling in, two headlines this morning. one in foreign policy, canada's liberal party chooses a central banker, mark carney, to replace justin trudeau. here is the story in "the new york times." the liberal party of canada on sunday chose an unelected technocrat with deep experience in final markets to replacous tin trudeau as the country's prime minister and to take on president trump. mark carney, 59 years old, steered the bank of canada through the global financial crisis and the bank of england

through brexit. that's the story from "the new york times." that story in all the international papers today. one story closer to here in washington, d.c., secret service personnel shot an armed man near the white house early sunday morning hours after obtaining information that a suicidal man might be traveling to washington, d.c. from indiana. a secret service spokesperson said that the shooting took place after an armed confrontation with law enforcement. president trump was out of town according to the white house schedule. the shooting, they note, comes a month after a man was taken into custody after atevmenting to scale the -- attempting to scale the white house fence on february 3. now your phone calls in open forum. this is charlotte in maryland, democrat. good morning. caller: yes. the previous conversation about federal work as opposed to being

in the private sector, after the assassination of the insurance agent in new york or wherever it was, there was a lot of discussion about the cost of services. medicare has 2 foars 3% -- 2% to 3% overhead administration costs. the company that this insurance executive worked for had $20% overhead costs. that's because the private sector has to make money for its shareholders whereas the federal government has to get things done within the amount of money that is allotted to them. medicare and social security are very, very accurate. so i found that the private -- student loans, the federal government was administering them. you could pay them off. when they went to the private

sector, they charged so much for interest and if you are late, now you can't pay them off. things in the private sector cost more. thank you. host: that's charlotte. this is chuck in california, republican. good morning. caller: yes, how you doing? i have about three questions i want to ask real quick. the first question is, we hear a lot of talk about social security, medicare, medicaid. but no one ever talks about funding social security. there were funds taking -- taken from social security in years past that was never replaced. is anyone interested in replacing the funds that was taken and adding interest to it? and second of all, i was just wondering, why does president trump -- why is it such a necessity for him to give tax cuts to people that's already millionaires and billionaires?

you know, why do they need to do that? why is that such an important thing to do? and the third question i would like to ask is, i just -- i am just confused as to why, you know, they won't fund the government. i know we have waste, but why are they -- this is it. why is elon musk or persons like him allowed to come in to do what he is doing? i thought that was the job for congress to do instead of a guy who hasn't been elected or selected by the people to come in to do what he is doing. host: chuck, you say all this as a republican. caller: pardon me? host: you are calling in as a republican? caller: yes, i am a republican. but i have questions. you know, i am worried about that. you know, why don't they add to

social security and medicaid since is so many people need these things? we know we have waste and fraud, but that's everywhere. you know what i am saying? host: chuck, i am interested -- what makes you a republican? what are the tenets of the republican party that you agree with? caller: what i agree with is the waste and the fraud. but like i was saying, waste and fraud is in every aspect of the government. it's in every aspect of life. you know, but let's get rid of that, but let's do it with a scap pell, not with a -- scalpel, not with a chain saw. host: that's chuck in california. this is brian in say lem -- salem, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for the opportunity add i love the program. first, i think we need to talk about the issues in the country. trump won an election. unfortunately we have two parties. one ran on hope and joy and the

other one ran on fear and hate. i just -- i don't know how the people can turn on fellow citizens like we do. as far as waste, we all know there is waste in government. but the problem with medicare is not the people trying to work there. the problem with medicare is the billing and we have a governor -- excuse me, we have a s'more from -- senator from florida that ran public health h.m.o.'s and he was buying the biggest fine in federal government, $1.7 million for medicare fraud. why aren't we looking at that? host: that's brian in massachusetts. this is robert in michigan. good morning. caller: yes, this is robert calling from caspian, michigan. your monitor wanted me to

elaborate on why i call it a fascist town. i moved into the small town coming from southeast michigan and the first thing that happened after two days of living here, i had my constitutional rights -- there is an officer in a small town that walked in my house without a warrant. and that's why i call it a fascist town. other things, too. but i don't have time to -- the reason why i am calling is during this display when president zelensky and trump was in the office, it was really weird. one thing i did notice that there was no american flag behind the setting of this thing. i don't know why i noticed that, but there was no american flag there. it just seemed like weird. whole thing went like really crazy. if you want to get back to this fraud and waste, i still think

elon musk should stand in front of the congress and congress should nail him with questions about his fraud and waste in his own rocket program and going to mars. he had two explosive rockets already explode over this country. i bet you there's tons of fraud in his programs. the american people are giving him tons of money on contracts to do whatever he is doing in the rockets and stuff, and it's just -- it's laughable. it really is. i am glad i can laugh about it. host: robert, can i ask what the officer walked into your house about? caller: apparently he had a call. he told me he had a call, which i know for a fact i didn't call him. i was just there for two days after i moved in to this small town. i don't have the facts, but i can pretty much guarantee that i think it was my neighbor -- my

neighbor knew these two officers. they knew him pretty good. it is very, you know -- host: you have been there for 20 years at this point? caller: yes. host: you still think it's a fascist town? caller: absolutely. after i lived here even more, i learned a lot more about this town. it's about favoritism. if you don't know anybody, if you don't have any family or friends around here, you are an outsider. i have been getting a lot of slack from the city worker and my neighbor and a few other people that live around here, including the officers. they just -- they're crazy in my opinion. host: that's robert in michigan. this is joe in north carolina,

line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for the call. i was just going to say on the firing of the inspector generals, if you want to commit the perfect crime get rid of the police, and that's what they did. there is no oversight. they can claim whatever they want to claim at that point. thank you for the call. host: john is in new hampshire, independent. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i worked downsizing large corporations for 25 years, and there really isn't any such thing as a scalpel. there is no right way to do this. you have to understand the organization and go in to do it. the other thing i think needs to be mentioned is the government hired one million people over biden's last two years. so we are talking about cutting

