♪ host: this is the washington journal for march 13. one of president trump's stated

targets upon entering office was the department of education, with goals of dismantling it and letting states take up more responsibility. 1300 education department employees were laid off. the education secretary wrote, we must start thinking about our final mission at the department as an overhaul. when it comes to the department of education, do you support or oppose eliminating that department? here's how you can let us know your thoughts. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. school teachers and administrators can get your thoughts in as well. (202) 748-8003 is a special line for you to call in on. you can text us your thoughts on supporting or opposing the elimination of the education department and post on facebook and on x as well.

the bbc takes a look at the apartment of education, giving some of the parameters of what it has done and what its responsibilities are. this says, what does the department education do? it says a misconception is that they depart in of education operates u.s. schools in says curriculum. that responsibility belongs to state and local districts. it oversees pell grant's that help low income students attend university and helps fund programs to support students with disabilities and for students living in poverty and the department enforces civil rights law prevent race or sex-based discrimination in federally funded schools. under the money aspects, the department allocation was $230 billion in 2024, less than 2% of the total federal budget. the agency says the smallest of any cabinet level department and most public funding for u.s.

schools comes from state and local government. announcements when it comes to layoffs at the departing of education, 1300 expect to layoffs reported early this week and it was linda mcmahon earlier this week saying that the education secretary said the mass layoffs were the first step towards shuttering the education department. she goes on to be quoted saying, it is because that was the president's mandate. his directive was to shut down the department of education, which we know will have to work with congress to get accomplished. that is some of the expectations and events surrounding the department of education. when it comes to keeping or eliminating it, what are your thoughts? do you support or oppose eliminating the department of education? (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. educators and administrators, you can get your thoughts in on

this topic as well, (202) 748-8003. it was the president himself in the oval office during an evening with the irish prime minister asked about the to part and of education and his goals for it. here's a portion from yesterday. [video clip] >> i have 59 hostages and we gave nothing. not including what is going on with hamas. i consider that something where we are helping. linda mcmahon is a real professional. actually very sophisticated business person and she kept the best people. and we will see how it all works out, but our country was run badly, whether it was that or contracts we signed, it was so bad, so obviously bad. i could go through them all day. hundreds of billions of dollars and all of that fat and waste

and fraud and abuse is being taken out, but it is incredible what has happened. the department of education may be more so than any other place and a lot of people can be cut. they are not showing up to work, not doing a good job, and if you look at our education process and the charts, because they have charts where they do the top 40, we are at number 37, 38, 39, and 40 and recently they hit last, so we are number 40 and yet we are number one in cost per pupil, so it is pretty bad. but we have a dream. we are going to move the department of education into the states so the states instead of bureaucrats working in washington, so the state can run education. host: those were the president's

thoughts on the department of education? -- of education. what are your thoughts? mef you are already posting on facebook. she says it is a useless agency, more damaging than helpful. he says he opposes it. the states will not replace lost federal funding and programming. and saying it is going to make local school taxes double. if you tnkenior citizens are struggling now, you better buckle up. and then from facebook, get rid of it. it is going back to the states, more money for education and less to federal employees. this is gary in new hampshire, first on the idea of supporting or opposing elimination of the department of education. >> i am against eliminating the department of education. one thing, the states get

federal funding from the government for programs that the schools need, particularly children with disabilities. children with disabilities have what is called an individual education plan. what it does is it is a roadmap of services that a disabled child receives the next academic year, so i am opposed to it because children with disabilities, learning disabilities or whatever, will be at risk if the department of education is eliminated. they would not get the services they need. one on one and all of that. if there's anybody from new hampshire listening, please it on the phone and fight the closing of the social security office.

please, new hampshire. i implore you. host: that is gary in new hampshire. this is penny in california, republican line. caller: i completely support the elimination of the department of education. the reason i supported is since it has been open education has just deteriorated in the nation and when something continues to deteriorate then obviously it is not working. so therefore they need to find another way to make it work. when you waste lien's of dollars

-- billions of dollars, that says do something else. host: if the states are the ones that are going to take up most of the responsibility, do you think california can rise to that challenge? caller: not with the current leadership in california. they have failed at everything, so no, current leadership in california, no. it has to change. but the department of education as a whole has failed at educating our children. host: this is leslie in new york, independent line, on eliminating or supporting or opposing the elimination of the department of education. >> i support eliminating the education department. in new york state, our taxes are so high.

it is getting to the point where younger people cannot even afford a home. everything in new york is out of this world as far as cost of living. something has to be done and our children are not being educated. when i went to school, we used to learn our abcs and learn how to read, but today children get out of school they do not have the ability to read. host: when you say things like that, what do you base that on? caller: i base that on going to the store and watching cash register breakdown and they cannot even figure out how much you owe on a piece of paper. they have to have everything electronically. they have to have everything. they cannot figure anything out in their head. how to add or subtract. host: leslie in new york.

one of the organization speaking out against eliminating the part of education is the american federation of teachers. they put out a digital ad on the topic as of yesterday. we will look at it now. >> the musk-trump team taking a chainsaw to the department of education to pay for a tax cut for billionaires, slashing critical services for poor kids, career and technical education, and student loans for working families. cutting taxes for the wealthiest at the expense of america's children is wrong. educators and advocates, make your voices heard. call on lawmakers to reject the devastating cuts and protect our kids. host: from john in california cannot republican line. caller: i oppose these separate lines you have.

you had a conference the other day and it was limited to just government workers. i think that was a very crude form of censorship. host: this is the department of education we are talking about. caller: this is the only chance i get to voice my opinion and i will do so. the test scores are the lowest out of 40 some countries. the spending per pupil is the highest and this was put together by jimmy carter as a reward to the teachers union for supporting him in the 1976 election. that is what it was about. it is political. listen to the woman that is the head of the teachers union. she is sketchy. she does not care about children. they stayed out of the classrooms during covid when everybody knew it was safe for them to go in and let the

classrooms. it is about political rewards to political allies on the democrat side of the aisle and every presidential candidate has talked about closing down the education department. as far as the special needs kids, they are going to be taken care of. can california rise to the occasion? they have the worst schools. when i was in school, we were number one in california at almost everything. today, california is in the last 46. the more liberal a state, the education system. host: this is clarence in oregon, independent line. caller: good morning. i do not necessarily want to see is eliminated. i would like to see it reduced because by totally eliminating

it's they eliminate the president's ability to pressure states into doing their proper training. the state of oregon is despicable. they are more concerned about teaching kids sexual stuff instead of the basic math and reading and all that. schools are not the place where you teach that kind of stuff. it should be at home and that is the only way government can hold states accountable when they are doing a despicable job of teaching kids. is not the federal government that is the problem. it is the states that are not concentrating on what we are training them to do. host: under the president's ideal, states will pick up more responsibility. you are saying reduce the influence of the departed of education. what do you mean by that?

caller: if the state of origin -- oregon was doing their job properly, the government would say get back to the basics or we will remove some of your funding because the state of oregon is sick. the school systems in the state of oregon are an example of why we are so low. our kids in the state of oregon graduate and they cannot read or write and they cannot communicate well. they reduced requirements to graduate and it is despicable. the state of oregon, the governor, the school district -- they are more concerned about lgbt than teaching our kids how to read and write and be productive citizens in the state of oregon. host: we will hear from sandra in texas, democrats line.

caller: the only thing you gotta do is tell people anything is racist and they will all do it. that makes no sense whatsoever. they have not learned anything yet, so let donald trump keep on destroying everything. host: why would you support keeping the department of education? caller: why would you not keep the department of education? when it was under the states, they did nothing. it is going to be the same thing. everything in history has always been a lie and they are still lying and they do not -- want to take books out of schools. they do not want you to know what the real history is, so it is all nothing but a farce.

they are just playing games. so keep on destroying it. let them keep on doing what he is doing and destroying everything in america and bring america down to its knees. host: that a sandra in texas. your thoughts welcomed as we go on when it comes to the department of education. do you support or eliminate -- do you support or oppose illuminating it? independents, (202) 748-8002. notice the line, the fourth line for educators and administrators. i know some of you are going to school and doing your job and things like that, but few have the opportunity to give us your thoughts, (202) 748-8003 is how you call in. you can use the same line to text us and many of you are posting on our social media sites. that is an avenue if you want to make your thoughts known. let's go to maine. this is where matt is, republican line. you are next up.

caller: good morning. i think the path our new administration is on is a good path, as was any responsible business owner. you have to trim the fat and it is becoming more and more apparent to the fat that exists in the federal department of education needs to be scaled back. by putting that act onto the states responsibility, that gives people the opportunity to vote and take their kids to the most productive school system in the nicest communities and that would afford the educators the level of competition to provide the best product for our kids. and putting out a level of education that is going to set them up best for the future. host: is your state equipped when it comes to school choice

matters and what you talked about as giving options for parents? [video clip] caller: under the current governor, i would have to say no, but communities around the state, we have done a good job redistricting all of our school districts around the state to afford equal opportunity statewide -- equal opportunities to children statewide. host: usa facts so just shows -- shows departments -- spending by the department of education. when it comes to the top spending category, the office of federal student aid, that top category. when it comes to highest spinning divisions, that is followed by elementary and secondary education and then the office of special education and rehabilitative services. it goes down from there, but that is the list as far as programs and what is spent on them.

we will look at that as we think about the department of education and the future of it. in maryland, our line for others , this is a teacher. hello. caller: i absolutely oppose what the trump administration is doing. i am not only an educator, i am an attorney and advocate. so far what i'm hearing is people who have not set foot in a public school in the last 60 years. and the problem with dismantling the departed education is it is ushering in a problem or allowing them to return the same reasons we created it. we need a national standard. we need a national oversight to ensure racism, classism is not playing a role in the type of education students get. students who live in affluent communities with high property

taxes have nothing to worry about. dropping or dismantling the departed of education is going to directly affect title i schools, students who do not have money, families who do not have money. that will affect their ability to go to college and it is going to affect special education students. so that movement about autism and people needing more resources for their children, i need to hear all of those parents stand up now because your special needs child is going to be thrown out like the baby in the bathwater if the department of education is dismantled. host: do you mean no access to education? caller: what i'm saying is the services that students, particularly special-needs students cannot receive are expensive and most states, because a variation in property taxes, depending on where you live, that is how our schools are funded, are with local

property taxes. if you live in an area where most of the people live in subsidized housing, this is not only in urban areas but in middle and for america, and if they do not have the property taxes to properly fund their schools they need funding from the federal government. that is how we have been able to provide services for students with special needs. if you live in beverly hills, california, you are not going to have a problem. if you live in an urban area cut like where i teach, if you live in middle america, i am speaking specifically of poor whites who are also beneficiaries. this is not only a race but a class issue and it is going to have a horrible ripple effect by reducing the number of students of caller and students with disabilities pursuing higher

education. host: let's hear from barb in texas, a retired teacher. caller: i think the lady that just went was fabulous. my concern is there is waste everywhere and we probably need to make sure they do part of education does not have waste, but she said it very well, which is our special ed children are going to be toast. i am more concerned now in texas with them wanting to pass vouchers. at the beginning, i thought it was not a bad idea, but if you allow this to the states you will get people like the state of texas who are going to allow vouchers. the problem with that is i live in a rural area and to use the woman before cottrell areas -- she did not really mention they are going to be in big trouble

because we found out with covid how rural areas do not even have access to the internet. and so our very small schools here in texas i cannot imagine that we are going to survive with vouchers and the loss of education. the department. host: some of you are texting us thisorning. this is dave in charlotte, north carolina. different states of different educational areas. it seems all students should be taught the same panorama of subjects. from barb in illinois, i oppose eliminating the education department. state budgets are too small to hand the expense. this is from michigan. eliminate the department of education. they are of no value, proven by test scores. again, texting is a way you can reach out to us.

