>> coming up on washington journal, your calls live. the recent with stephen vladeck and former trump homeland security official, ken cucc inelli discussing deportation policies. washington journal is next. during the conversation. -- joining the conversation. [video clip] >> historic action that was 45 years in the making. in a few moments i will sign an executive order to begin eliminating the federal

department of education once and for all. [end video clip] ♪ host: president trump yesterday moving closer to a campaign pledge to dismiss education department. first hour of the washington journal. your reaction to the president's executive order yesterday. he was out enjoying, democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independent, (202)-748-8002. educators and parents, your line is (202)-748-8003. you can text or post on facebook.com/c-span.

good morning. the first hour of washington journalist focusing on dismantling the education department. do you agree with president trump smoke yesterday or disagree? dial in now. let's hear more from the president yesterday at the white house. [video clip] pres. trump: the departments use both functions, they are in charge of them, pell grants, title i funding, resources for children with disabilities and special needs, will be preserved, fully preserved, so if you look at the pell grant, supposed to be a good program, title i funding and resources for children with special disabilities and special needs, they will be preserved in full, and redistributed to various other agencies and departments. that will be very important to linda and all of us, but below -- beyond these necessities, my administration will take steps to shut down the department.

we are going to shut it down as quickly as possible. it is doing us no good. we would like to return her students to the states, where some of the governors are so happy about this because they like education to come back to the states and they will do a phenomenal job. denmark, norway, sweden, i give them a lot of credit, china is cap 10, so we can not say that big business is making it impossible to educate because china is very big, but you have countries that do a lot of education and i really believe some of the governors here today from states that run well, putting a big state like texas, but states that run very well, they are going to have education that will be as good as norway, denmark, sweden, finland, those top countries that do so well with education. they will do every bit as well.

what do you think, ron, do you agree? iowa? that is right. i believe they will be as good as any of them. [end video clip] host: president trump vowing to take all legal steps to shut down the education department. recent polls taken on this move by the president showed that 60% oppose eliminating the department of education while 33% supported. this is according to a quinnipiac poll. take a look at another poll. when they were asked about eliminating the department of education by party, 98 percent of democrats oppose, 64% of independents and 18% of republicans, 67 of republicans support the idea of dismantling the education department. 1% of democrats support it, while 31% of independents.

those poll numbers from quinnipiac poll done by that outfit. take a look at congressional reaction. this is from the senate democratic leader chuck schumer and a tweet saying, attempting to dismantle the department of education is one of the most destructive and devastating steps donald trump has ever taken. this will hurt kids. horrible decision by donald trump will be felt by teachers, parents, school leaders, and in the quality of education our children receive. then you have this for michael bennet, democratic senator from colorado. parents are worried enough about the state of america's public education system. reading scores after the 20 year low, and chronic absenteeism is on the rise. all of this is proof we need to work together to reimagine our public schools for the 21st century. take a look at republicans' response. bill cassidy, the chair of the senate committee that oversees the education department, i agree with president trump that

the department of education has failed its mission. since the department can only be shut down with congressional approval, i will support the president's goals by submitting legislation to accomplish this as soon as possible. and then you have this from thomas massie, who oppose the president and republicans recently. bravo, congress should support president trump's bold agenda by passing his bill, hr 899 to abolish the department of education. we could also use rescissions in the budget reconciliation process, which only require subduing votes in the senate, to back him up. do you support this idea of getting rid of the federal education department? do you think republicans should do this with reconciliation and a simple majority? helen, california, republican. good overhead -- go ahead. caller: i'm a republican and i've been a special needs teacher for four decades and i'm still teaching.

my comment, good, time to go. it has been a waste of resources and money. it has ridiculous mandates that we all have to pay service to, complete waste of money and time. and precious resources. host: when you say ridiculous mandates, explain for those who are not familiar with the education system with some of those mandates are. caller: curriculum mandates for special need students that came out i think may be the obama administration. and it was requiring uniform curriculum for all students with disabilities, moderate to severe, and we got stuck with ridiculous curriculum. and because -- some of my students are high school students, but they are still developmentally delayed, and, you know, i will put it bluntly,

developmentally, they are three or four years old, and with the mandates you have to teach geometry, physics, and so you get these packets with the company contracted by the district, and they tell us to modify and be creative. in so many words, fix it. host: as you know, the curriculum comes from the local level, but when it comes to special education, this came from the federal government. caller: this came from the federal government and we are all supposed to have equal access to academic materials. well, it translated to be fixed to make it look like geometry, chemistry, do what you have got to do. and then as a dedicated teacher, you have to go out and spend your money on the weekends trying to find materials that we can modify and fix to show you are doing this.