a few people. even 70,000, that doesn't put a dent in that number. so i just wanted to mention that. as far as the zelensky meeting, people need to understand, the senators that met with zelensky before he met with trump, those were the senators that were planning on going on the sunday shows, klobuchar and the other two, and talking about how the deal wasn't going through. it's amazing how that happened, especially since it was supposed to go through. what did the democrats do? i want to see the minutes on those meetings. host: john, if you were hired to come in and be the head of doge, where would you look first as somebody who has said you have done this for decades? caller: exactly the way they have done it. they have to notify the people. email is the best way. the worst way was putting 3,000

people -- it was a computer company in new hampshire. they put 3,000 people in a room, told them all at the same time they were losing their jobs. that was a devastating moment for all of those people. the crying, everything else. the other thing that needs to be said, this is not dead weight. these are good workers, i am sure, these government workers just like in private industry. these are good workers that need to be cut. we need to get control of our government. thank you for taking my call. host: that's john in the granite state, to the sunshine state, jim, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with john from new hampshire about how they're cutting people and stuff. i saw it with a big corporation i worked for. the gentleman before, at one point he talked about it but didn't get into it. over the weekend, watch you guys

all the time. i love this show. i was so -- i was shocked. 27% of our country is on medicaid. almost 80 million people are receiving medicaid benefits. i thought when balmcare went -- obamacare went into place, it would get people that couldn't afford insurance through the marketplace to have insurance. but it was a scam. it was totally designed to stick it to the working class so that obama could expand medicaid for people that don't work. i am all for doge going in and looking at what's going on in medicaid. all the democrats, they are running around with their hair on fire about medicaid. well, you know, the republicans have tried for a couple of times

to try and get people to have to have a work job to get medicaid. i am sick and tired of this government and the people that work in washington, d.c., just getting voted in by the people because they come and they talked a good game and then they get there and they stick it to us. it has got to be changed. i want doge to get into all -- i am talking about all, republicans, democrats, conservatives, independents, i want them to look at how they get to $1 million and more on a $200,000 salary because i worked my whole career. i am 73 years old. i should be a multimillionaire by now and i am not. you know why? because i didn't rip people off. i didn't rip the country off like the rest of these people

that are career politicians. that's another thing, career politicians that they get in there at 30 or 25 or 28 and they go until they're 90. they've got to be rooted out because after they're there for two or three terms, they are owned by big government, by big industry and they don't do anything for the people that are their constituents anymore. host: jim, the numbers on medicaid as of october, some 72 million americans enrolled in medicaid and then another 7.2 million enrolled in chip, children's health insurance program. all total, 37,600,000 of those enrolled either in chip or more traditional medicaid were children from the 50 states accounting for about 47.4% of total medicaid and chip program enrollment. those numbers available for anybody to see. it's medicaid.gov, their october

2024 report. this is thomas in virginia, democrat. good morning. caller: hello. i am a paralyzed, disailed veteran. i agree with the last three or four callers. we absolutely need to put a stop on government for a moment so that we can see exactly what's going on. it seems like copping has gotten stuck in a place where they don't know what to do. the job is theirs to figure out what's going on, to choose, you know, who is doing what.

doge is nothing. mr. musk has no idea what's really going on. i feel like i am being clowned. i have been an american for 47 years and i have never seen individuals be so ignorant. we are acting like we are all just dumb. thank you. host: thanks thomas in newport news, virginia. keep calling in for our open forum. phone lines for democrats, republicans, and independents as usual. we will head to the other end of pennsylvania avenue. our white house correspondent joins us from 1600 pennsylvania. we want to know what the latest is at this point from the white house on the government shutdown. what sort of guidance is the president and his team giving

republicans on capitol hill as we start this week? >> thank you for having me. it's a big week for the white house. it's going to be his big legislative spending battle. a really key test for him. and the president has made it very clear over this weekend that he is not going to tolerate any dissent within the republican conference. he wants unity. that's his message, and he will continue to use his political capital to build that unanimous support within the g.o.p. that he needs to get this stopgap funding bill through and keep the government open. the president hosted a bunch of freedom caucus members at the white house last week, and a lot of these hardliners have typically voted against any sort

of c.r. or stopgap funding bill. and so his message to them was very clear. he wants them to come together and he wants them to stay united. that's going to be his role this week, where he continues to demand that loyalty, use his political capital to demand that loyalty, and try to get this bill through. i will also note that the speaker is actually relying on president trump extensively this week to deliver him the 218 votes that he needs to get this bill through. that's going to be the president's role. democrats are in no mood to do the president any favors, and sy favors, and so it's going to come down to what this white house and what this president are really able to do to get this measure through the house and the senate. host: are you expecting more of those meetings at the white house? could we see president trump back on capitol hill this week after his big speech last week

and in the same vein, what about vice president vance? >> i fully expect the president to be on the phone the entire week, make a couple of trips to the hill, have his vice president involved in building that consensus that he needs. he has to play a very critical role this time around to get this bill through. he will be doing everything including hosting members here if needed to get this bill through. host: switching fronts for a second, bring ution the latest on -- bring ution the latest on ukraine-russia negotiations. >> it's a big week for diplomatic talks. >> this is going to be an important week to see if the

u.s.-ukraine relationship can come back on track. there is a delegation headed to the united states for meetings with ukranians on tuesday. it involves secretary of state rubio, the national security advisor, the middle east envoy, so there are several of them who are going to be in saudi arabia to get these talks back on track. what the president wants from these talks, and i was in the oval office with president trump on friday, and we had an opportunity to ask him what he is really expecting from these talks. he was very clear. he wants zelensky to move on the peace deal, to settle. otherwise, he says, he's out. he said, it is harder to deal with the ukranians than it is with the russians. president trump is sending his