you can use the same number to call if you are an educator or administrator, to give your thoughts there. matt is up next in new york state. this is on our line for democrats. caller: i oppose the eliminating education department. i oppose it. the education of children -- i do not know where they get their stats. i have children. they go to public schools. they are very intelligent. they were teaching my kids in third grade how to properly type on a typewriter and put their hands on a computer keyboard. i still text with one finger. in third or fourth grade, they were teaching children how to type on typewriters -- on computer. our kids are geniuses. america is great. it is a great country.

it has always been great. this is all a big scam, what is going on. how'd you get into a fight with canada? people wanted to come to america because we were great or cool and we are smart. it is being torn apart by somebody. i'm not going to mention names, but i cannot believe it. the education of kids today -- i do not know where they get the stats. they are very intelligent. they are smarter than i am and i am a college educated person. thank you very much. host: this is eleanor in kansas, republican line. caller: i want to make the comment that the education here where i live, taxes have gone up tremendously and they have helped many brand-new schools with everything they can imagine

and the grade level of our students -- in order to do that they are getting government aid so they are sacrificing training and teaching of our kids, which should be the basis instead of going into the political thing. they should keep it where all the kids can get the education they need to make proper decisions as they get older. but they are using it as a political ground they are introducing people with special needs and all that should be a separate thing because growing up we just had the kids and education was free because i'm 80 years old and education was free. we could all go and it was just the discretion of the teacher as to whether she was going to be

hispanic and a little bit less -- it is like they ignore you. but it was there. so i am behind president trump. host: john joins us from oregon on this idea of supporting or opposing the elimination of the education department. caller: i will be brief. please do not reduce substantially the department of education, nor eliminate it. there are so many important responsibilities for the care and teaching and development of students, especially after the passage of the americans with disabilities act, that has given a new meaning to equal

opportunity for education for those children with disabilities, all the way through higher education as well as grants. these things take people and technology to administer. the way this has gone about, we can all be more efficient. we can all be more careful in how we take care of taxpayer money, but yet with so many right-wing ideologues out there that will do anything to get elected and raise political money, we have to be very careful in what we do because it will have a lifetime effect for

many children. so thank you very much. host: john in oregon there. we will keep going and you can make your comments on supporting or opposing this idea of eliminating the department of education. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. use the (202) 748-8003 to text us your thoughts or you can use that line to call in if you are a teacher or administrator in a school and then you can post on social media as well. we will keep going and taking your calls on that. we will pause briefly to update you on where the federal government is when it comes to the funding deadline. at midnight, the house passing their short-term funding bill. we have hit some major bombs. it was wednesday afternoon when the senate minority leader declared republicans do not have the votes to pass the house

republican drafted cr. that mosher -- measure would fund the government through september 30. leader schumer saying they wrapped their arms around the proposed short-term cr through mid april. according to punch bowl, that is currently noan option. here is more from the senate minority >> leader on this topic >>. the democratic leader. >>funding the government should be a bipartisan effort. but republicans chose a partisan path, drafting a continuing resolution without any input from congressional democrats. because of that, republicans do not have the votes in the senate on the house zr -- cr. our caucus is unified with a cr that will keep the government open and give congress time to negotiate bipartisan legislation

that can pass. we should vote on that. i hope republican colleagues will join us to avoid a shutdown friday. i yield the floor. host: that was yesterday. the hill saying cement -- senate democrats say they will not allow the government to shut down saturday despite growing pressure from activists and liberal lawmakers who want them to kill the republican crafted six-month stopgap spending bill, saying senate my critic sources say the democratic leader was giving room to centrists to vote for the house passed continuing resolution of doing so is the only way to avoid a government shutdown at week's end. this story will still play out. stay close to c-span, particularly c-span2, which covers the senate, when it comes to the short-term spending bill. we will hear from brandy in indiana, republican line. caller: good morning.

i am calling. i think they should shut it down. we have not seen anything productive from it. i personally have some family in public education. i have heard many stories. i have spent -- sent all of my kids to a private school. the area i live in are all failing schools with a lot of violence. the first five years, i had to work two jobs to pay for it and then our state introduced a voucher program which was heaven sent and has saved several children from going to these awful public schools, so i am all for it. host: from steven in kentucky, independent line. caller: good morning. this is kind of crazy that this

is even a conversation. no president in the past has even threatened it. a lot of people who voted for trump are very gullible in the sense that how can you get rid of something that gives consistency and standards across the united states? if you can rid of it, you will have states that are just teaching christianity and no science and math and you have other states the gone the other end and teach straight up diversity and that is it. it makes no sense. you have to have a standard across all 50 states. to think that i got the opportunity to go to college because of the department of education loans, you are going to take opportunities from other people like me. like the teacher lawyer said, most people calling in they are living large in their house that they paid off. they do not care about the kids. they really do not care.

it is not like if you cut the budget from the department of education you are going to get money in your own pocket. it does not work that way. with all these old people trying to take money from society -- they are all happy and content, but we are out here suffering. we are having a hard time. do you think another resource in another tool from us to better ourselves and our kids -- that makes no sense. i blame the gullible older generations that think it is a good idea. it is not. host: let's hear from pennsylvania. this is michael, republican line. caller: this should have been done 20, 30 years ago. it is a big scam. i saw 2010, pelosi, and sanders, they all said they have to do

something about it but now they have changed because the republicans want to do. have a good day. host: that is michael in pennsylvania. you can continue with your thoughts as well and it comes to the future of the department of education. please pick the best line that represents you a. usa today takes a look at one aspect brought up by one of the callers when it comes to the possible future, saying a preliminary tally of cuts shown when it comes to layoffs show the federal student aid office, which handles student loans and financial aid disbursement at the office for civil rights, protect students and teachers from discrimination, or most affected. they expressed concerns wednesday about how the agency could still accomplish objectives without staff that has long had to achieve them. there is confusion about what the federal agency does.

the department does not control gets taught in schools. the idea of sending education back to the states, which the president has called for, is based on a false premise. most curriculum decisions are at the local level. the federal government has broad authority over what can happen in the classroom environment. more from the usa today story on those departments in the to part one of education. let's go to virginia, south carolina, democrats line. you are on. caller: the whole reason behind -- i am opposed to what they are trying to do with the department of education. the whole thing behind what trump and his band of thieves are doing is they are trying to turn this country into an aristocracy. you have two categories of people in this country, the haves and the have-nots.

by eliminating education, you are making it harder for working class and poor people to be educated and that will give them more power, so definitely i am opposed to it and some of the people who are now for it are going to find out down the line if it is allowed to go through that they are going to be the ones that are hurt. host: virginia there in south carolina. in maryland, independent line. caller: i am a teacher and i am directly opposed to eliminating the departed of education. i heard someone say a couple calls ago that because education was so bad in their state they thought that if you can dismantle it -- but what i was hoping they would realize was that if the department of education is eliminated then states will continue to be even more directly responsible for those funds. if they are not handling them

well now, they are going to continue mishandling the funds. i hear a lot of people complaining, but there are ways to get involved with their local state education. you can go and volunteer at a school. you can go and read a book to people, to students. you can volunteer to tutor neighborhood kids, so i think when we try and complete lead dismantle the entire thing we are not looking at ways we can participate in helping students who will suffer and i think it is terrible because a lot people do not realize when they say back in the 1950's and 1960's education was great, but it was only great for the majority of white americans and it was not that way for a lot of people, so when you have that narrative in your head that education was better during the height of jim crow or when people were still fighting for basic human rights -- is a complete misinformation

and our literacy level as a country is already at a fifth grade level, so we need is people coming in and being like, this is actually the problem you're facing and we want the same thing. we want our children to be literate and passionate about education, but completely disregarding the impact that it will continue to have on state performance is not the solution. host: giving us her teacher perspective on it. one perspective couple days ago was the education secretary herself, talking about the layoffs and how they factor into the overall goals for the department of education. here is the interview from a couple days ago. >> is this the first step on a road to a total shutdown? >> yes because that was the president's directive to me, to shut down the apartment of

education, which we know we will have to work with congress to get that accomplished. but we did today was to take the first step of eliminating what i think his bureaucratic bloat, not to say that a lot of the folks -- it is a humanitarian thing, a lot folks that are there. they are out of a job, but we wanted to make sure we kept all of the good people to make sure the outward facing programs, the grants and preparations that come from congress, all of that are being met. that is not going to fall through the cracks. >> so the criteria for keeping that 50% is related to expenditures and key programs? >> correct. congress appropriates the money that is going to programs. i am not sure i can tell you exactly what it stands for except it is programs for disabled and in need. host: here is reactn from

legislators. e trump administration was to shut down the departed of education like it is one of trump'skrupt casinos. the losers are kids who rely on public schools. is is not draining the swp. it is training opportunity from future generations. education is the cornerstonef a healthy democracy. from's plans -- trump's plans will leave student with disabilities without support and put teachers out of work. education is how we build a better future for us all. mark harris from north carolina adding the department of education should get an f minus. and senator tim banks of indiana, we have one of the best school choice programs in the country. we empower parents and get the government out of the way. president trump is abolishing the overreach of the federal government and i am with him. that is some of the legislative reaction. this is from north carolina.

go ahead. caller: longtime listener, first time caller. i wanted to weigh in on this issue as a public educator. i wanted to follow up with the callers from maryland and kentucky. they were spot on with their analysis of the educational system and the dynamics around the outside with the older generations. i am 40 eight years old. what i wanted to address is the opportunity for the president of the united states to launch a national plan of education, a national standard, and organized plan of education to not have 50 different ways of tackling public education in our country and this is an opportunity to announce an initiative and bring allstate into the fold with an organized plan for the 21st century, so at the ground level we are teaching students how to be 21st century citizens but at

the national level we do not really hear that. we hear about school choice and choices for education other than the public educational system and what i'm seeing in north carolina -- we are seeing a drying up of publix will students bringing them into an academy, a charter school, using state funds to create schools, so we are having reduced numbers in our schools and resources taken from public schools for charter schools and it is having a catastrophic effect. host: this is nelson in baltimore, maryland, republican line. caller: i am for cutting the education because i do not want my tax dollars to be paid for a school does not want to teach it is the gulf of america. i want my tax dollars going to

states where colleges and universities allow their students to protest israel. if you do not want to teach american traditions or what is good for america, you do not deserve federal funding. that is my opinion. host: this is richard in new jersey, democrats line. caller: the thing of it is is that, as stated before, the state set the education agenda in each state so you're talking about the whole country falling behind -- the place to look as each individual state. when you look at that, he find out some states are doing great in education and some are doing poorly. massachusetts is number one and you look at it, most of the blue

states have better education things going on. so whether you get rid of the department of education or not -- what we should be doing is copying massachusetts. that is what should be happening. and do not forget he famously said he prefers uneducated people, so that could have something to do with it. host: some other news to let you know about besides we are talking about. the washington examiner saying the white house cheering a drop in inflation as president trump fends off scrutiny over his handling of the economy. a report showed annual inflation dropping which factors how food and energy prices -- both metrics registered a 10th of a percent. when it comes to the future of the senate, an announcement

yesterday, the senior democratic senator from new hampshire picking up the story, announcing she will not run for reelection, creating an open seat. former vice president kamala harris narrowly carried in november. she announce what she described as a difficult decision in an interview with the new york times, saying it was made more difficult by the current environment of our country and president trump and what he is doing now. she told the new york times, highlighting what she saw as the president's focus on looming cuts to the federal budget and his antagonistic stance toward ukraine as personal concerns and when it comes to astronauts on board the international space station, a launchpad issue for spacex and nasa to delay that, postponing the arrival of a replacement crew.