so that is one thing about getting rid of the department of education. secondly, i've served briefly as a title i coordinator. get this, my kids are not verbal but we had title i funding coming in, nothing but layer upon layer of bureaucracy, meetings, compliance, how to fill out paperwork properly, how to get the funding, how to word it correctly. this has been just a bunch of bureaucratic nightmare. host: i'm going to jump in so i can put a little more meat on the bones of what you are saying from usa today, title i student loans and other programs will continue under this executive order. public schools rely on the education department to distribute federal education dollars, a major stream comes from title i, a program that boosts funding to schools that serves high poverty populations. caroline leavitt said title

i, as well as pell grants and student loans that help students pay for college will be administered by the department under the order, so all of that stays in place. caroline lovett also told reporters yesterday that the education department has failed to deliver despite spending 3 trillion since it was created in 1979. let's go to dana, indianapolis, democrat. welcome to the conversation. caller: yes. my son is special-education. it did wonders for him. it did him very good. as far as helping him on his communication skills, as far as helping him on went to get out in the public so i think the program is great, especially for

federal grant loans. host: john, new york, independent. caller: first of all, i think what concerns me is discrimination. the department of education cannot monitor school districts that like to discriminate, especially out of the south. i think it was a mistake. i think educators should have got together. if there was a problem with the department of education, then those educators who have a strong union should have gotten together, they should've banned together, wrote to your congressman or tell your senators, look, we are having issues here, so instead of destroying the department, trying to correct the department, and that powerful teachers union could have done it, so quit crying like babies, blaming, and doing the

finger-pointing, the name flaming game, and work to -- name blaming game, and work together to improve it. host: to your point about getting congress on board because it would take an act of congress to fully eliminate the education department, back to usa today, legislation in congress to eliminate the department of education would require support from democrats, which makes such an effort unlikely. it is unclear whether moderate republicans in the u.s. senate would be on board with the republican proposal to shift agencies elsewhere within the federal government. trump has begun discussing the idea with his cabinet anyway. kyle, new york, republican. caller: good morning. so as a teacher from 23 years, the call from california was partially right. all these programs started under

the no child left behind act under the bush administration. host: the mandates. caller: yes, the mandates, which changed a lot of programs, but the problem i have, these states are left to do what they really do, so that is one of the reasons why a few years ago, i questioned why did we need the department, the federal department of education because all 50 states pretty much came up with their own curriculum and different types of policies. so i would be comfortable if the federal department had a blanket caliber for all 50 states when it came to curriculum, but since they don't, i kind of agree that we need to downsize it, as long as they keep the funding still further -- i have a masters in special education, and so the funding, as long as they keep the funding, i'm comfortable

with that. we have to downsize these departments that kind of blew up over the last 30, 40 years that is costing us a lot of money. host: let's talk about money, from washington times. the education department enforces nondiscrimination policies in schools, the money it distributes to schools accounts for less than 10% of the nation's public school funding, which has driven primarily by state and local taxes, so 90% of the funding for k-12 education comes primarily from the local property taxes you pay. the federal government is distributing 10%. or re-, florida, democrat. -- lori, florida, democrat. caller: good morning. my word, it is about time.

i agree with the previous caller and a couple of callers ago that the department of education is overgrown. it does not provide -- as a matter of fact, it is redundant and what it says because the states have already done this. they have done this before 1979. before the department of education, we had the office of education, and its primary objectives was only to monitor the results of the state education programs, and the other thing, the federal government really has no business in the education. it goes under the 10th amendment , which is to the states and people, which means basically the teachers, parents and the students. host: a little history about the education department, started

under the carter administration in 1979, began operating in 1980. it had 4400 employees and its 2024 budget was $238 billion. that was its 2024 budget. it does more than the 10% i talked about with k-12. it is administering college grants, loans, as well. from usa today, dated the trump administration already cut the agency's workforce trumps long anticipated order comes after 1300 education employees were served or received termination notices last week as part of a large-scale reduction's across the federal government pushed by elon musk's doge committee, combining layoffs and other departures, the trump administration trimmed the workforce from 4333 to 2183 since the start of his second