team into this meeting with clear expectations. i will also note that a lot of sources are telling what's the president has told his aides. he doesn't just want a signed minerals deal. what he is really looking for is president zelensky to settle on a peace deal, give up land to russia if needed, hold elections if needed. his demands are very clear. the ukranians are approaching this, and this will be very important for them because they want that military aid back. they want the u.s. to share intelligence with them, all of which was stopped after the oval office blowup. so is a big week for ukraine talks as well. host: you mentioned marco rubio. how did you read that tweet from him this morning about a cut to programs at usaid, saying it happened after a review and thanking doge for their efforts here. interesting in light of the reports last week of a rift

between rubio and epps when it comes to -- elon musk when it comes to doge cuts. >> it's so interesting because the white house is in total damage control mode and the way i view marco rubio's tweet is they're trying to show that all the cabinet secretaries and elon musk are on the same page of the one thing that happened last week for your viewers is this cabinet meeting where the president was very clear, he had a message for elon. he would play an advisory role. this happened after several cabinet secretaries complained about how doge is running around suggesting the spending cuts without consulting with them. the president had to play peacemaker. he has been tweeting that things are fine between them. so i think what rubio is trying to do is show the world that everything is fine. people are on the same page here at the white house and they're

all trying to cut government spending. i think the key test really here is going to be whether elon listens to what the president has to say and if he plays an advisor's role of the one thing that i think is very important to note is that a lot of these agencies have to produce a report this week detailing their spending cut plans and so how elon reacts to what marco puts out, what sean duffy puts out is also going to be something that we will be watching for. host: finally, yesterday canada chose its next prime minister to replace trudeau. that brings us to this week in trade and tariffs and do we know if president trump has reached out or will have a conversation with that incoming prime minister? >> i absolutely expect him to have a conversation with mark carney. i think mark carney is already

out on x making his thoughts and his positions clear on tariffs, and that is canada is going to respond to the u.s. the same way as the united states has with reciprocal tariffs, with other tariffs on cars and on other items, and i think on the tariff issue, it's very tricky. the president has constantly gone back and forth with how he wants to impose tariffs. that whiplash, imposing tariffs one day, then offering an industry reprieve the second day, and he has done it so many times, it's almost confusing what is in place and what isn't. so businesses don't really have a lot of clarity and the administration is asking for more clarity from president trump. i know the canadians will be asking for that as well because of the confusion that has ensued as the president has been going back and forth on this issue.

host: white house correspondent for reuters, reporting from 1600 pennsylvania avenue. we appreciate the time this morning on "washington journal." >> thank you, john. host: back to your phone calls, about 10 minutes left in our open forum. any public policy or political issue that you want to talk about, now is the time to call in. gary is in south carolina, independent. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to bring up two issues, one concerning taxes and one concerning the government shutdown. if our representatives cannot agree on how we should operate our government financially, then they're the ones that should not get paid. as far as the taxation issue, president trump said that he believed that people in the service industry should not have to pay taxes on tips and that people who work overtime should

not have to pay taxes on their overtime. i agree with the point about the service industry employees. employees who sign up for overtime or have to work overtime because their companies are doing well should not be exempt from paying taxes on that earned income. thank you. host: that's gary in the palmetto state. here is steve from kentucky. caller: i would like to make a point about the previous -- one of the previous callers from -- a democratic caller who said biden -- host: steve, it works better if you turn down your television and talk through your phone. you wanted to make a point about a previous caller. go ahead. caller: yes. i would like to make a strong point about the previous caller.

host: steve, we are going to let you fix your tv. turn your tv down. we will come back if we can get you to do that. then we will let you chat. this is johnny in florida, good morning. caller: how are you doing? we are fight ago government shutdown by this friday. i don't know much about how -- i am not a lawyer or nothing. i am not a politician or nothing. but i could know -- i do know the republicans have control of the house and the senate and the presidency. so why is it if they're doing something shady, you have some republicans that want to step up and stop what's going on? they're doing something shady with the government and the government shutdown should not be happening when you have control of all three branches. you also have the voting issue. the white people are losing their voting block so that's why they're doing all this stuff and somehow they got trump into the white house. somehow they got him into the

white house and they're doing whatever they can do to pass whatever they need to pass to keep their views. then you have the cutting off of all the federal departments and stuff. you have elon musk chopping this, chopping that. you need better management of the federal department, c.i.a. department, and let them cut what needs to be cut. you can't walk in there and cut people because you are trying to make sure everything gets smaller. you have to have people that can manage the situation and just like on your job, you have managers, you have workers, you have team leaders, whatever. you have people to decide what should be cut and what should not be cut. i really don't see no more than a supremacy grab for the power they can get. host: you talk about voting blocks and white voters. donald trump did well among white voters, but how do you explain that he received the -- he was a republican who received

the most votes from black voters in some 48 years, more than any other republican in that time in terms of the percentage of black voters for him? caller: even with that group of black people you say voted for him, it wasn't enough to get him in there. he still needed his white folks to do that. he disenfranchised a lot of different groups, spanish people, black people, women, and they still went and voted for him? come on. it don't work that way. if i beat up on your daddy, you are not going to help me. so the deal is that something went wrong. even with the three states, georgia, north carolina, and pennsylvania, i thought they all neck and neck. the democrat vote hadn't fully come in. host: you don't believe the results of the 2024 election? caller: i don't believe in those three states because i saw it. host: how did you feel about

some republicans after the 2020 election who doubted the results of joe biden winning the 2020 election? caller: if somebody steal something from me today, should i talk about the person who stole from somebody else? no, i am tacking -- talking about what is going on right now. we can't worry about something we didn't take care of a long time ago. we have to take care of the problem at hand like i say, the results was coming in. they was neck and neck. the democrat votes hadn't come in. if the democrat votes come in, shouldn't it overthrow them for the state? no. host: got your point. this is kenny in the volunteer state, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. people talk about term limits. we have term limits. it's at the voting booth. you never vote for an incumbent. always, always, never vote for an incumbent. that's term limits. thank you very much. host: chris in georgia is next, republican, good morning.