they are standing down from the launch opportunity to the nasa crew mission. newsweek reaching out to spacex for comment, so look for follow-up on that as well in the days ahead. let's go to james in maryland, independent line. caller: i am totally opposed to dismantling the department of education. as a former educator, i have seen the importance of students being able to come in early in the morning and get fed. those students who have not able to ethan i before and that will also disrupt summer programs and an opportunity to reach families who are lost and left out. our ministration does not appear to be concerned about those in the lower social economic bracket and pulling on this thread will continue to make this nation unravel even more. we have students that are dependent upon the oversight that comes from the federal

government. there are so many states that do not have as much as others and we need that assistance to ensure students across the board have a fair playing field. they are more than a test number or test score. the students, just because certain test scores are not where we want them to be does not mean those funds coming into the state are being misused or misappropriated. we need to keep the department of education open and make sure students are being taken care of. host: next we will hear from louis in new jersey, republican line. caller: i am 71 years old now. when i was about 47 years old, we had visitors from italy come to see us. i asked, how did they speak such fluent english? they said to me they are taught english in schools and when they get out of high school it is like our college education. since then, i think we do not

speak english. i think we speak american. maybe we should go back to one-room school houses. host: kevin is up next in kentucky. >> thank you for being on every single day. i love the issues. i would like -- when i was in school, some time ago -- i 62 years old and i do not know if you have a chart of the first to 50th state, the ranking of what they are now. kentucky is a rural state and they are trying their best here to disrupt them as much as possible.

in my education process, and i have no experience in education, but when they switched it to a federal department of education you could tell the kentucky public education system just elevated because there were more resources devoted to our state. we are basically a rural state and i do not know than any of our lawmakers from kentucky are actually in support of the department of education because -- host: where are you as far as keeping or getting rid of the department of education? caller: i am opposed to that. when they created the department

of education, i know it was another government bureaucracy, but it was needed. it is still needed. because people do not concentrate on education. people are not -- we need more higher-paying teachers here in the state of kentucky because -- host: let's go to michael in arizona. republican line. hello? one more time for michael. go ahead, please. caller: i am against it completely. it is the same argument everyone makes in west virginia, but how many teachers is the issue. it takes more than teachers to educate these kids. they have to have education from

home, too. if parents are not supportive -- we have took discipline out of the schools. it all comes down to that. if they do not listen to their parents at home, they are not going to listen to teachers at school. they are not getting the salaries they deserve. if you take somebody making $100,000 a year -- who is going to do better? i am totally against taking it away from the teachers. we need to focus on how we can spend tax dollars on paying teachers to educate children. host: one of the topics about the future of the department of education was part of a conversation with the national education association president on this program last month, gave her thoughts on the topic. here's a bit of that conversation. >> play out what you would think would happen if they do part of education was downsized and the ways they were discussing. >> we know every level of

government has responsibility, federal government, state, and localities as well school boards, all of them play a role. if the u.s. to part of education was downsized, we know there are vital services students would not get. i was talking to a parent from virginia who was concerned because they depend on services that the department of education provides for her student with special needs and we know the federal government actually, the funding from the federal government supplies over 420,000 jobs so we know if those jobs are not there that class sizes will balloon. you know that one-on-one attention students need will not be there and it will affect our most vulnerable students, those living in poverty, those who have disabilities.

>> in terms of what the department of education does, does it get to tell individual school districts what they should and should not teach? >> they do not. it is left up to school districts. educators are involved. some of the school districts -- and making those determinations themselves. the federal government role, which was established at the end of the civil rights legislation of the night -- late 1960's so it would play that job of ensuring every student has access and opportunity. you heard linda mcmahon talking about going back to a time when -- there was a time when our students with disabilities did not have access. there was a time when we did not provide additional resources so they could learn with their classmates in class. there was a time when.

we do not want to go back to that. our parents and educators, that is not what they need. host: if you're interested in seeing that whole conversation, you can go to our website. caller: good morning. i think i am one of the best qualified persons to speak on this matter. we have had six children. their ages are 45, 39, 38, 31, would have been 29, and 22. over 36 consecutive years, we educated our kids in public, private, and charter schools. in the process of doing so, we also -- i re-taught every lesson plan from first grade to six grade to my children. teachers were required to give that to me every year. and i re-taught it because i was

not satisfied with where education was going. we came from virginia. now, what we found in the process of all this time, we found the education department in washington, d.c. had a program called title i. title i needs to be eliminated because what it did, it ruined some of the schools in the area in which we lived. at that time. when that did that, it used title i to basically say, ok, if kids are not reading at a certain grade level and we were under every program that the school district offered at that time, every time the school district failed at something they did not tell the parents. they would just move onto a new program and when moving onto a new program, it basically went

from phonetics and then 1992 and 1999 it finally went to whole language. it was a program where you teach children by sight words a little went to grammar. host: as far as the future of the education department, what do you think? >> the department is to be streamlined because there is too much bloating. i watched teachers. they get into teaching profession sometimes and after a year or three they go back to school and get a masters degree and become counselors. after that, they go on and be principals. that they do that for another three years and then go on to be superintendents. they forget what goes into the classroom and how much work it takes for planning and putting together a curriculum. host: thank you for your thoughts. let's hear from rob in ohio.

hello? one more time. go ahead. you are on. go ahead, please. caller: for all these backseat drivers out here that think they know everything, i remember as a kid -- i remember there was not much money in the world back then. a lot of poor people. and education -- they did not really get a good education. they drop out of school in seventh and eighth grade and had to get out and get a hard-working job. and i remember how i always talked about government just

wanting our money and spending it however they see fit while people out here are starving and there are kids that need food in schools. they gave programs for that, but now it is just a mess. it needs revamped and i cannot agree more with what he is doing, president trump. host: one more call in new york, democrats line. caller: as far as eliminating the education department, with a should have done is go in and find out who is out who was thee the longest if they are going to streamline. just giving people $25,000 is not the answer. when you give people $25,000 that money evaporates very quickly. people will go through their savings.

how are we going to educate our children? when i was growing up, all five boroughs, everybody was learning on the same page. we should be trying to make sure our children get an education so that they can become a part of society, not stripping the education so people who fall through the cracks come and we will have so many people falling through the cracks, how are we going to get them to come back up and do what we have to do as far as education. host: i apologize. you will have to be the last call. thank you for everyone who participated in the first hour. several guest joining us for the remainder of the show. first up we will hear from the wall street journal's richard rubin. the story from him looks at government spending, where the money is going. later on in the program the

foundation for individual rights and expressions conor fitzpatrick discusses the pace of globe university graduate student to taint by immigration officials in connection with anti-gaza war protests last spring. those conversations and more coming up on "washington journal." >> this weekend, c-span's book tv will be live from the tucson festival of books. you'll deceit -- you will see discussions on a variety of topics including the changing landscape and competition for natural resources. beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern, saturdays highlights include juan williams, jason deleon, kate cnger. then we will feature authors jonathan turley, clay risen, and paola ramos. the tucson festival of books

beginning at 1:00 eastern on c-span2. >> mr. speaker, on this historic day the house of representatives opens its proceedings for the first time to televised coverage. >> since march 1979 c-span has been your own food told window -- your unfiltered window bringing you coverage of congress, supreme court, the white house. >> is this mr. brian lamb? would you hold one minute for the president. >> it exists because of c-span founder brian lamb's vision and the cable companies support, not government funding. this service is not guaranteed. in honor of founder's day your support is more important than ever. keep democracy unfiltered today and for future generations. >> to the american people, now's the time to tune into c-span. >> your gift preserves open

access to c-span and ensures the public stays informed. go to c-span.org/donate or scan the code on your screen. every contribution matters. thank you. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our first guest is richard rubin with the wall street journal and in recent days put out this story, here is how the government spending has grown and where the money is going. thanks for joining us. you start the story by taking a look at changes of the last 10 years. what has changed in that time? guest: if you look in terms of the number of dollars the federal government is taking in and spending, it has gone up significantly over the past decade. if you look from 2015 to 2024, the revenue went up 51% and spending went up 83%. what we try to do is dial that back.

i know there was inflation over that period and population growth. my colleagues and i said what if we adjust for inflation and adjust for population, what do you see the increase in spending and revenue? when you do that you get about a 9% increase in revenue and a 32% increase in spending. spending has definitely gone up, the federal government spends more now. when you hear this we went from $4.5 trillion in 2019 to 7 trillion in spending in 2024 ings that have happened. guest: let's start -- host: let's start with the specifics of why spending went up. let's start there. guest: you have a couple different things. what is the aging of the

population and health care cost inflation. some of the biggest expenses of the federal government are social security and medicare. social security we have known for decades. more people are eligible. those payments go up. medicare more people are eligible come health care is more expensive than general goods and services so those costs are going up. we have seen that steady growth over time. national defense spending has gone up a little bit. one of the biggest categories that have gone up is interest costs. a decade ago we had this long period between 2008 and 2009 financial crisis and the beginning of the pandemic where interest rates, what the federal

government has to pay to borrow because we have deficits between what we collected and what we spend. what the federal government has to borrow is relatively low. now we are in the over four range. the interest costs are going higher and higher and on top of that the federal government is borrowing more money than it used to. some of that is the structural gap between revenue and spending we have had. some of that is the government borrowed to get through the pandemic, money for small businesses, stimulus payments, that was basically borrowed money. now paying off the bill on that. those are the big categories. the other stuff is there. medicaid costs have gone up. if you look at other federal agencies is a relatively small size of the budget but -- a

relatively small slice of the budget. the federal government is driven on the spending side by social security, medicare, defense, and interest. host: richard rubin joining us for this conversation on spending. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to text us those questions or comments (202) 748-8003. you talked about the spending side. let's take a look at revenue over last 10 years or so. how has that been impacted? guest: revenue has gone up in nominal terms. as we talked about before, if you adjust for inflation and for population it is up 9%. it is up but a couple of big things on the revenue side is there were tax cuts in 2017 that republicans pushed through. even though there are more

dollars coming in a lot of that is because of inflation. if those tax cuts had not been in place there would be more revenue. then we saw a surge in revenue coming out of the pandemic. if you recall -- the stock market has been down -- in 2021 the stock market and cryptocurrency soared in value as the economy recovered from the 2020 shock of the pandemic and a lot of people sold stocks and paid taxes so there was a surge in federal revenue in 2021 and 2022. that it has dipped back down to more of the levels you would expect. now we are in this phase where congress is debating about whether there should be additional tax cuts extended, additional tax cuts on top of that but we are heading down roughly back to where we thought revenue would be. host: one of the charts in the

story shows the revenues, shows the outlays, and then that dotted line which says deficit. he mentioned this -- you mentioned this. factor in where we are in terms of spending and revenue. host: we are in a place -- guest: we are in a place we've not been before. the u.s. has run deficits but during emergencies, pandemic, recession, when the government has had softer revenue collection or spending has gone up, spending to fight a war, spending on stimulus payments and support for businesses to get through the pandemic. during those periods you tend to have wider deficits and during strong economic times the deficit tends to close. we are in a place where we are in a relative peace and prosperity. there is stuff happening. historically we are in peace and prosperity.