term. despite the dramatic downsizing, the agency continues to oversee vital federal funding programs for schools. for more reporting than the national newspapers this morning, from the washington times, excuse me, this is from the new york times, the washington post -- administration officials have been less forthcoming about which programs should be eliminated and they have not detailed any that will be returned to the states. the education department does not determine curriculum or graduation requirements which are the responsibility of the states already, nor does it administer the headstart preschool or school meals program, run by other federal agencies. so unclear yet what is being returned to the states. kiva, republican. caller: i have to say that

president trump to the right thing. i remind myself every single day that i get up, president trump should work with democrats and republicans when it comes to education, and if i disagree with president trump, i will write to my congresswoman. not really, but for the most part, people should stick up. i honestly think this is fine. besides, a lot of title ix money can simply be appropriated and put into an annual, yearly budget. you can call fiscal if you would like. but i just see what is going on in our country and say president trump was given a mess, four years later he can clean up and in a few years, this will be something that people will be so proud of. and can now you can ask me a

follow-up question. host: i will move onto members of congress and their reaction. former history teacher at democrat took to x to react and respond to the president yesterday. here is what she had to say. [video clip] i would like to be sure that everybody understands what's happening. the department of education handles title i funding for low income students, it protects the civil rights of students, it manages pell grants and student loan grants. all of those things. trump and linda mcmahon keep talking about returning it to the states, but i have not heard them say once that that means providing the states with the funds to carry out their responsibilities. i have not heard them once say what will happen next, how students with special needs will be protected, how low income communities will still have the resources that they deserve. none of them, trump, musk, or

linda mcmahon have ever had to put their children in public school. white frankly, i don't think they care about what happens next. we have heard about waste, fraud, and abuse. i'm open to having hearings and looking at anything they think may be wrong with the department of education, but it is interesting that they are saying they would like the cuts but nothing has been said about providing more tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals. nothing has been said about auditing elon musk in the billions of dollars in federal contracts he holds, far more than the department of education is responsible for. so they targeted attacks on children, on the most vulnerable children from programs like snap another department of education, are awful. and we all have to push back. i'm really -- i mean, the silence of good republicans are now is deafening because i would like for them to explain to their communities how education

will be delivered in the rural areas. how education will be delivered in low income communities that rely on federal funding. i'm thinking about any of the people introduced at the bottom of education in this country because they have not put in the resources invested in our children. [end video clip] host: democrat johanna haynes on, pushing back on what president trump had to say about the status of the education department. he moved yesterday to dismantle it. carol, louisiana, independent. caller: good morning, america and c-span. i just have a small comment. if our government cannot get along, how can we? i agree we need to save in every department, but education is the key to growth and staying ahead. what about the poor states,

mississippi, how are they going to find it? i feel sad our government cannot work together. host: part of the rationale is the poor results that we are seeing in american schools, this is from the washington times, studies show american students are falling behind global peers, the trends in your national mathematics and science study and the test of math and science skills, given fourth and eighth graders, found that american fourth-graders have declined 18 points in math, and eighth graders have declined 27 points since 2019. caller: very good point. i believe if we paid educators more money, we will get better quality teachers and we will get better results in the long run. i know my sister has stayed in education for 30 years, could have left, but she loved it. but the key is, working

together, working for the kids first and just keep moving ahead. let's get along. host: keith, north dakota, democrat. caller: i think it is stupid to dismantle the education. we need to put more into it. i already forgot what i was going to tell you, but we have got people that are -- i don't believe in kids that are 17 being allowed to drop out of school. we have enough idiots in this country. we need to educate them more. i'm tired that people are not being educated more. host: the president says it will be up to the states to do the educating. since returning to the white house, trump has discussed given states full authority to oversee

schools, signaling out iowa and indiana, including states that run their own education, looking to stress the concept, trump was expected to sign the order, along with education chiefs. the include ron desantis of florida, glenn youngkin of virginia, greg abbott of texas, and mike dewine of ohio, but it isn't clear what trump means by such an arrangement. local districts and state already controlled her school curriculums. the federal government provides wooded oversight for schools that receive federal funding to ensure students are kept safe and treated equally. that is the role of this education department, which, by the way, is one of the smallest federal departments in washington. iris, michigan, publican. good morning. caller: i think it is -- good morning. you are looking great.