caller: good morning. i think one of the biggest problems we have is the media. i have yet to see one positive story on trump on cbs, nbc, or abc. they are just doing their best to get a resistance. even your reporter today, she called zelensky a shouting match. no one was really shouting. shouting match sounds horrible. it sounds like people are standing up shouting at each other. it was a disagreement, sure. no shouting match. if they made government employees not able to keep their travel bottles, i worked in the headquarters of the federal government, and people will take a trip, managers will take a trip just to keep their status. i witnessed one department head go to london, stay for four

hours, on the government dime, not his own money, stay for four hours and come back because he was going to lose his diamond status. when newt gingrich said you can keep your travel miles, look at what happened. they all got these zoom conference rooms where they don't even need to go to places. they have conference rooms that cost well over $1 million. when you talk, you cut everybody out, all sorts of stuff. they don't even use it because they got to get their travel miles. they get their families vacations. host: what agency did you work in? caller: i worked for the f.a.a. host: how long were you there? caller: i was with the f.a.a. since 1989. i retired about 2019. host: chris, thanks for the call from georgia. this is robert in virginia, democrat. good morning.

caller: good morning to you. the problem we are having right now is that a lot of people, especially people of color, have forgotten where we came from. let's go back to the basics. they say that we have lost over 20 million acres of property in the u.s. i believe it's much more than that. go back to your family tree. go back to your great grandparents. go back to your great aunts and uncles. see what you used to own. what state. host: bring me to 2025. caller: up to 2025, they are still mess withing property as of now, january of 2025. it's in public records. go back to your records book. host: who is they? caller: it's the same public record. it must have something do with the government. go back and look what you own and try to find out where your family tree is. do your research. let's try to get back what we

own and what we don't have, concentrate on that later. go back to what you own. you will be surprised how much acreage in your name in public records that you don't know anything about. host: that's robert in virginia. another robert in maryland, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: i am independent, used to be a republican. i am independent because this last election there was nobody good to choose from. with that said, i agree there is a bunch of government fraud and waste going on. you need to cut the fat out of the government. two places i think they should look at because it cuts both ways, the department of defense, if you look at the department of defense over the last couple of decades they have gone down to dozens of big contractors bidding for certain programs down to just a handful.

so you are going to have to pay whatever because you don't have choices left in the world. i witnessed so much waste and abuse of money in my past in the government, but the other side of that -- host: were you in the department of defense? caller: i worked at a certain shipyard. but the health care side of it, the government has all these employees that are on blue cross and they pay a huge -- the government pays a huge amount of money for insurance along with us employees. but also this is a good example. a surgery is done in my family recently and wirp -- we were given 10 band-aids to cover the incision on the back. we were charged $3,000, our insurance was charged $3,000 for 10 band-aids.

they were about eight inches wide, 10 inches long. you can go to amazon and get an equal amount of that for like $50. this is what is wrong with the medical side. $3,000 for 10 band aids. the insurance knocked it down tore $1,200. but still, $1,200 for 10 band-aids. there is a problem. host: robert in hollywood, maryland, our last caller. stick around, about 45 minutes left. in that time a discussion with jeffrey rosen, president of the national constitution center. we will be talking about president trump and executive authority. stick around for that conversation. we will be right back. ♪ >> nearly 3,500 students participated in this year's documentary competition,

exploring issues important to them. this wednesday tune in to "washington journal" at 8:00 a.m. where we will announce the grand prize winner of this year's competition. nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the afterwords podcast. and hear wide ranging conversations with nonfiction authors and others who are making things happen and booknotes+ episodes are weekly conversations that regularly feature authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/pod kas. >> democracy, it isn't just an idea. it's a process. a process shaped by leaders

elected to the highest offices and entrysted to -- entrusted it a select few with guarding its basic principles. it's where decisions are made and the nation's course is charted. democracy in real time. this is your government at work. this is c-span. giving you your democracy unfiltered. >> democracy is always an unfinished creation. >> democracy is worth dying for. >> democracy belongs to us all. >> we are here in the sanctuary of democracy. >> great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies. >> american democracy is bigger than any one person. >> freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected. >> we are still at our core a democracy. >> this is also a massive victory for democracy and for

freedom. >> there are many ways to listen to c-span radio anytime, anywhere. in the washington, d.c. area, listen on 90.1 f.m. or go online to c-span.org/radio. on sears serious xm and say play c-span radio. hear our live call-in program "washington journal" daily. listen to house and senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences and other public affairs events live throughout the day and for the best way to hear what is happening with fast paced reports, live interviews and analysis of the day. catch washington today weekdays at 5:00 p.m. eastern. listen to c-span programs on c-span radio anytime, anywhere. c-span, democracy unfiltered.

>> waj walg -- "washington journal" continues. host: today marks halfway to the first 100 days of the second trump administering. also a great day to have jeffrey rosen, president and c.e.o. of national constitution center in philadelphia. and what a start with you taking the lead. what do you think has been the most interesting constitutional question that has come up in these first 50 days of the second trump administration? guest: the most interesting question is the scope of the unitary executive. ever since the reagan administration, conservatives as well as some liberals have been arguing that the president should have complete control over the executive branch and that means he should be able to fire any official he wants for political reasons, not just for cause. ever since the 1930's, the u.s. supreme court has upheld the constitutionality of independent agencies like the federal trade