the federal deficit is 6% or so of gdp, that is historically large. we have a structural gap between spending and revenue. if you look at the forecast going forward that is where we are heading as the population ages even further that gap will continue to be were spending and revenue are and that is what progress on the president are struggling with at some level. host: calls lining up for richard rubin. this is lawrence, nevada, independent line. the story takes look at spending and revenue. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am curious, in light of what you are saying, what you think this fares for the strength of the u.s. dollar being weak or potentially strong when all of this works out? also i used to deal in distressed debt when i was on wall street and i remember

trading trump bonds when they were $.20 or $.30 on the dollar and i'm curious, when you have someone who is such an expert on reorganization and bankruptcy running the country -- it is great, we are a capitalist country everything -- how is that fair for a potential reorganization of the u.s. dollar? mexico, russia, argentina, their currencies have all devalued to zero several times and i'm curious what you think about that. when will it finally happened to the united states. guest: that is the big question. we are carrying deficits and debt to a place that is larger than it has ever been. those are going to unprecedented levels. the question is when unprecedented becomes too unprecedented. as the caller notes, the u.s. dollar is effectively the reserve currency of the world.

treasury bills and treasury notes are the most traded assets in the world. the u.s. has incredibly unique and strong positions compared to the rest of the world because of that. we borrow our own currency. people still want to see us. people see us as one of the safest places to invest. we have a lot more running room for deficits than some of the countries you mentioned, mexico, argentina, that of run into trouble with excessive ordering and had to do this kinds of restructurings. the u.s. has always been in a different place. the challenge is we do not quite know where the limits are. there are two elements. one is -- we assume at some level money in the economy is going for borrowing for the

federal purposes as opposed for private investment. the question about crisis and a crunch where we are not liquid and we cannot borrow into restructure, that is pretty far down the road. we don't know where that limit is. it is slow, slow, and then may be bad. all of the experts i talked to suggest that the really bad crisis thing because where the world's reserve currency is somewhat farther out in keeping that status is really important. host: steve is in indiana. democrats line. your next up. caller: i'm wondering after you make $200,000, do you have to pay into social security, medicare, medicaid? also back in the bush years during the iraq war, did they take out social security then? that is all i have to say. host: -- guest: yes.

it depends on the programs. social security depape the first 170,000 of your earnings -- the first $170,000 are taxed for social security purposes. there are medicare taxes that fully fund the program. those do not have an income cap and their graduated rates on those as you go higher. medicaid comes out of the general budget. as far as social security paying for the wars, social security has a trust fund or a separately accounted for program in a sense. during the years when there'll be more money coming into social security then going out of social security for benefits, effectively that money was being used for general government purposes.

now we are in a reverse phase where social security is taking in less than it is paying out. you can think of it as a trust fund paying for benefits or general government paying for benefits. during the time when the baby boomers were in the workforce paying social security taxes, the situation you described is what was happening. now we have gone to the other side of that. host: in 2015 when it comes to outlays social security was 2600, when you go to 2024 4300 per person. a 19% increase. what were the causes of that increase? cost-of-living or other factors? guest: i don't have the numbers in front of me but those are the inflation numbers and that will not be cost-of-living increases. cost-of-living increases built into social security every year so that the benefits go up along

with the cost-of-living. what drives that is the aging of the population and more people being eligible. a large portion of that is people reaching retirement age and claiming benefits. some of that is people who are newly eligible for disability. it is very much driven by those factors, just people becoming eligible for the program. other than one change they met the end of last year, congress has not made social security benefits more generous. host: this is from kurt in florida, republican line. caller: i have a question for the guest about taxation on social security on everyone's wage. i might have misheard him. it is 11.9% i pay for social security and 3% of my wage goes

toward medicare. i am retired now, i started pulling at 62. at my rate of pay i will have extinguished my contributions in a little less than 11 years, 10 years. medicare i've paid about $51,000 into that. that will be gone with one trip to medicare emergency or just plain medicare coverage. my point is i think the base rate we are being taxed at has to go up. there is no other way that program can survive when you're paying out your benefits and everyone is still alive. i would like his opinion on that in a clarification of how much money actually does go into

medicare and social security from each employee and each individual? thank you again. have a good day. guest: on the social security side it should be 6.2% of wages from the employee and 6.2% from the employer. medicare is 1.45% for employers and 1.45 for employees and then there are some higher rates on top of that at the top percentage of the income distribution. i'm not sure where you're getting the 11.9 from. as far as the overall program, i think medicare in particular people who are beneficiaries of medicare today are if you look over the long horizon are getting more in benefits than they paid into the system. that is true in some ways because it is generally funded now in part.

the medicare taxes we all pay do not cover the cost. social security is a little trickier. there is not quite that imbalance. you say raising the taxes is the loa to fix it, that is not necessarily true. there are number of proposals to change how benefits are indexed to inflation, to change you is eligible, to change retirement agencies -- to change retirement ages. those are incredibly controversial but there are a number of levers congress can pull and they will look at that in the next eight to 10 years because we will reach a point where the existing benefits would have to be cut if congress does not act. there is a decision moment coming from congress on social security in particular. as those deficits we talked about before increase, then there will have to be some discussion in congress about what to do with these large programs driving the federal budget.

these are incredibly politically controversial to start touching them on the tech side or the spending side. host: on medicare, $2200 plus a person, 2600 plus a person from 2024. there was a large dip going in 2019 and then rising up again in 2022. what is to account for that? guest: i have not looked at that in particular. one guest is people may have delayed trips to the doctors during the pandemic that then caught up with itself. there also been efforts to try to limit health care inflation. some of those have worked. there have been ways in which health care costs have not grown quite as precipitously as people have thought 15 to 20 years ago. host: for everything you found in this story, how does that set the stage as congress has to

continue what they want to do with the budget and what they want to about future taxes? guest: this is the backdrop for those conversations. congress is trying to figure out how to solve this big fiscal puzzle we talked about where there is this continued gap between how much money the u.s. collects and how much it spends. at some point whether that causes a challenge or a problem for the economy. i think this is something they have to figure out. you will see democrats point to the revenue line being relatively flat. noting that while the tax cuts are expiring in saying the way to solving the problem is largely by increasing revenue and letting tax cuts expire on some people. you will hear republican say we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem and

this is what is driving house republicans to look at changes to medicaid. this what is driving them to look at changes to student loans, food stamps, those sorts of programs that are significant cost drivers for the federal government and can they make changes that would limit the local programs. this is part of the backdrop of the setting and then narrow spending congress is having this week. guest: -- host: if tax cuts expire, for the average american, what is the potential? guest: there is a set of tax cuts congress enacted in 2017 that they scheduled to expire at the end of this year. if those expired you can see tax increases on about 62% of households. those will range in amounts. they are not insignificant.

they can be a couple thousand dollars for middle and upper income families, particularly they get larger and a bigger percent of income for people toward the very top but maybe not all the way at the top. it is things like the standard deduction would shrink, the child tax credit would shrink, tax rates would go up. there is broad agreement in both parties that is now the outcome they want. republicans want to extend all the tax cuts and democrats do not have any control but they would like to extend the tax cuts up to some income level and let them expire at the top. the consequences of expiration is something most people don't really want. host: wall street journal's richard rubin joining us for this conversation. this is pam in florida. democrats line. caller: i have a few questions that are fairly simple.

i want to talk about social security. what is being done to protect us from us losing our social security? for the second question about elon musk and his people, how did he get into our government with no background check, none of the people that work for him, no background checks from them? why does he not have to go in front of the senate like everyone else and answer the hard questions? that is my question. guest: on social security i think there is a broad bipartisan agreement to not cut social security benefits. i think you are seeing some changes in the social security administration in how the program is run and what assistances may or may not be available to beneficiaries and claimants on the phone or in person. that is something we are

watching and something a lot of people are watching, not for the overall size of benefits but about how to access them and how you deal with a person. on elon musk i think white house staff in general are not senate confirmed. this is true in every administration. cabinet officials go through senate confirmation and many senior white house officials do not. they are appointed by the president. the president has pretty extensive authority to appoint people and run the executive branch. this administration is clearly testing some of the limits of that and that is what we are seeing play out. this is really an extension of presidential power where the president has given elon musk and his group pretty broad authority to go into various agencies and make suggestions and do things.

we can think about it as something that elon musk is doing but it is something he is doing because the president has empowered him to do so. host: how to the activities of elon musk fit into future decisions about spending? guest: big question. i want to focus on what we call the discretionary spending, the agency spending. what we have seen a lot of is this first wave of layoffs that have happened at federal agents these driven by this process. in the short term that is not much savings because if you go off severance, the budget for those agencies have not changed. you may see the ministration come in with a rescissions package to cut some of this year spending and claw it back. the big fight will beat the fiscal 2026 budget that will happen after this spending bill

gets resolved this week or whenever it gets resolved. in those cases you pick a federal agency or h.u.d. they have cut 40% of the people and they go to congress and say we can do this with 70% of the budget we have before and congress will say yes or no. those are not the big drivers of federal spending. it is not social security or medicare or medicaid benefits but they are trying to pinch down that discretionary side, what federal agencies spend, what the federal workforce costs are and that will come to a head in this fiscal 2026 debate. host: hunter lives in new jersey. democrats line. caller: good morning and i really appreciate the guest. here is my take. i think we overcomplicate it. we as a nation spend $7 trillion a year and we take in about 4.5

trillion dollars in revenue. if the congress and the republican congress in the last trump administration that broke the bank, spent and overspent, but it is the congress who has determined what they want to spend money on. our national gdp is $30 trillion. just tax the corporations appropriately to make up for that and then have the congress do their job and manage what we should spend. cutting some of these federal functions are not going to get us there. one last thing. every 10 years we as a nation grow by about 10 million people. we do need programs, we do need to spend.

it is the republican congress that put us into a big hole they are giving up their whole purpose. if they want to give up their whole purpose they are as useless and doge, get rid of them. host: hunter in new jersey. thanks. guest: the fiscal state we are in is the product of many congress over the past many years. there were surpluses in the late 1990's and early 2000's and then we have had a series of tax cuts, we have had a series of emergencies and we have had a series -- by emergencies i mean 9/11, the financial crisis, the pandemic and spending increases on an aging population. this is not a one cause situation, it is a multi-cause situation.

yes, this is on the congress to determine what they think the problem is, is it too little spending, too big a deficit, too little taxes? congressing is hard is what i say here. this is something where people have real disagreements. you start looking at, ok, well, we cut? then you start cutting -- what things can we cut? then you start cutting social security offices, irs offices, or you start cutting benefits and constituents start calling their members of congress uncomplaining. it's easy -- and complaining. it's easy to look at spending in the aggregate. this is not a simple exercise, was not a simple exercise for us to get to the point we are at and it's not a simple exercise.