i believe the closest you can get to your parents and their interest in you is the best way to go. yes, it is limited. i looked at with the government has on children, but we need more close ties with the mothers, the fathers, the community. parent-teacher conferences. the association close to the environment they are growing up for. it worked for me, my children, my grandchildren, all brought out in public schools. accomplished, accomplished, accomplished. report cards, expectations of the children, forums that have opened up to them i don't believe they have now. host: how would that go now if

it is -- how would that go away if it is run by the states? caller: because the federal government is so scattered, they are interested in more, war, ukraine, soldiering, and what is going on outside of their community. host: thomas, new york, democrat. support or oppose the president's executive order two, as he said, step by step, shut down the education department. he made the first move yesterday. caller: i'm a democrat. some of it i support, some i don't. waking up in education, i'm a democrat, but the way he's doing it, i come from the south, i come from discrimination, i'm 76 years old. and other ones that do not

believe blacks would go to school. all blacks should talk about discriminations we have in our education system. i did not elect the board of education because they spent nine dollars on a black kid, 3000 on a white kid. who's going to stop this? like mitch mcconnell. host: i would like to read from axios why it matters, funding for public schools primarily falls to local and state governments, but federal funds work to fill the gaps. states that voted for trump last november, on average, use more federal funding in their education then states that voted for vice president harris. average federal spending in the 2021-2022 school year was 17% in

trump voting states, compared to 11% in states that voted for harris. at 23%, mississippi had the highest proportion of federal public funding that school year, with south dakota and arkansas following with honey 2% each. new york at 7% had the lowest. mississippi spends an average of 12,390 on public k-12 spending per student,

>> once again, why break something that is not broken, why fix something that is not broken because i just do not get it. schools in the southeast for instance, i sometimes volunteer in the southeast and low income areas. i have been to those schools. i sometimes volunteer at alternative school and you can see the resources on both sides of the state as completely. -- completely different. host: divided on this issue as well. 98% of democrats oppose eliminating the department of education. 64% of independents oppose it and only 18% of republicans but

67% of republicans support the idea. only 1% of democrats do and 31% of independents. chris on the line in vermont, independent. caller: good morning. i think we are missing the problem when it comes to evaluating education. if you look back, there is a direct correlation between my family and how people evaluate things and it is because society has changed in the last 40 years. when you get students as young as preschool, kindergarten, all the way up, the first thing that you have in their hands is some kind of technological device, a computer or something. it is great because they have those skill sets but when it comes to analyzing and communicating, we are missing those skill sets that are so important, just learning.

kids come to school, they are tired because they have been up all night. they are hungry when they come to school. students that are coming from a stable environment, they have rules, they are in bed and eating well, those kids are so motivated, they are ready to learn. i do believe there is a connection with the food business. we have kids coming to school with red bull in their thermoses. diet, sleep, structure, that plays a bigger role in how our kids are doing educationally than who is distributing the money. host: let's go down to south carolina, jermaine, democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. caller: good.

i don't think it is the department of education's fault. a lot of folks will say our students are failing and not doing is great. i do not think it is the department of education's fault. they do not set curriculum or control classrooms. the states do that. if you want to blame someone, you should blame the states further handling of education and to send everything to the states seems not productive. host: let's show our viewers you are talking about. the federal government plays a relatively small but important role in k-12 education funding. this is from the peterson foundation. the federal government spending about 10% to 14% of the total amount of money on k-12 education. 44% from the state and 43% coming from your local government.

when you dig deeper, states funding formulas often assign waits for students who are english learners, have lower family income or have disabilities. those learners are going to get more of the dollars for k-12 education. you can see it broken down. english learners, disabilities, low income, those are the categories where they give more weight to the student. they also note that school financing varies by states, creating disparities and spending per student. look at how much new york is spending per student compared to u-haul -- utah which is at $9,552 at the bottom. axios is reporting that it is mostly states who voted for president trump to get the large portion of federal government funding.