commission, some of which say the president can't fire their officials except for good cause like corruption or malfeasance. the big constitutional question is are independent agencies constitutional? should the supreme court overturn the decision from the 1930's that allowed congress to set up independent agencies and should the president have total control over the executive branch? host: what is an independent agency? guest: an agency established by congress to check the president whose heads can't be fired by the president. in upholding the supreme court said they're quasi-judicial. the federal trade commission might adjudicate claims against companies for violating eapt trust laws as well as enforcing those laws, or the federal reserve is independent. the head is appointed for a term that transcends the term of a particular president and the president can't tell the fed

what to do. that's what makes them independent. host: unitary executive theory, what does that term mean? guest: unitary executive, it comes from alexander hamilton writing in the pacificus letters, the most famously pro-executive of all the founders. he wants an executive so energetic that jefferson accused him of trying to set up a quasi-monarchy. remember at the constitutional convention he says the president should serve for life, so that he can't be corrupted by the legislature. he didn't win on that score, but he did insist the president should be very vigorous, and in a case called the myers case, chief justice william howard taft, a huge admirer of hamilton, says the president should be able to fire any executive branch official. myers involved a postmaster and the president wanted to fire him

and the chief justice agreed saying article 2 of the constitution which makes -- gives the president the executive power invests the executive power in the president to use the language of the constitution, means that the president's control over executive officials should be complete. these questions about hiring and firing, removal they're called, are central to the unitary executive theory. in the myers case, justin louis brandeis, another great hero, except brandeis' hero is thomas jefferson, he dissent and says the point of the constitution is liberty, not efficiency and it's designed to prevercht the president from being an autocrat. brandeis thought the congress should be able to protect executive officials from being fired and the u.s. supreme court embraced brandeis' view. host: wasn't it brandeis that said sunlight is the best disinfectant? guest: absolutely.

a great hero of transparency. host: on the hiring side, we were talking about this week in doge and there was a caller earlier that said that elon musk was never confirmed by the senate, that he should be confirmed, that what he is doing is illegal of the when does the advise and concept role apply and should it apply to an agency within the white house like doge? guest: a crucial question that will likely be tested before the courts and the constitution gives the president power to appoint what are called inferior officers. inferior officers do -- host: they probably don't like that term. guest: nor did lower court judges like that. the constitution is rough when it comes to language. inferior officers do have to be appointed by advise and consent. if elon musk is an inferior officer, he does have to go through senate confirmation. is he running doge?

that their -- in their court rerptions, the administering has said elon musk is not running doge. in the state of the european union, president trump said he was. host: what is your read on the supreme court right now and especially that decision last week when it came to the white house trying to cancel contracts out of usaid and the supreme court saying with the 5-4 ruling last week that the usaid had to honor some $2 billion in contracts? guest: such a fascinating and illuminating decision. chief justice john roberts and justin coney barrett joined three other justices in saying they allowed a lower court it stay the cancellation of $2 billion in funds. the claim is there would be irreparable harm because a lot of foreign countries have come to rely on this aid and it was

arguably in violation of the administrative procedure act to cancel the funds without further study. what is so interesting about this case is it suggests there might be a split on the court in particular with justices roberts and barrett. they might be far more sympathetic to claims about a unitary executive branch than they are to the president's effort to refuse to spend congressionally allocated funds. this is called impoundment when the president doesn't want to spend money congress has allocated. there is a law on the books passed in the wake of watergate that some say is an unconstitutional infringement on the unitary executive power but it's possible, though we have to see, that chief justice roberts and barrett might say no, we have to enforce the separation of powers. congress allocates money and the president is infringing on congressional prerogatives when

he refuses to spend it. that would be a significant difference on the court broad power of the -- over the executive branch but also broad power of congress to require that he spend funds. host: what do you make of some of the concern that's out there right now that the president -- that donned trump could -- donald trump could defy the courts? the dean of the berkley school of law at the university of california, if trump defies the courts, then what? saying judges are constrained in their ability to make presidents obey their court orders. guest: the most widely accepted definition of a constitutional crisis is if the president defied an unambiguous order of the u.s. supreme court. that's never happened before in american history. andrew jackson famously may have said john marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it. he probably didn't because the court didn't order him to do anything but neither jackson nor

any other president has directly defied an unambiguous order. if the president did that, that would be a crisis. if he doesn't, according to that definition it's not a crisis. it's true that the president can't be forced to obey the supreme court. he has -- the courts have neither purse nor shield as alexander hamilton said in the feld ral -- federalist papers. so it is significant that despite some very serious judge bashing by administration officials of lower court decisions, the president has not said he will defy the u.s. supreme court. he suggested he would comply with the u.s. supreme court and in that sense we are not yet in a constitutional crisis. host: do you think we throw around the term constitutional crisis too easily or too much these days? guest: yes, i think we do because -- host: when should we use it? guest: i like the rigorous definition, a president defies

an unam bigger use -- unambiguous order of the supreme court. short of that i don't think we are in a crisis. host: jeffrey rosen is with us. taking your phone calls in the last 35 minutes or so. phone lines split as usual, democrats -- 202-748-8000. republicans -- 202-748-8002. independents, 202-748-8003. folks are calling in and if they've never visited that beautiful building in philadelphia, what is the national constitution center? guest: it's so exciting. as we prepare for 23026 -- 2026 in the 250th anniversary of the declaration, you have to come to the national constitution center. bring your kids and come see it. of course it's right on independence mall across from independent hall. the most inspiring view of independence hall in america. there's the statues of the framers. you can see how tall they were and imagine what it was like to

be in the room where it happened. live thweatter for -- theater for kids. we are about to announce a new founding principles gallery with really exciting documents for 2026 that we will talk about soon. mazing exhibits about -- amazing exhibits about the first amendments. it's the most inspiring place imaginable. if you can't come to philly, you have to go to the website constitutioncenter.org. it's such an illuminating resource in these challenging times. you can find the best scholars on the left and the right, liberals and conservatives exploring areas of agreement and disagreement about the constitution. you can find justin amy coney barrett with 1,000 words about what the habeas corpus clause means. it's this modeling of civil dialogue about the constitution and a great resource.