to reduce that. host: you've probably heard the argument to the caller's point which is tax corporations, or tax the wealthy and that will solve the financial issues in the united states. where's the reality to that? richard: there's certainly room economically and mathematically to raise taxes on corporations and hike taxes as a share. our economy a little bit below the historic averages as we have climbed. it's doable. it depends on what problem you're trying to solve. if you are trying to close the entire federal deficit solely with tax increases at the top, that's very mathematically difficult, if not impossible. if you're trying to make a significant dent in that and get deficit slower, there is some scope for doing that. we saw president biden rollout a series of tax proposals that would get a chunk of the way there. former vice president harris ran on a bunch of those in the campaign last year.

democrats did not do that, most of those, when they were in charge of congress, for a variety of reasons. and democrats lost last year. mathematically, you could get money, absolutely, trillions of dollars over a decade out of a higher taxes at the top. but that's not in the cards right now. host: kevin is next. kevin joins us from missouri, republican line. you are on with richard rubin of the wall street journal. caller: good morning. i just want to say i have to sit down every month and work my budget out on what i've got. and we haven't seen that in congress for a long time. they just keep spending and spending and spending and then want to raise taxes to cover their excessive spending. something i have not seems -- seen since the clinton era is the president used to have a

line. and if it wasn't good for the country, he drew a line through it. you cannot spend more than you take in. every american home has to set out and work a budget out. and at some point, our elected officials need to start doing it or they need to be replaced. as for social security, i've paid in for 50 years on social security and i'm a recipient. and it keeps getting wrapped in as an entitlement and it's not an entitlement. we paid in. our employers paid in so that we could have that, right along with medicaid and medicare. at some point, and needs to be set aside and quit being a slush fund when they dip into it to make up for shortfalls. that's all i have. have a great day. host: that's kevin in missouri. to his first part, richard

rubin, the idea of why can't to the government set itself up to balance books, such as big? richard: there was a line item veto and the supreme court said you cannot do that. it's not necessarily the case that the federal government has to be balanced. the federal government is different from households. it has an infinite time horizon and hopefully the u.s. government will be here for a long time. and it can, and for very good reason sometimes, borrow relatively cheaply, because the u.s. government is so big, to deal with things that are important now. just like we all borrow for things that are important now and defer some of those costs until later. a strict balanced budget in the u.s., in times of emergencies in

particular, can numb bit what the federal government can do, and if you look back, what the government did in borrowing to finance wars, financer sessions, you can see there's probably a pretty good case for the value of some of that borrowing. structurally, yeah, congress struggles with this. the house is elected every two years and they want to be able to deliver things for their constituents. and what constituents want are services, relatively low taxes, and this is the pickle you end up in. host: richard rubin, according to the report you put out, the category of net interest, $928 a person and fy 2015, $2600 plus in 2024. what is net interest? how do you explain those ballooning amounts? richard: net interest is what the u.s. government pays to anyone who holds treasury notes and bills to, you know, is

interest for that borrowing. so it is the annual cost of the accumulated borrowing, it is basically like a mortgage payment roughly. and you know, it is going up because interest rates have gone up. borrowers are demanding more in interest from u.s. government for a variety of reasons. we are in a period of low interest rates, we were in a period of high interest rates. we are borrowing more. we are reaching a point where interest has either just crossed or is about to cross the amount we spend each year on national defense, so it's a significant cost. and it is one that, with federal programs -- many federal programs, it's very difficult to cut politically. interest mathematically is

difficult to get because it is the byproduct of past decisions. that line item is scheduled to go up and up over the next few years. really the only way to address that is to address other kinds of revenue and spending decisions. host: this is sharon in nearby alexandria, virginia. independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a question. i'm not sure you can answer it. but my main fear is my husband and i received psrs annuities and a fur annuity, which is the federal government's retirement system, and we receive social security, i do. we don't hear people speaking of the government annuities so i am not clear on where that sits in the process. and where is that on your chart as far as, you know, government spending? and what is the risk, if any,

to losing those annuities are then being impacted? they basically are paid for life. if you retired at a high salary of 15, for example, that's quite a bit of money. that coupled with the cola and those increases over time, what's the risk of those being impacted in this process at this time. i thank you if you can answer that question for me. take care. bye now. richard: sure. my guess is it probably sits in the other category of the charts that we did. i don't know. i think you are going to see in this process over the next year as republicans try to, over the next few months even, as republicans try to extend the tax cuts and do additional tax cuts that they are going to look for some spending cuts. medicaid is clearly an area where there's going to be some effort. but i think you may also see

efforts in federal workforce retirement programs. i'm not sure about annuities in particular. we have clearly seen over the past six weeks that this administration, largely backed by supporting congress, is willing to make significant, painful cuts for federal workers. and so, i think if you are a federal worker or federal retiree, it's hard to have the same level of comfort in the security of all of that that you might have had a couple of months ago. i don't mean to be alarmist. i think in general, congress has tried not to change the terms of the deal basically, especially for retirees. that's certainly true on social security and medicare. when they talk about any retirement age changes, those are all out in the future. but i think it is certainly, you know, at some point, they will be in the phase of figuring out this tax cut and spending bill, and you know, what feels like a

tax, a couch cushion number for congress can be very significant for households or salaries. again -- retirees. again not to be alarmist, but there is a significant risk. host: what catch all is this? richard: it can be federal agencies. it can be just odds and ends of the federal government. this is really just about a presentation issue for us. karen and i, who put this together, if you have 35 different categories, some of them can be hard to look at. we separate out the big ones, social security, medicare, and interest and defense, and kind of lump everything else together. you could do it a different way and you get the same result. host: vicki from lincoln,

nebraska, democrats line. caller: good morning. first of all, i would like to thank you for having this show. i really enjoy it. i am from nebraska. i wanted to complement the gentleman from missouri on social security. i agree with him. i started working when i was 12 and i paid in all my life. i have recently retired. and of course, now, i am stressed out every time i go to the bank and see if my check is there or not. i also would like to ask your advice on, what do you think democrats can do? i, congress. i call -- i call my congress. i call my senators. i pray a lot. my husband and i, we live a very simple life. would just like to go to the parks and walk and we like to do random acts of kindness. we are very conservative with our money. what would your advice be to me to help to do a peaceful protest?

so if the republicans can do a better job, if you could help me out. i know it's not a money question or a tax question, but if you have any advice for me as a democrat. richard: not really in the business of giving protest advice. but i guess what i'd say is this. as i talk to members of congress, they are, in general, interested in hearing from their constituents. i would give this advice to anybody, which is if you have concerns, call, right here members of congress. you will get different levels of responsiveness but i think in general, members of congress try to be responsive and reflective of the districts. and so the more they hear from people, particularly people who they represent, not people from out of district or out of state, the more that they get that sense of what they are doing so you can look for town halls and things that they might or might not, either by phone or in

person in the district, or call their district or washington offices, and you know, talk to whoever, you know, the staff that answers the phone. they are in general attempting to be somewhat responsive and want to hear from people. host: as we finish up, when it comes to decisions about future spending and even taxation, what are you watching for? what would you advise our viewers to watch for? richard: i think this process that the house and senate republicans are going through right now where they are writing was likely to be fully partisan bill that cuts taxes, extent tax cuts, and cut spending, and adds some new spending on border security and national defense is worth watching. it is not at all a dumb process. that the jet -- done process. the general direction is pretty clear in the pieces i just outlined. but i think a lot of those details about what happens to medicaid, would happens to tax cuts, what happens to nutrition assistance are not at all set in

stone. so we are watching kind of how, what positions senate republicans take as they put together their fiscal framework. and then as house and senate republicans get into the nitty-gritty of writing their bills in the next two to six months to releasee where that all lands and where the pressure points are. they really have these very slim majorities in both the house and the senate. and you know, members are very attuned to what constituents are saying, and also to help some of this math is going to work out. host: you can find our guest's work at wsj.com. richard rubin from the wall street journal joining us. thanks for your time. we will learn more about the case of a columbia university graduate student detained by the trump administration in connection with antiwar gaza protest from last year. the foundation for individual rights & expression's conor

fitzpatrick joins us for that discussion. with president trump shifting positions on trade with canada and the news, we will examine the relationship between the two countries with university of ottawa's charles-etienne beaudry. both of those segments coming up on "washington journal." >> looking to contact your members of congress? c-span is making it easy with our 2025. congressional directory. get eccentric contact information for government officials all in one place. this compact spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every house and senate member of the 119th contact information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. the congressional directory cost $3295 plus shipping and handling

and every -- $32.95 and every purchase helps support c-span's scan the qr code on your right or go to c-span.org to preorder your copy today. c-spanchop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our collection of c-span products, apparel, home decor, and accessories. there's something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> there are many ways to listen to c-span radio anytime, anywhere. in the washington d.c. area, listen on 90.1 fm. use our free c-span now app or go online to c-span.org/radio, on sirius xm radio, and on your

smart speaker by simply saying play c-span radio. hear are live call-in program "washington journal" daily at 7:00 eastern. listen to live senate proceedings, other public affairs events live throughout the day. for the best way to watch of happening in washington catch washington today weekdays. listen to c-span programs on c-span radio anytime, anywhere. c-span, democracy unfiltered. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is conor fitzpatrick. he is the supervisor senior attorney at the foundation for individual rights & expression. here to talk about a case that's may news in the last couple of days involving free expression and others. thank you for joining us. conor: thanks for having me. host: a little bit about your

organization, what does it do? conor: fire, we already foundation for individual rights & expression, dedicated to defending free speech and free expression for all americans. we don't care if you're republican, democrat, green, libertarian, everything in between. if it's protected, we will defend it. we are financially supported by donors like you. we are a nonprofit supported by foundations and individual donors. we rely on people who share our passion for free speech, who share our passion for the idea that no expression and no idea should be out of bounds. host: financially, you come from many organizations, people, that kind of thing? conor: that's right. host: there is a gentleman named mahmoud khalil connected with an event that took place last year columbia university, however he's currently in detention by the trump administration. conor: he was involved in some of the protest at columbia university related to the word gaza. mr. khalil's advocacy was

primarily pro-palestinian and to some viewers,'s opinions veered on the side of almost being pro-hamas or outrightly pro-hamas. has expression and abuse gained the ire of many in the current trump administration and many on both sides of the aisle. now, that's a healthy part of the first amendment. what we expect in our countries that no idea and no opinion is out of bounds. and if you don't like an idea, you can counteract it with an idea of your own. but was happen over the last couple of weeks and while we are incredibly concern for the state of free speech and this country is that the trump administration has revoked or is attempting to revoke mr. khalil's green card. is a lawful permanent resident in the united states, though he's a native of syria, and the administration is trying to cancel his green card and department because they say his views on the israeli-palestinian conflict endanger danger the foreign policy of the united states. to be clear, he has not been charged with a crime.

he has not even been alleged by the administration to have violated any school rules. the allegations from this administration are we don't like what he has to say and we are going to ship and back him. to us as defenders of free expression, that's not acceptable. host: why is he in detention then? conor: the administration's justification is relying on a 1950's era law in the immigration and nationality act that allows the secretary of state to personally determine that someone's views are so contrary to the foreign policy of the united states that they can be deported. it does not require any evidence or even allegation of a crime. they are trying to rely on this very rarely used statute to deport a permanent resident, green card holder for at this stage nothing more than his protected expression. host: the wall street journal editorial mentioned a march 10 letter to mr. rubio and other officials, foundation for individual rights & expression wrote that the government must

not use immigration enforcement to punish out and filter out ideas disfavored by the administration. can you elaborate? conor: we should never be in a spot where guests and visitors in our country, permanent residence, visa holders, or people here on vacation think that once they arrive on our shores, have to watch what they say. it's hard for me to think of any sentence less american than watch what you say or else. that's simply not how we do things here. this is an authority that can be easily abused by either side. imagine if president biden tried to have nigel farage deported for attending the republican national convention. imagine if the george w. bush seven restoration tried to deport john oliver for criticizing the iraq war. i would imagine too many of your viewers, hopefully both of those examples are acceptable and it's why we need to keep and protect free expression.