barbara in pennsylvania, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. you have been hitting it on the head with the last couple of callers. it is not all about dollars. no one has ever said anything about discipline. discipline has been a major problem. for the last couple of decades. people who are listening to the show, probably could not even get half or a quarter of the people to just take a trip through some of the schools. they just look at the dollars and we have failing students. you cannot teach anybody without discipline. i don't care how many students you have in the classroom. until you get your hands on that, how are they talking about bullying, bullying? evidently there is a lack on the

side of the school to handle this bullying. so discipline is an issue. host: barbara's thoughts there. we are getting your thoughts this morning. your turn to tell washington what you think about president trump's decision to sign the executive order to begin dismantling the department of education. . it is one of the smallest federal agencies in fiscal year four. it made up 4% of all federal spending in fiscal year 2025 or -- fiscal year 2024. maurice in maryland, independent. . caller: i am for what is best for students, teachers and the taxpayers. the lady from a couple of calls ago said she moved her kids from private school back to public school, she has to understand

that that is the exception. it is usually the opposite. if you look at most private schools, we have been blessed enough to have our child in private school, preschool all the way up to 12th grade. they have a 90% almost 100% rate of seniors going to college. we don't have that in public schools. you keep mentioning how small the percentage is but it is hundreds of billions of dollars and you keep making the point that you don't understand what the purpose of sending it back to the states -- the next question is what is the purpose for the department of education? it is a program that you make sure they take care of and the states can do that, too. that money could be allocated by the states for them to do that. so that is my question to you

when you keep asking that and making that point to how small it is and it equates to hundreds of billions of dollars. anybody who has their child a private school, if their scores continue to be horrible, like we are last on the list. then we would pull them out and put them somewhere else. let's see what happens. every president has been talking about doing what he has done, so let's see what happens. i'm tired of us being at the bottom as far as education is concerned. host: we heard maurice's points. as he said, the education department spent $268 billion last year. also only 10%, 14% of all money for k-12 education, state and locals, but they do get money

for pell grants, distributing college loans, etc., so it is beyond k-12 education, and the white house saying that with stay with the education department. andrew, georgia, democrat. caller: how are you doing? i have first-hand knowledge of using the department of education. my sign when he was in fifth or sixth grade, i signed up for a plan, and i was in a charter school, and he had a reading instructor, things like that, but a lot of these kids have emotional and physical problems where they cannot sit in a classroom so they protected

them. but if they are a charter school, they get allocation from the federal government, they would have had more teachers or give them more time with the reading instructor, so instead with andy dick doing was finding a way to put them on a track where he had enough merits to say, and that eventually with one month left within six grade, told me they were booting him from school to go to public school. and the department of education civil rights division came in and helped us, and it turned out that we won the case, the principal had to resign. the school had to train all the teachers on how to deal with kids on independent learning plans, and the school is on probation with the federal government for about five years. host: andrew in atlanta,

georgia, with his story. more of your calls coming up. i wanted to show you yesterday, c-span cameras were in colorado for a town hall with senator michael bennet. we heard about the town halls happening across the country while the house and senate are in their congressional recess this week, back in their states and home districts. c-span was in colorado yesterday, and this is what senator bennet had to say about democratic leadership. [video clip] >> on the leadership question, it is not a secret that we have been having debates there about what the future should look like, and i did say last night, and i will say again, we should be looking at all the democratic leadership. and that is not a new idea for me. i was the first senator after joe biden's terrible debate with donald trump to say we were

going to lose in a landslide if we did not make a change. i took no joy in that, by the way. we have a lot to think joe biden four. we really do. not the least of which was beating donald trump to begin with. and he also was critical to keeping space command here, but we should always be asking if we are fielding the best team. i don't have a more clear answer for you tonight. [end video clip] host: you can find that on her website it c-span.org or through the mobile app c-span now. we also have coverage this evening with senator bernie sanders and congresswoman alexandria curcio cortez. the two of them are traveling the country and holding rallies

and, tonight, they can be in denver. tune in at 7:00 p.m. eastern time at c-span, c-span now or c-span.org. and then on saturday, andy kim will hold a town hall in ocean city, new jersey. we will have live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free video mobile app or online at c-span.org. we will show you the other town halls that we covered this week, including other republicans. that happens this weekend, so tune in for c-span now, or c-span.org. we will go to becky in ohio, republican. thank you for waiting. thank you produce meant -- thank you for calling in about what you think about dismantling the education department. you agree? caller: i agree. kids are not getting education they should.