host: i will say it's a great resource for somebody in this job. it's helpful. constitutioncenter.org. barbara is up first,barbara and. you are on with jeffrey rosen. go ahead. caller:hi, . i have a question about, it was in the news, nobody was talking about it, either last year or the year before, where president biden was not signing his executive orders, supposedly. and the question is, who was signing those documents? mike johnson, the speaker of the house mike johnson, met with joe biden a year and a half ago, and he asked him a question about when he signed the order to stop the lng, you know, delivery,

whatever, having lng available to people, and he said no, i did not do that. it was really for an investigation to see how that would work, whatever. joe biden did not know what he was signing, so constitutionally, talking about a crisis, what is going to happen to those documents, and who is signing them? host: barbara, i think we got your question. guest: thanks so much. i do not know the details whether or not president biden signed executive orders. but the question is important, because it does remind us that the use of executive orders by presidents to achieve what they are unable to achieve by congress is something presidents of both parties have been doing, and they've been doing it ever since the new deal, when executive orders numbers jumped from about 300 and the theodore roosevelt and administration to 3000 or 4000 in the fdr administration.

president biden famously attempted to cancel student debt, even after the supreme court said he could not. he did not defy an unambiguous ruling of the supreme court, he tried to do a different statutory provision, but it was not under his executive authority to try to, you know, try to get around the courts and congress. that said, president trump is not trying something new. host: how much does the constitution revert to executive orders? is there a specific place where he or she cannot use an executive order for yucca guest: the word executive order does not appear in the constitution. the first executive order was issued by president washington, who issue just a handful of them, i think less than 10. there's an amazing copy

of washington's constitution, president washington going through the constitution, writing president, powers, taking notes in the margin, president, and here are my powers. there are so few powers. he's got to execute the law. washington decided on his own that he could choose ambassadors, even though that was not in the constitution. george washington decided he had the power to issue executive orders, though it was not implicitly in writing. host: amazing to see the first president do his homework and be able to read it. guest: it is so diligent and thoughtful and included in the text. you have such a sense of role of what he was and was not allowed to do. that is what he is the greatest american of all time. host: chester, virginia, democrat. your question for jeffrey rosen? caller: yes, the supreme georges

our government officials, the president is a government official, the senators are government officials. what stops the president from taking over their responsibilities and duties? guest: great question. the constitution would stop him. article three of the constitution appoints judges of the supreme court for life, for good behavior, along with the judges on such inferior courts, as congress may choose to establish. so that tenure from judges come from the constitution. congressional terms comes from the constitution as well. the constitution specifies how long house members and senators are appointed, and therefore it is really clear from the constitution that although the president may have a lot of control, complete control to hire and fire executive branch decision, he has no power, zero control, over the other branches. host: robert in ohio,

republican, you are on with jeffrey rosen. caller: how are you doing? host: what is your question, robert? caller: my question is, you know, you said we've never been in a constitutional crisis, but just when biden was president, he refused to accept the supreme court's ruling over us not paying for everybody else's college. i did not get to go to college. i could not go to college. the reason was i could not pay for it. i cannot afford it. but now i'm paying for everybody else's college. if we ain't never been in a constitutional crisis, what was that? guest: great question, and as i suggested a moment ago, president biden was not defying an explicit order of the supreme court. remember, the supreme court said he could not cancel the debt under one provision of federal law, and in fact, chief justice roberts in his the supreme court

opinion made exactly the point you did, that some people safe, so they could try to go to college, and it is not fair to cancel the debt. when president biden tried to re-cancel the debt, he was trying to do it under a different provision of federal law, kind of a legal assistant, effort to parse the statute and say ok, since i cannot do it here, i'm going to do it here instead. that's why i said it was not a crisis, because he was not refusing to carry out an order. but you are absolutely right, he was trying to circumvent the spirit of the supreme court opinion. host: is that you need to joe biden, that other president's has that, if i cannot do it this way, i will circumvent and do it another way? guest: happens all the time. remember president trump come in his first term, the muslim travel ban. the supreme court did not do it this way, so he tried it another way. host: jennifer, democrat, good morning. you are next. caller: good morning. i was just wondering, where is a

constitutional that the president can pardon people who tried to murder federal police officers, the people who scaled the walls of the capital. those people, they attacked federal police officers. they tried to kill those people. guest: another really important question for yes, the constitution gives the president the pardon power, and the pardon power is deemed to be unlimited. that basically he can pardon people for any reason, although it does not -- as long as it does not corrupt another law, so he cannot sell a pardon. that would constitute bribery statutes. freedom fighters, insurrectionists, and wants to pardon people who murdered someone else, he has total power to do that. now, of course, no president has ever tried to pardon himself. that would raise a novel constitutional question. if president trump or any president were to say he himself could not be prosecuted, that would go up to the u.s. supreme court, and we don't know what

they would say. host: yesterday, canada's liberal party chose its next prime minister to replace justin trudeau. what does the constitution say about tariffs and the president? certainly an issue the next prime minister will be dealing with. guest: really interesting, the constitution gives congress the power to pass duties in posts, but ever since the waves of tariffs at the 21st century -- 20th century, tariffs seem to be driven by presidents. it was the main defining position in the late 20th century, was republican. in the spirit of their hero, alexander hamilton, favoring moderate tariffs for incomes as well as protection, and the democrats being less sympathetic to the tariffs. host: you talk about congress

delegating the power to the president. has it been a one-way street over the centuries? is there a place where the president delegated a power back to congress, saying, oh, this is your territory? or has always been the creeping executive theory? is that what it is called? guest: creeping executive theory is a really good phrase. host: i don't mean to coin a new phrase. guest: i think we will hear to get in the future. it is a one-way, and the phrase imperial presidency come from marcus/finger -- marcus schlesinger. it really started, the election of 1912 turned out to be important, both theater roosevelt and woodrow wilson insists that the president is a steward of the people who directly channels popular will. this directly alarms william howard taft, my hero, who is a

constitutional president, the last president who thinks his powers are constrained, a chief magistrate khomeini things william and roosevelt are demagogues, trying to secrete power in a nonconstitutional way. and resent and wilson, presidents -- ever since wilson, the biggest delegation happened during the new deal, when congress created these executive agencies, some of our independent agencies are now being questioned, and passed laws allowing the executive branch to fill in the blanks. is the delegation constitutional? and there is a legal doctrine that says congress cannot give the president a blank check. it cannot give the president power without specifying the contours.