host: here is the secretary of state talking about this case yesterday. i want to play a little bit, get your response. sec. rubio: when you come to the united states as a visitor, which is what he reads is, which is how this individual entered this country, you are here as a visitor. we can deny you that visa. if you tell us when you apply, hi, i am trying to get into the united states on a student visa, i am a big supporter of hamas, a murderous, barbaric a group that kidnaps children that rapes teenage girls that takes hodges stages that allows them to die in captivity, if you toast your in favor of a group like this and you tell us i intend to come to your country as a student and rile up all kinds of anti-jewish student, anti-semitic activities, i intend to shut down your universities, if you told us all these things when you applied for your visa, we would deny your visa. i hope we would. if you actually end up doing that once you are in this country on such a visa, we will revoke it.

and if you end up having a green card, not citizenship, with a green card as a result of the visa, we are going to kick you out. this is not about free speech. this is about people who don't have a right to be in the united states to begin with. host: that's the secretary of state from yesterday. with your response -- what's your response? because he said this isn't even about free speech. conor: he's wrong. there's a whole lot going on. this is absolutely about free speech. the executive branch does have significantly more discretion in deciding who to allow into the country in the first place. he's right when he says when we decide whether to give you a visa, the executive branch traditionally has more authority to decide whether or not to let you in. that's an accurate statement of the law. where he goes wrong is, first, conflating advocacy for an organization and conflating that with illegal acts that that organization might do and trying to pin the speaker within the illegal acts of others. that's a big problem. the second problem, and this is the more fundamental problem and

why free speech is implicated, is that the idea in the united states is that there has always been no idea too dangerous for you to express on these chores. in thomas jefferson's first inaugural address, he took time and that address to defend the right of people who called for the dissolution of the union, who called for that the united states just simply should not exist. he said that in our country, in our republic, the way to counteract an idea you don't like his with another idea, to use reason and logic to show the wrongness of somebody else's argument rather than trying to use the strong arm of government to silence them. that's why this implicates free speech and that's where the secretary of state, in our view, is going wrong. host: are you representing mr. khalil directly? conor: we are not. host: these are the lines if you want to call and ask our guest questions. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

and independents, (202) 748-8002 . you can text us at (202) 748-8003. he talked about the detention and what led up to it. is there any evidence that mr. khalil is directly related to or connected to hamas? conor: the administrator and has not present evidence so far. karoline leavitt came to the podium and make clear that the administration's basis for attempting to deport mr. khalil is his quote unquote pro hamas views. karoline leavitt mentioned posters and flyers that mr. khalil's organizations were apparently passing out on columbia. but posters and pamphlets and flyers have another name, speech, expression. we have been handing out posters, pamphlets since boston square in the mid 18th century. if someone doesn't like what a flyer or a poster has to say, they can throw the flyer in the trashcan. they don't have to read it.

they can say no thank you, i don't want your flyer. they can read and disagree. what they cannot do is enlist the strong arm of government to try to throw out the country the person who handed them the flyer. host: a judge has decided he's going to remain detained in louisiana. as far as legal recourse, what happens now? conor: right now there are habeas corpus proceedings going on in the southern district of new york. there was a status conference yesterday. mr. khalil's council is attempting to get him return to the southern district of new york. the administration had transferred mr. khalil it sounded like on sunday down to louisiana. there is a status conference yesterday. the judge in the southern district of new york has asked for additional briefing so we certainly hope there will be an expeditious resolution to those proceedings. host: this is conor fitzpatrick of the foundation for individual rights and expression joining us. dan is an ohio, republican line. you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: first of all,

republicans are the ones that stand for everybody having a right to express their opinion. however, these so-called protesters prevented jewish students from attending class, they want into buildings during different protests, caused vandalism, broke things up. if i went to a college campus and i started busting things up and causing vandalism, i rightly would be arrested. so, protest is one thing. but when people pay the type of money that they pay for college education and then others stand in their way and prevent them from going to class, that is not protest. this man should be arrested. he should be deported. host: ok.

you made your point. we will let our guest respond. conor: i think the gentleman from ohio raises a couple of important points. he's absolutely right that it's against the law to block people from going to class, for engaging in vandalism, for occupying buildings and trespassing. he's absolutely right that that's against the law, and properly so. the problem here with mr. khalil and the problem with this administration's treatment of mr. khalil is that there are no allegations he did any of that. what they are trying to do is group mr. khalil in with a bunch of other protesters who did do those things, and essentially trying to tar his name with the illegal acts of others. and that's what's not ok. presumably, if this administration had any evidence that mr. khalil, the one they are trying to deport, had blocked anyone from going to class, had vandalized anything, had committed any crime, they would have provided by now.

they've detained a man in louisiana far away from his home and his eight month pregnant wife. but so far, the only justification that this administration has provided for deporting mr. khalil, this individual, is that he distributed flyers that they don't like and that he organized protests with messages that they don't like. that's what's not ok. host: sonya in washington, d.c., democrats line. your next. hello. caller: i just wanted to make a quick comment. as an immigrant myself, i spent seven years trying to immigrate to do not states, many years on visas, finally got my green card. i knew as an immigrant that i could be deported at any time. i knew not to participate in protests, commit crimes, distribute any kind of, you know, contentious literature. i knew this. every immigrant knows this. so for him to play like he didn't know what he was

doing, you cherish the opportunity to finally come to america and you wait your time to get your citizenship and you are so grateful to finally make it here. so you know, that's just the other perspective of it, were to say that he didn't know that this could happen. you know as an immigrant this is a gift and opportunity. thank you very much. conor: i think there's no question that being an american citizen is on of the best benefits out there that there is. but one of the benefits of being an american in one of the benefits of being in the united states is that you shouldn't have to fear a midnight knock on your door because you voiced the wrong opinion. think back to the declaration of independence. we hold that these truths are self-evident, all men are created equal, that they have certain unalienable rights, life, liberty, the pursuit of happyness. in the united states, we get our

liberty not because the government is nice and allows us to have liberty, but because of who we are as individuals. because it's a right of everyone to have liberty. i can think of no idea more foreign to american exceptionalism and american liberty than the idea that when you're in the united states, you should have to watch what you say. that's simply not what we are about. host: the president posting on truth social. and in part he said this. if you support terrorism including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests. you are not welcome here. we expect everyone of america's colleges and universities to comply. for that last part, what does it mean for colleges and universities as they decide how people express themselves on these campuses? public universities -- conor: part public universities, there required to comply to the

first amendment. we are. you have an administration threatening their federal funding if they comply with the first amendment. it puts them very much in a catch-22 position and i when i am be being in the university president's office at any public university right now. host: when colleges and campuses, what are the rules of free speech and expression, guidelines at least? i know it what generally do administrations say for those participating in these events? guest: if you're in a public area, a quad or sidewalk. the rules apply, you can hand out a sign or a pamphlet. of course, universities are for learning but the first amendment does not protect your right to disrupt the class or protect your right to do a sit-in in a building and prevent people to

going to class or prevent -- or prevent other people from receiving a education. as long as what students are doing, to simplify it, to talk, it's a important part of college and part of being an american. america does not use the universities to indoctrinate the next generation. we expect them to take up issues that make their blood boil and throw the remote control because in the united states, that's life. you don't throw people in jail when they have an opinion that contravenes the view of the government. it's the colleges and universities' responsibility to foster that open atmosphere of ideas and make sure no one is punished simply because their opinions go against the ideas of the day. host: this is connor fitzpatrick from rights and expression.

john from the independent line in virginia, hi. caller: this is fascinating because according to this guy, foreign countries can insert students on student visas and have them create absolute chaos in this country and nothing we can do about it because he's going to protect them under freedom of speech. let me tell you, they're not u.s. citizens. on 9/11, those terrorists came over on student visas. ok. this has been going on for a long time where countries will use student visas and activists to go insert and create chaos, not just in this country and other countries. and i'm not saying we -- we do it to other countries as well. this is happening all around the world. you're dang right, we have every option to identify these folks that are creating chaos, that are undermining our

institutions, that are shutting down or campus and education and shutting things down which is happening with these guys. host: we've got your point. guest: 9/11 was not protected by the first amendment. terrorism is a very serious crime, properly so. nothing that happened was protected by the first amendment. but to the idea of students coming here and voicing other ideas, i view that as a good thing. ideas do not hurt anyone. if you hear an idea you don't like or disagree with, in america the way we handle that is you offer a counterargument or if the idea is so reprehensible you can't imagine yourself speaking to that person, you walk away. what we don't do here is we don't enlist the strong arm of government to either throw people in jail or throw people out of the country because somebody voiced an opinion we

don't like. host: you mentioned or alluded to it the education department sent out guidance from t education secretary and reads like this, the department is deeply disappointed jewish students studying on elite u.s. campuses connu their fear for safety amid the relentless anti-semitic eruptions that ha severely disrupted life. university leaders must do better and public investments funded by u.s. taxpayers and that support is a privilege. and is violating federal anti-discrimination laws. and on the subject of free speech, how does it impact that. guest: if you recall on the trump administration months ago, they issued an executive order that everyone comply with the first amendment and requirements of free speech. it's a bit of a puzzle trying to square the administration's executive order mandating and requiring that everybody conform

to first amendment and requirements of free speech with these new directives but i'll give it a shot. again, the administration is right, many colleges and universities have done a terrible job handling these protests. we've seen instances of disproportionate violence against protesters but also seen instances of complete passivity to students being blocked from students going to class or buildings being occupied and what is getting people angry and rightly so, is inconsistency, inconsistent enforcement. it seems to some if you're expressing a view the college is more sympathetic to you're treated with kid gloves but if you're voicing a view, a more conservative view, the administration is going to use speech proes to come after you. what we're looking for is consistency. the first amendment mandates consistency and neutrality. for both the administration and colleges and universities, it needs to be equal treatment for opinions and the way the first

amendment does that is by saying we don't subject people to punishment because we don't like what they have to say. host: john joins us from texas, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. the first caller is what i was really going to talk about but since you answered that, i want to go a different direction. the secretary of state can act by statute. that means that judges bound by that statute. nobody is challenging that statute. that's point one. point two, that guy supports an organization that cuts people's heads off. that there to me i'm sorry, the idea his wife is eight months pregnant can go home with him. why not within, be together. they treated juice terribly when they paid for an education. their rights were trampled on.