it doesn't matter my grandkids go to public school. and the proficient t tests are lousy -- proficiency tests are lousy. it is time for the state to kick back over. when i was growing up, the states took care of us, and then in the late 1979 when all of that changed, it is like these kids are just wendling. host: what do you say when people say the states do have control right now and they control the curriculum? caller: no they don't. there is a lot of stuff going on that is shady. and i believe that i just have a few friends that are teachers and school, elementary and middle school, and they don't teach them anything that they use to. reading, math, cursive, they hardly do any of that anymore. host: andy, maine. caller: how are you?

a brief history. my father started off as a high school english teacher in new hampshire in 1956. he then became a principal and them superintendent in schools, got his masters of education, was hired by the university of new hampshire in the early 60's to run the masters in education program there. my father said to the end of his life that teachers unions have way too much power. teachers unions would like parents to be very uninvolved in their child's education so the unions can control the curriculums. get rid of the teachers unions and our children will fare much better throughout the world. that is what i have to say. host: mac is joining us from ohio. republican. good morning.

caller: hello, how are you? host: what are your thoughts on all of this? caller: my thoughts are, i come from the maga program back in 1984-1985, and growing up as a kid, we would play with computers, and i'm with donald trump was getting rid of the department of education. my wife is a teacher, she comes home and complains about curriculum. they got rid of her for showing movies that will teach the kids something and they would like to show other movies that don't teach kids anything in our school. she was actually fired for it. so these are things that are happening. and teachers need to get paid more also. i think we are very much underpaid. a lot of callers are expressing the same things and dealing with the same thing all across the country.

i think the people are fed up and it is time for change. the last caller talked about the union. i'm not familiar with that, but it makes it somewhat the issues i'm dealing with. maybe that could have been done first, but who knows. i think this has gone on too long. i may black -- i am a black man in america and we are not getting the proper education we need in the cities that we reside in. it is pretty much dealing with babysitting and problems that arise because of the lack of education. i think it is time for change and how we understand it is not always about money. host: mac and the other caller mentioning teachers unions. here's a recent tv ad from the american federation. targeting elon musk and education cuts that have already been made before president trump signed the executive order yesterday. >> muska team taking a chainsaw

to paper a tax cut for billionaires, cutting critical services for poor kids, special ed for disabled children, 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, parents and advocates, make your voices heard. call on lawmakers to reject the devastating cuts and protector kids. host: one of the teacher unions, and add plate in response to the cuts elon musk made to the education department as part of doge. bonnie, virginia, democrat. let's hear from you. caller: good morning. i have not heard enough democrats, i would not say do a good job, but i have not heard

them say anything about the impact of the cuts to each individual state. and the potential need for having to increase our state practice to make up for that loss. i would like to hear democrats talk more about that. i think it was showboating of trump to have had all those children who had to wait 20 minutes for him to come and sign with his sharpie pen. i think it was very showboating, which is typical him, to have him sit there, and then they had to hold up a sign, and i would like to hear more of these cuts from the democrats on how the intention will be to benefit the wealthy. even warren buffett complains he does not pay enough taxes. the few good billionaires who are not in this life for greed.

host: mike, houston, texas, republican. caller: good morning. warren buffett has the same tax codes everybody else has to deal with. it is written by people in congress. that is what democrats should talk about. why don't we talk about test scores from 1983 today? students are not reading to grade level, and those things are not measured by the dollars spent in a classroom. i tell you, you had two desks on the c-span program -- guests on the c-span program with competing views and both agreed that 90% of the mandates that come from local school districts emanate from washington. it is unfunded. so the dollars are not coming from washington. we agreed, but 90% of the

mandates come from washington, unfunded mandates. host: so your point is that by getting rid of that, maybe states can do better, maybe governments can do better if they are not trying to use the money, the 90% they spend on fulfilling the mandates. caller: correct. and i think what is useful is i think teachers are exactly where they should be in my opinion. let them teach. i think they feel like their hands are tied and they cannot be the creative teachers they were. i had a great english teacher in high school at this time of year , she'd say, you kids are not going to learn how to write paragraphs, you are not leaving here without learning how to write paragraphs. she made us write paragraphs for three weeks, and we learned how