that would strike down several of the regulations that congress has passed since the 1930's, and the supreme court has just recently overturned a case called chevron, which required judges to defer to administrative interpretations to federal statutes when the statutes are ambiguous, and in this case, the local judge case, the judges should make their own decisions about whether or not the text allows the regulation or not. that is one example of the supreme court's pushback on congressional delegation of the executive branch, and to enforce congress' prerogative. host: i love the history here. 1912, taft was running as a republican, roosevelt as a bull moose party, then wilson as a democrat. roosevelt split the vote sort of and wilson comes in and wins the election. guest: absolutely.

remember, he's yearning to be chief justice taney never wanted to be president. the wife of theodore roosevelt basically made him the vice president. he wanted to retire. he is so afraid of demagogue presidents and also attacking supreme court justices. taft was afraid that roosevelt was attacking supreme court justice is by name, justices ruling of railroad cases for workers, were attacked by theater roosevelt. roosevelt said congress should be able to pass the congress's own amendment, overturned by majority vote. taft thought that was a great threat to the constitution. it's worth thinking about the is a tax on judges today, and just speaking historically, calls for the impeachment of judges because you disagree with their ruling are pretty unprecedented. ever since justice samuel chase

was impeached during the jefferson and administration for his drunken partisan harangues on the bench, and he was indeed drunk and, partisan, who would attacked defendants convicted under the sedition act, passed by the adams administration give the jeffersonian republicans come in, say he is a big partisan, we got to impeach him. john marshall said that defeats the whole independence of the judiciary. and because of martial's efforts and ultimately the patriotism of jeffersonian republicans, the chase impeachment failed. ever since chase was acquitted, it we have come to the understanding you cannot impeach justices because you disagree with their ruling. we do not do that in america. that underlines the judiciary. so to the degree that some members of the trump administration, particularly e! online musk -- elon musk, who

has been explicit about this, calling to be a piece because he disagrees with the ruling, that is a great violation of the chase presidents and the independence of the judiciary. host: one more thing of congress seating overpowers to the executive, has there been an instance that you can think of where that has happened in congress was able to claw back the powers, or once it is going from is it gone? guest: really great question. i think back to the watergate era, the impound and control act of 1978 was a response of nixon's efforts to impound, and jefferson, some congressionally authorized, it was not totally clear whether or not he could do it. congress had basically acquiesced. but after watergate, they said you cannot do that. they also pass to war powers

resolution, another example. the president has been sending troops without a declaration of war. congress that come after a certain time, you have to come back. but corrupting the presidency by insisting the presidency was above the law, and many tried to . host: independent, good morning. good morning, maurice, what is your question? caller: i've got to shut off the tv. just a minute, please. my question is, why are we so upset about somebody trying to control excessive spending? host: jeffrey rosen. guest: good question. some people have said, and others like it, of course, but the constitutional question is, how do you control excessive

spending? if congress passes money and requires it to be spent, as was the case with usaid, is a question of upholding the law, and the president cannot arbitrarily refuse to spend money congress has allocated. people have come to rely on it. there are contracts, foreign governments expect it, and there are jobs at stake. that's why the lower court decision last week said the administrative procedure act, which requires notice and comment and reasonable procedures before you can make a policy change for bids with the president is doing. it is just not a rational way of cutting spending. and that is a decision and that the supreme court, at least temporarily, has upheld. host: so it is not that you can't do it, you just have to do it the right way? guest: i think that is the case. host: boynton beach, florida, alicia, independent. good morning.

are you with us? then we go to anne-marie out of tampa, republican. you are on with jeffrey rosen. caller: hi. i was calling regarding one of the last callers talking about the january insurrection, how the people were pardoned. from what i've read, of course they don't show this on all the networks, but it was a set up by the committee that looked into it, and it looks like they did a whole big set up, and you don't see that in all the news. host: what do you think was a set up, anne-marie? caller: the people that were on the committee, there were so many things about it. host: you are talking about thesaly january 6 committee? caller: yeah. yes. they did want, you know, i know

the president asked to get back up, you know, to make sure nothing crazy happened, but he did tell his people, go peacefully, you know, and then all of these crazy things happened. i don't know, all these things happen, and they never went into who did that. host: that is anne-marie in tampa. what was your view during those hearings, the selected january 6 committee? did it bring up cost issues in your mind? guest: well, it certainly brought up the question of whether there was historical precedence of this insurrection. the committee found, in findings that has not been challenged factually, that the president invited his supporters to come to washington, that he encouraged the march on the capital, that he did not stop violins for three hours, as the crowd was attempting to hang

mike pence, that a tweet that the president sent in the middle of the insurrection expressing sympathy helps to threaten life, and only after three hours did he call off the attack, and i think those findings have not been challenged, factually. is there a precedent for this in american history? certainly ever since the whiskey rebellion at the time of the founding, there have been insurrections against federal powers. thomas jefferson famously encouraged the whiskey rebellion could he always said that a little rebellion every couple years is good for liberty. he also encouraged violence against alexander hamilton, when a mob threw a rock at him during the early republic, and jefferson pardoned the sedition act people who were convicted come on the grounds that the law was unjust. so you can agree, you can debate