you don't know if them guys were at those riots last year or not. i'd like to hear what you think about that right now. guest: thank for you your call and question. the first point is the statute we are relying on. under the supremacy clause the constitution trumps any statute. the judges swear an oath to uphold to the statutes and the constitution of the united states and the first amendment which is a part of the constitution and necessarily trumps any federal or state statute to contravene that. to get to your second point, why not ship them away and cancel his visa, that's a dangerous path to put us on by the rationale saying the secretary of state can deem someone contrary to our national

interests. we know this administration has voiced time and time again that they want to be tough on china. this statute they're invoking, if you read article 1 of the chinese constitution, it says their citizens have freedom of speech and have their liberties unless it conflicts with the interest of the state. this statute that secretary of state rubio is relying on by saying usually i can't deport people unless i have determined that their actions or words imperil the state and that should give everyone on both sides of the aisle a very big pause because we know a loophole like that can have a u.p.s. truck driven through it because we've seen what happens in china. and we see what happens when the government gives the authority based on censorship based on what they see in the national

interest. host: eva from the democrats line. hi, there. caller: i think president trump he doesn't go in like a president in a democratic country, he governs like a dictator. i have experience, i came to this country because over my country and i was a federal employee and they threatened they weren't going to let me go because of my debt and i decided to write a letter and send it because i knew the war was a evolution. on the letter i wrote when you came in power, you said they are not leftist or right, i'm a woman. i'm working to survive the war. you're going to let me go.

my debt is believed. if i go hungry, i will scream. that's how i felt. host: caller, i appreciate the story but what exactly do you want our guest to address when it comes to this issue? caller: i want to address i was threatened with prison because of what i said. so i feel that the student expressed himself for his patriots down there p. i don't think he was supporting hamas he didn't like both ways what was going on. and if he is an immigrant and he says the secretary has the right to check him before he comes, after they give him the green card, yes, if he does criminal activity they -- host: got your point. thank you. guest: one interesting point she raised, she mentioned coming from another country that was far more authoritarian.

and i don't know about your viewers, i often love to travel and especially love traveling through europe and oftentimes the countries are very close together and ask friends for recommendations on which country i should visit next. i'm trying to imagine what my reaction would be if one of my friends told me, go to this country, it's beautiful with great restaurants but just make sure you don't say anything bad about their president or they'll kick you out or make sure you don't say anything place worthy of group x or they'll kick you out. i would think my reaction and most americans' reaction would be what kind of a backwards country is that? because we're so used to our first amendment rights and our first amendment liberties here in the united states. we proudly leave repression of ideas and opinions to countries like russia and china and hurricane mine us tan and we should -- turkministan.

caller: you sit here and listen to this program and hear people with accents and the way they come from other countries that they didn't like so they came here. i have a feeling people come here and still want to come what they were doing in the other countries. and it's people like you, mr. fitzpatrick, that, you know, they criticize when we try to stand up for america. and i'm just so tired of it. these people that come, it's a privilege to come here. it's a privilege to be an american. and i just can't see how you can sit there with a smirk on your face and defend this person.

guest: good morning to michigan, my home state. first of all, what we are doing here is defending the right of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. most people think that they favor freedom of speech but when freedom of speech becomes really, really difficult, right, is when you have to start defending the rights of people that make your blood boil. but one of the reasons reagan called it the shining city on the hill, you have a right to your own opinion. the common saying, it's america, everybody is entitled to their opinion, it's a free country. and we should keep it that way. host: as far as the next few days when it comes to mr. khalil, what are you watching for? guest: the first thing is it the administration can provide any actual everyday mr. khalil was actually involved in any law breaking in any vandalism or any of these building occupations or

anything that could potentially provide a lawful basis for a deportation. so far all he provided is he handed out flyers with messages they don't like. in our view it's not enough. and the second thing is whether mr. khalil will be transferred back to the southern district of new york for his heinous hearing and will be the next -- habeus hearing and will be the next step. host: have you heard from colleges on how to proceed with this case? guest: there's great concern about universities across the country about how to navigate their obligations under the first amendment with all of these new directives coming from the administration. and what we would hope to see is the administration revert back to their executive order from the first couple weeks of their administration which is free speech and free expression are core to who we are as americans and core to who we are as a country.

host: fire.org for our guest, the foundation of individual rights and he serves as supervising senior attorney. thanks for your time. with president trump and his desire to make canada the 51st state, how is that resonating with canadiens. we'll talk with the university of ottawa charles etienne beaudry. that will happen when "washington journal" continues. >> the student cam challenged middle and high school students nationwide to create short videos with messages to the new president, exploring issues important to them or their communities. >> child protective services is important to protect kids from danger. >> we are here to deliver a message to the president. homelessness needs to be prioritized now. >> it is important for state and local governments to be given power and a voice to help

support the communities they serve. >> nearly 3,500 students across 42 states and washington, d.c. produced insightful and thought provoking films through in depth research and interviews with experts and explored critical issues like the climate, education policies, health care, gun violence and the economy. our panel of judges evaluated each entry on the inclusion of perspectives and overall story telling. we're thrilled to announce the top winners of student cam 2025. in our middle school division t it goes to eva, sophia, and eliana in silver spring, maryland, one party, two party, red party, blue party but what about other parties? >> the democrats and republicans have been the top dominating parties. >> our first prize goes to daniel aasa from atco, new jersey, saving sudan.

>> solidarity is vital as sudan is not isolated. >> benjamin kurian of powell, ohio, won first prize to the road to vision zero which provides a.i. road safety solutions. >> every day eight teenagers never make it home because of a car crash. >> the high school western division third prize goes to three anonymous students, addressing transnational repression in the next four years which sheds light on global human rights threats. >> this government needs to do better to make sure that the fundamental values of american democracy are not undermined. >> and determine out foley, a 10th grader from montgomery blair high school of silver spring, maryland, earns the grand prize $5,000 for his documentary, teens, social media and the fentanyl overdose crisis and features interviews with

parents who lost children by fentanyl and earns him the first by a sewth grader. >> this year student cam grand prizewinner. >> wow, oh, my gosh. thank you so much. thank you. i also want to say, i'm really grateful to the families who shared their stories and they were really brave and i learned so much from them and hope other teens learn from them as well. >> c-span would like to thank the educators, parents and students who participated this year. congratulations to all our winners. watch each of the 450 award-winning stent documentaries any time at studentcam.org and don't miss the top 21 winning entries airing this april on c-span. bringing you democracy unfiltered.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is charles etienne beaudry, from political studdies to look at the relationship of the u.s. and canada due to trump administration policy. professor, good morning? guest: good morning. thank you for receiving me. host: how would you gauge how the sentiment that canadiens have towards the united states these days? guest: i'm very happy to join this broadcast in washington because canadiens and americans, they need to talk to each other. that's for sure. there's an escalation of tensions between us and this is not a good thing. this is not the path forward for north america. presently in canada, people are angry, so canadians are usually very kind, very nice people, but these days, canadians are united

like i have never seen in my 45 years of life here in canada, always been living here. and stores are emptying the shelves is of everything that is made in the u.s.a. and this is something i have never expected to see. i think it's a misunderstanding. i think we're at a turning point in north america. and i really think that we can resolve this issue by good communication. a lot of canadians, they feel threatened by the trump administration but maybe "threat" is not the right word, maybe we need to understand that mr. trump has issues --

president trump has issues with the relationship with canada, the economic relationship with canada. but there's certainly a way to solve this problem. i saw this morning the secretary of state, mr. rubio was in my own province in quebec meeting with the minister of foreign affairs in canada. and i think it's a very good thing. i really hope that we can come to a common understanding and in win-win agreements. host: mr. beaudry, there's a lot there but is it things like the

tariffs angering the canadians or the larger sentiment or the attitude coming from the president of the united states or others here in the united states or a combination of things? guest: it's a combination of two things. first of all, the tariffs, because we have a free trade agreement since 1988, the first one between brian maroney and ronald reagan back in the days. then we have a larger free trade agreement with mexico since 1984. and then the first trump administration wanted to renegotiate nafta, the north american free trade agreement, so we sat down at the table and we negotiated the free trade agreement with the first trump administration. and president trump said in 2020

it was a great agreement. then he comes back in power and he simply doesn't respect this agreement. because in the new usnca, we call it the cusna and put canada first but in the u.s. you cannot put these kind of tariffs like the 25% on aluminum and steel. there's a lot of steel and aluminum that is produced in quebec. like i said, it's my own province and it will hurt our economy. we have an economic structure that is integrated with the u.s. canada is a very large country but we don't -- since we had

free trade agreements to do commerce and trading with our northern partners. so there's a lot of steal and aluminum that go in the factories in pennsylvania and michigan and new york state, etc. so it's really upsetting for people because people, workers in canada, they are afraid of losing their livelihood, their jobs. workers, then companies, you know, the big companies, the multinationals, they might be able to diversify their economy, their exportations and to export to the european union and southeast asia by boat but costs more and it's much easier to do trade right next to them at the north and southern border. so the big multinationals, they

might be able to survive this and not go bankrupt but what about small and medium businesses, family owned in canada? we have a lot that sells to the u.s. since 30 years and suddenly you put 25%, that hurts a lot so we -- host: let me pause only to let our audience start to call in if they want to ask you questions. again, the audience, if you want to ask questions when it comes to the u.s.-canada relations and especially policy issues, for 202-748-8000, and for the republicans, 202-748-8001, and also for canada residents, if you want to call in, 202-748-8003 and also for independents, 202-748-8002. professor beaudry, when you hear

the president and residents say let's make canada the 51st state what goes through the collective minds with canadians? guest: a trade war already is making canadians angry. but it happened in the past with wood and even aluminum in the first trump administration. is so it's ok to do some elbowing. we agree with that in the economy. we're a strong powerhouse economically in canada. we have a lot of natural resources and partners in the world. we're a g-7 country and we can cope with an economic competition. it can be healthy competition. but by the time mr. trump insulted mr. trudeau, calling him a governor and insulted our

country, calling our country a simple 51st state, this really, really, really made canadians go ballistic. so there's no way that canadians will accept this and this is a very dangerous fact. canadians are so angry and about to burn the american flag like in iran. it makes no sense. as i said, we're emptying the shelves of american goods, booing the american national anthems at hockey games. this is not the path forward in north america for peace and prosperity and quality of life, innovation. you know, north american is all about the road trips, camping, it's all about freedom.

now we're checking everything that crosses the border with with the u.s. and is sad to witness. and the problem is the insulting factor of the comments of mr. trump. i think it's a misunderstanding. i know what mr. trump wants. he wants a common market with canada. he isn't want canada to become the 51st state. he wants to have a common market so he said get rid of the artificial line. i agree with that. we don't need the border between canada and the u.s. we stay sovereign nations but have a treaty in the european union when you can go from france to germany without seeing a border agent.

so this could be a great agreement to have a common market. you can work everywhere in canada or the u.s. you can work in toronto, the next year you work in new york. you don't need a green card or the equivalent in canada, a work permit. our agencies, c.b.p. would work with cbsa, the canadian agency to protect the ports and shores and the external borders. in european union, it's called front x. we can find a name for this agency, a joint agency of border protection and be very efficient against terrorism and threats to

our security in north america. the canadians are certainly not a threat to the united states. host: let's take in calls, this is from ted in hawaii for our guests on the democrats' line, you're with charles etienne beaudry, professor of universal studdies at ottawa. good morning. caller: good morning, hello, nice to speak to you. i've lived in hawaii for 48 years since the vietnam war got over and was in the air force and came to hawaii and lived here all these years. i spent the past 15 years, the place i would rather go and have a vacation is canada. canada is great the way it is. i would not take a chance in changing that, trusting on that change because it can change on you in a way you might not like. i think canada is great the way it is and should leave it that way, please.