to write paragraphs. because she could do that. host: and did it help when he went to college? caller: not only did it help when i went to college, it helps every email i sent to customers. absolutely. i have never forgotten that. she changed lives. five years later, i asked my friend at a five year reunion, who was your best teacher you ever had, five out of six of the same one, and the sixth ones that i do not have her as a teacher. host: what was her name? caller: this is bardi -- misses browerdy in ohio. she was amazing. host: jj, go ahead. caller: i guarantee most of the people who have called who are against the department of education have never attended a school board meeting or they probably don't even know the name of the school board president or the superintendent

of the school where they live. secondly, people understand about the department of education that its main function is to distribute the money allocated by congress to the states and it goes to the state education agencies, and they do that, they have formulas to determine how that money is allocated among the states and territories, and they do that by the number of students and they have a formula that they use to make those allocations. and like i said, these people, they are complaining, they say they know that the teachers are not allowed to teach but they never attend school board meetings to find out it is going on. i have attended school board meetings and i see that our teachers, members of the school

board are dedicated officials who would like to turn out the quality of students, and with these people, they are complaining about it, i'm sure they don't know what is going on in their own school district. host: reba, alabama, republican. caller: i say, looking at it for years and years, test scores have gone down. that is not good. let's put it outside in front of these kids, something they looked at all day, they stopped teaching things that are important to the students. they need to give it back to the states and admit that it is monitored. that is why some of the states it may be allocated and not in the right area, so look at the way the world does that, where

is all the money going? host: we will leave the conversation there. thank you for joining us for that conversation about the education department and president trump's move yesterday. if you missed the executive order signing, find it online at c-span.org. we will take a short break. when we come back, we will turn our attention to executive power and president trump's use of it. we will talk to a georgetown university law professor, stephen vladeck and then later conversation with ken cuccinelli on president trump's deportation policies. we will be right back. ♪

>> american history tv. this weekend, mississippi republican senator roger wicker gives the reading of the farewell address in observance of the first president's birthday. it began on washington's birthday in 1896. at 7:00 p.m. watch first 100 days as we look at the start of presidential terms. this week we will focus on the early months of president carter's term in 1977 including inflation, energy policy and the vietnam war draft evaders. university of texas history professor bruce hunt on the development of the atomic bomb in world war ii and the role of leslie groves. at 9:30 p.m. eastern, author john schall with his book "rising star, setting sun,"

recounts dwight eisenhower and john f. kennedy focusing on the period between the two administrations. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2. find a full schedule in your program guide or watch online any c-span.org/history. book tv every sunday features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. here is what is coming up this weekend. at 6:45 p.m. eastern, tariq ali discusses his memoir and talks about the war in gaza and protests in the united states. at 8:00 p.m. eastern michael hiltzik looks at the history of

california from the gold rush era to the current tech boom. at 9:00 p.m. eastern paul kengor talks about the role of communists and the creation of international women's day and other progressive celebrations. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, michael lewis poses the question who works for the government and why does their work matter. he is interviewed by public policy and management professor elizabeth linos. book tv every sunday on c-span2. watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us this morning is stephen vladeck, professor of law at georgetown university law center to talk about the challenges facing the trump administration and the view of the courts.

let's begin with the number of challenges in the courts to the president's executive orders actions. talk about how many there are and why has this gone to the courts. guest: it is a striking number and here we are just over two months into the second trump administration and we are over 130 different lawsuits challenging actions that the federal government has taken specifically since january 20. that is more than two per day. it is not just the lawsuits. it is how broadly these lawsuits are pitching that they are about almost every agency and almost every type of policy, that they are being filed in geographically diverse set of federal courts and perhaps most importantly, a bunch of them so far have produced relief, even temporary relief in the form of temporary restraining orders or

preliminary injunctions. it really is a sharper conflict between a new president and the federal courts than when we have seen in american history because of the volume of cases, because of the significance of some of these cases and because of the degree of judicial pushback. host: what types of judges are issuing these injunctions? guest: every type of judge. we are seeing injunctions from democratic appointed district court judges, republican appointed district court judges. a lot of these lawsuits have been brought in slightly more favorable parts of the countries. we are seeing a lot of lawsuits in boston and baltimore and seattle. the court that has had the most number of cases has been the federal district court here in washington, d.c. when you hear folks like president trump or the white