whether or not that tolerance for insurrection by jefferson and others justifies president trump's part and, but in terms of the facts of what happened, i do think it is important, you know, to note the committee's report has not been factually challenged. host: another column in today's paper, in "the wall street journal," talking about a tweet from march 4 from president trump on, i should say x, a post on x, about who protest on college campuses. when president trump tha all college funding will stop, he puzzled academics, because protests are protected speech. guest: unless it is intended to

or likely to cause imminent violence, and, of course, the question of whether january 6 is that was a legal protest or insurrection is exactly the legal question that president trump himself saw. so on january 6, the argument was that although president trump may have encouraged the march, he did not intend to and succeed in inciting illegal violence, and in the case of protests before universities, there are few examples of protesters who are intending to and succeeding in citing legal violence. that is why you can understand that philip hamburger was pointing out donald trump's

double standard. it was a ku klux klan rally. in the 1960's, a guy gets up in a clan outfit and said unless the way people are attended to in this country, there will be revengeance. host: revengeance? guest: that is his word. the supreme court said it was not intended to or likely to cause violence. that is incredibly high standards. that makes the united states one of the free speech places of the world. unless it is intended to or likely to ripen into violence. brandenburg was channeling and building on a brilliant concurrence written by justice brandeis who, as you can tell, is one of my heroes, who in the whitney case and the progressive area said that those who won our independence

believed a commitment to develop their faculties, and should prevail over the arbitrators. it is incredibly inspiring passage. go to the constitution center website and read the case, then read brandenburg to get a sense of how strong free speech protections are in america. that is why generally even speech that is hateful and upsetting and even if people gather and rally around in response to it, and less it is intended to and likely to cause any violence, it is protected in america. host: seven or eight minutes left with jeffrey rosen this morning today reminder, the house is in at noon eastern, for legislative business. the senate is in at 3:00 p.m. today. you can watch gavel-to-gavel coverage, of course, like always, on c-span and c-span2, respectively, for the house and senate.

alicia is back. we will try for a second time. go ahead. caller: hi, good morning. host: good morning. what is your question or comment? caller: yeah. my question is, how we cut the mustard here, when we run the numbers, no matter in any direction, we understand that 70% of the voting, eligible voting population in the united states, 70% did not vote for donald trump. so, moving forward, is there a historical method that previous populations have dealt with this in history? guest: great question. it is really striking how the founders did not expect popular majorities to necessarily elect the president. they thought that many presidents would not get a

majority in the electoral college, and that the elections would be thrown into the house of representatives. and that is the method they thought would solve elections. that happened in 1824, when john quincy adams was running against andrew for nobody gets a majority in the electoral college, the house chooses atoms, even though he had gotten less votes than jackson, in exchange for the support of henry clay, who said it is a corrupt bargain, and he does not accept the election results in wins against adams four years later. so the fact that the president is elected without a popular majority is not historically unprecedented, but it certainly does violate increasing expectations of the 21st century that the majority rule rules, and to the degree that a president is elected with a minority of the popular vote but a majority of the electoral college, as we saw in 2016 and in 2000, people feel that

violates the democratic principle, and the fact that we may have a whole series of president elected without majority vote, it may become a structural reality. host: you mentioned the founders. there's a great book that came out last year. it is titled "the pursuit of happiness," how classical writers on virtue defined america. we featured it on book tv. what is it about? guest: it is about the classical moral philosophy that inspired thomas jefferson and the other founders lenape of that famous phrase, "the pursuit of happiness," in the constitution. during color, i've read thomas jefferson's reading list. this is marcus aurelius, seneca, cicero's expectations, which so many of them read. what i discovered was for the

founders, happiness meant not feeling good but being good, not the pursuit of a media pleasure but the pursuit of long-term virtue. that discovery changed my life and to change the way i think about how to be a good person, how to be a good citizen. most importantly, it changed my reading habits. i spent a year reading these great book steering covid, when i wake up now, i have to read before i browse or serve. that is a great new habit, and c-span viewers should check it out. host: what are you reading right now? guest: i am reading the biographies of the forgotten founders, because my next, the next book is about how, it is called "the pursuit of liberty," how hamilton and jefferson ignited the lasting battle of power in america, and that will be out in october. the one after that, which i just started, is going to be about how the character of the founders shaped america, and founders like governor morris,

roger sherman, the amazing biography of george witt, i'm so excited and cannot wait to share their stories. here's the amazing story of george witt, thomas jefferson's favorite law professor, who teaches in everything he knows about law, and also his useful abolitionism. witt's grandfather is a key abolitionist, devoted to end slavery, freeze his own slaves, writes an opinion for the supreme court, striking down slavery. then he goes home and has a kid with his housekeeper, a formerly enslaved woman who he freeze, he has a sign michael with her, and he leaves half of his estate to the housekeeper and michael, and have to his nephew, who has come to live with him. the will notices -- michael notices that the will give half

to the housekeeper and the son. any poisons all of them -- and he poisons all of them. the housekeeper wants to testify against the nephew, by virginia law at the time for bids black people from testifying against white people. so this horrific murderous nephew is acquitted, and the horrific -- the heroic wythe goes unmitigated. host: jeffrey rosen, always one book and sometimes two books i had the national constitution center, constitution center.org. we appreciate your time. that will do it for us this morning on the "washington journal." we will be back here tomorrow morning, 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. in the meantime, have a great monday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025]

>> congress returns later today facing a government fumbled deadline which is this coming friday at midnight the house plans to vote on legislation to extend funding through the end of september to avert government shutdown followed by the senate. the house gavels in at 12 eastern. members will look at security billsncluding legislation requiring annual reports to congress on federal efforts to counter underground cross-border smuggling tunnel operations. the senate is back today at 3:00 p.m. eastern. senators will vote at 5:30 p.m. to first confirm laurie chavez dreamer and