host: ted in hawaii. guest: thank you very much, ted from hawaii, very nice to hear from you and hear your comments on our country. canada is great. we don't have a movement that wants to make canada great again because that was a also -- a little joke i wanted to make and ted opened the door for this. and ted really, really exemplifies the close relationship canadians and americans have. personally my morrones a house in florida next to fort lauderdale and we travel there. it's a fun relationship in north america. that's why i say it's sad. i don't want to put the blame on

mr. trump on president trump. i want to open the discussion, the deal making and tell him we need a common market. just look at our works in the european union called economic integration, not political integration so canada doesn't become a state. canada remains sovereign with a seat at the united nations but don't have a border anymore and you can work everywhere in canada in your life and the united states whether you were born in canada or the united states. the goods flow freely and save billions for this line. it's like 5,000 miles long, we need to secure this?

no, we need to secure the outside borders with the dangerous world we live in. i think that winston churchill was saying never go good crisis go wasted so this crisis that we have right now, like i said is just a misunderstanding, it must be some kind of mistake. and we can sit at the table with the trump administration and do something great. host: a viewer from x that says mr. trump's approach is reckless at times but adds, canada has been fair with america and there is a large trade imbalance and canada is cozying up to china and play fair and there won't be problems, that's what it comes down to fair trade. how do you respond to that? guest: we're not friends too much with china. canada is a democratic country with freedom of speech.

we have a first amendment. it's the second article in the charter of rights and freedom. and we have and we -- we don't have interest to doing business with dictatorships but have interest in doing business with democracy. we believe in freedom, and this is what canada is about, a great territory with the beautiful landscape where people can move, people can have a great life. there's an american dream but there's a canadian promise. and the canadian promise is having traditional values, having a family, owning a home and having a great career.

we believe in that. we don't believe in strong government. we have good social security. and then on the topic of the relationship with the united states, if in any way the canadian state has been mistreating the united states, we really apologize. because it was not intentional. we never wanted to hurt economically our partner. we often say that when the united states costs canada economically, when the united states costs canada has the flu. it's common knowledge in canadian that we need to strengthen the economy of the

united states because we're integrated and export 75% of our goods to the -- i mean, 75% of the goods we export are exported towards the united states. we need you to be a strong economy and don't want to hurt you and are very sorry if anything hurt you. and i'm saying we need to go to a table of negotiation and come to a win-win agreement. host: even as we speak, professor, our secretary of state is meeting with your minister of foreign affairs talking about issues there to show folks that taking place. let's hear from doug, the republican line. caller: thanks very much, i actually tend towards libertarian but i'm old and not

naive anymore. i think both sides of the border, canadian and the united states, due to their wonderful democratic policies and free markets will be just fine. as we all know, money and politics and power is what moves people and gets things to change. i for one as a u.s. citizen and 78-year-old want to see some change and it's really simple as that. my question is, i think both sides are going to be just fine. host: do you share that sentiment? guest: absolutely. so in the past 30 years since there was this globalization, there was a lot of

deindustrialization in north america and i completely understand the angst and anxiety in the american society. we have the same thing in canada. you cross the border from canada to the u.s., you don't really feel you've changed countries. you just feel that you have just morphed. and we have a national hockey league and play together and we're like good friends. the way forward, the path forward in order to reindustrialize north america and not just the united states is a common market, is economic integration, is a stronger partnership, a stronger free

trade. economic integration works like this. you have free trade and then you have a common market and then you can have monetary union. so the same money. and it needs to be done in this order. but right now we had a free trade agreement called usmca and president trump is infringing the free trade agreement with the tariffs. and this makes us further away from economic integration. this makes us protectionists to each other and it -- this is counterproductive in the reality of 2025, which is 30 years later than the globalizations. and the incredible movement of

goods in the world. we cannot turn the clock back. and there's a way -- there's a path forward to keep peace, prosperity, quality of life in north america, and it's not tariffs. that's for sure. it's the opposite. it's a common market, so go further in economic integration than simple free trade. it's just the other way we need to go. host: professor beaudry, you'll have a new prime minister as of tomorrow. tell us your thinking on mark carnie and what he faces as he faces a relationship with the united states? guest: thank you for this question. obviously mark carnie is a competent man and he's been dealing with money all his life.

mark carney was working with goldman sachs, an american company. he's been the governor of the bank of canada dealing with the 2008 economic crisis. and on his resume it said he did well. so people agree he did well. he did so well he was hired by the bank of england to address the issue of brexit so the negotiation with the european union from the new economic agreements after the withdrawal of the united kingdom from the european union, what's called a brexit. he did that for a couple years. and then he was an economic adviser to justin trudeau that resigned in january for his position of prime minister. so right now, he's been running

inside the liberal party just like a primary, inside the liberal party of canada and he won by 86%. so he's now the substitute prime minister because the prime minister in canada is the leader of the party, of the political party with most seats in the parliament that is the equivalent of your house of representatives. so it's a different system, it's the westminister system. and this situation makes him very weak democratically and isn't elected in the house of commons in the canadian parliament but been only selected by 150,000 liberal members. so he needs to launch an electoral campaign very soon. it will be done by march 20th.

he cannot wait longer because on march 24, the parliament will be recalled and the liberal party and it's the opposition party, the conservatives that are ready to go and a very left wing in canada and will bring down the government if he doesn't launch himself the election. and we have the freedom of launching elections any time. the government can do it, the prime minister can go to the governor general and say let's launch an election and the parliament can do it, the house of commons can go to the government and go win an election.

you can bet your bottom dollar there will be an election in canada in april. and by the end of april, there will be a new government that will have the democratic legacy. and mark carney can be a good banker but he's not elected. he's a institute prime minister. he will be running to be the governor with legitimacy and form a cabinet like 20 ministers around him and he will deal probably -- or will remain the minister of foreign affairs and she's speaking right now with secretary rubio and that's a

great thing. and i believe that things will get better with spring, with the sun. we have the sun today in canada and we have hope. host: let's hear from john in illinois, independent line for our guests. go ahead. caller: good morning, professor. i have had the opportunity to meet several canadians, all very nice people. when i talk to them, one of the things they always bring up, virtually every one, when i say i'm from the chicago area, they bring up the concept of hearing all the violence in chicago. and it's true, it's very violent relative to the canadian cities. and where that's come from over the years is deindustrialization. and the u.s. has lost a lot of jobs to places like canada, which have lower production

costs and part of that is because the u.s. corporations have to pay the health care benefits. in canada, it's provided by the government. so the canadians have an unfair advantage. and what i think needs to be done is to scrap the present trade agreements and go to something that's totally their, balanced bilateral trade. you buy a dollar of u.s. goods, we buy a dollar of canadian goods. that will equal out the massive imbalance in the trade. the trade deficit u.s. has with canada. and i feel that's fair. i don't agree he's doing it too abruptly but i feel that's the answer and feel that's fair. host: john in illinois. thanks. guest: well, thank you for your comment. and i agree with the concept of going to a table of negotiation.

and i think all tariffs, if you want to have a negotiation between both of us, and if we have been taking advantage of the united states because of our universal health care system, i know it's very costly for u.s. employers to pay the insurance for the workers, so if it's the issue, we will talk about it. we will sort is out. certainly in canada we treasure our health care system. we wait in line. we don't mind because we don't want to let anybody in that because they have health issues, so it's a choice we have been making in the past and we keep with it p. but if this reality makes it unjust in the trade

relationship and makes an imbalance in the trades, we are open to renegotiate again. we did it a couple years ago. so we had nafta for 25 years and we renegotiated nafta and now have usnca and it was supposed to be renegotiated in 2026. we were ready to do so. but if it can be done in 2025 because there's like an emergency, an economic emergency, there will be no problem. we will sit at the table again and we will hear what americans have to put on the table and to -- the complaints that you have and i know that our government will be very, very open to solve the issues and to

reindustrialize the united states as the united states wants to because the strength of the american economy is ensuring the strength of the canadian economy. we are integrated. we are connected. and we are the smaller one. so the richer you are, the richer we are. we don't want to be seen as a parasite. this is the worst thing. we want to be seen as a great partner that helps, like a friend that helps you to succeed. host: kathy joins us from new york, democrats line. hi there, you're on with our guest. caller: hi. thank for you taking my call. i am for canada. i am so offended by our

president and the ridiculous statements he makes about canada being the 51st state. and he's out of line and we don't agree with him. we love canada. my daughter lives close to the border. she goes up to canada regularly. we spent our last two vacations up in canada. we love everything about it. and we are on your side. i have to tell you when trudeau gave a speech about what trump is doing to canada, i felt so much better, better than any politician has ever made me feel here in the united states. and thank you. keep up what you're doing. and we will be praying for you. thank you. host: professor beaudry, the caller gives me a chance to ask about the outgoing prime minister, what do you think his impact will be on canada?

guest: mr. trudeau was a very leftist prime minister and believes strongly in the government. he was part of implementing the paris agreement. we have a carbon tax that angers canadians because we have to pay more from our goods because it comes from the government and a way to lower the greenhouse emissions. so this is one of his policies and he has to retire the carbon tax. he has implemented a child benefit, i think the biden administration inspired by the

child benefit that left -- that saved children from poverty in canada, hundreds of thousands of children that are really helped by this child benefit, he has been working hard on indigenous reconciliation, we call it this in canada. so we're trying to promote indigenous communities and we have a national day of remembrance of the suffering of indigenous communities. he was a child of a former prime minister. and when he was a kid, he traveled to the world. there is a unique character in canada because he was always on the eyes of the public, so he met richard nixon and met jimmy carter and queen elizabeth when he was a kid.

and he was born and raised to be a prime minister. but he had maybe his own perspectives, very progressive, very interested in diversity and inclusion that is problematic for the trump administration. in canada it was pushed a lot by the trudeau government. it was everywhere in the government papers for years that being there must be affirmative action in the government. and there must be a total tolerance towards other ethnicities and different sexual orientations. this is what was the trudeau government. and for a while it worked well

because canada is a progressive country. people are open-minded. but since is a couple years it has fueled a conservative movement that is very strong right now in canada. the conservatives are ready for the campaign. the leader of the conservatives has strong support in canada and he's accusing -- he's -- let's see. he's blaming justin trudeau for problems in canada of security in big cities and the price of more gauges, the price of housing in canada is astronomic

when you live in toronto, montreal, vancouver, it's very, very costly, even to rent an apartment. so downtown ottawa it costs you $2500, $3,000 to have a very ordinary apartment. so he blames -- so the leader blames trudeau for the economic hardship. the average salaries in canada stayed somewhere between $50,000 and $60,000 per year since 2015. but the prices they went up. there's a lot of inflation. it costs a lot to live in canada. host: we have just a few minutes and before i let you go, i want to point out you are a author,

"radio trump" and how he won the first time. in a minute or so, what is the book about? guest: the book is about what happened in 2016, 2015-2016. so as a political scientist, i'm very interested in the united states. so i teach at the university of ottawa american politics, so i teach canadians how it works, your congress and your federalism. i teach history of the miracle of philadelphia. i teach many things that the canadians don't know. so that way i think i help to strengthen the relationships between canada and the united states. so my book "radio trump" talks about how a lot of radio hosts

like michael savage in san francisco, or even alex jones in texas helped president trump to rise to power by supporting him during the year 2016. so it's divided in chapters. so there's a chapter on his race with ted cruz to become the nominee in the republican party. and then the protests in israelis and all the d.n.c. and the wikileaks cracking. host: so there's a lot in there. guest: yeah, the whole story. it's how he won the first time and called "radio trump" because i see through the lens of radio hosts.