house press secretary complaining about efforts by democrats, most of the lawsuits are being brought where the federal government is and where you are getting random assignment across the entire federal court bench here in washington or across the state lines in maryland and in boston. it has not been not just one or two judges or three, but 25 or 30. as much as the president has taken to call on these judges, there comes a point where if there are this many judges from this many different backgrounds appointed by this many different presidents ruling against your policies, may be the rogue actor is not the courts. host: why is that then? what does it come down to in your opinion? is the executive power limited? guest: first, yes. there is no argument that the

president has unlimited power under the constitution. that's not how the constitution works. part of why we are seeing such a diverse array of court rulings blocking the trump administration is because the trump administration is pushing a lot of legal envelopes and is in a number of cases crossing what the administration would concede our well legal minds. take birthright citizenship. the arguments in favor of the trump administration's executive order mostly turn on disregarding or overruling an 1898 court decision. turn on overruling a 1935 supreme court precedent. when we look at what the job of a lower federal court judge is, their job is to faithfully apply precedent to whatever case is

brought to them. when you have a president that is acting in a way that is unprecedented, when you have actions that defy settled precedents, when you have actions that are not authorized by the relevant statutes, that is why we are seeing such a confluence, a high number of these kinds of rulings adverse to the trump administration. host: let's listen to the president in an interview on fox news talking about his views on the judiciary. [video clip] >> going forward, would you defy a court order? >> i never did defy a court order. >> and you never would in the future? >> i would not do that. however, we have very bad judges that should not be allowed. i think at a certain point you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a robe judge. the judge that we are talking about, look at his other rulings, rulings unrelated. but having to do with me, he is a lunatic. host: stephen vladeck?

guest: i am not sure how much we are supposed to take what the president says seriously. i will take a stab. the specific judge he is talking about in that clip, judge boasberg's is highly regarded a federal district judge as there is in the country. chief justice roberts has tapped him on multiple occasions to serve in roles that he would not pick a rogue judge for. the president did not offer examples of cases that prove that boasberg is a rogue judge. the one other case boasberg has had involving president trump, he ruled for then president trump in 2018 or 2019 when it was an effort to get his tax returns >> post -- get his tax returns disclosed. we have to look at the facts and not the rhetoric. the facts are that the administration is losing in cases before dozens of federal

district judges, not all of whom are obama appointed, not all of them are biden appointees. if a district court's getting something wrong, it is possible that they are, but our legal system has remedies for that. the remedies are to repeal, seek relief for a higher court. in the case of judge boasberg, that would be the d.c. circuit or the supreme court. that is exactly what chief justice john roberts said in his fairly remarkable statement to the press on tuesday. host: let's read that. chief justice john roberts issuing this statement, "for more than two centuries it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. the normal review process exists for that purpose." you called this remarkable. why? guest: in the chief justice we have someone who does not get out of bed in the morning without a plan so this was not a spur of the moment.

this is only the second time in his almost 20 years now as chief justice in which he has made this kind of public statement. the first one was during the first trump administration in response to president trump. it is a message from the chief justice that in his view the rhetoric has gotten out of hand. the rhetoric is almost exclusive from the white house and its supporters. john roberts is not suggesting that he agrees with all of these rulings. he may well not. we have a process through which if you have a district judge behaving badly about the remedies exist within the legal system. once again, i cannot stress this enough. we are talking about a lot of district judges who would have to be behaving badly if these charges from the white house are to be believed. host: judge boasberg stopped the department from deporting some immigrants, illegal immigrants

that the administration says are terrorists. pam bondi put out a statement saying that the order from the judge disregards well-established authority regarding president trump's power and puts the public and law enforcement at risk. respond to pam bondi. guest: to be very clear about what we are talking about, the folks who were put on an airplane on saturday were already in immigration detention. they were not posing any threat to the public at the time they were placed on these airplanes. we now know thanks to reporting in the new york times yesterday that for a number of these folks they were being held without any criminal conviction, without any proof that they are members of the gang at the heart of all of this. part of the problem is we have due process in this country so that we can be confident that when the government whisks individuals to other countries,

they are who the government says they are. host: we have due process for undocumented immigrants? guest: absolutely. if we did not, you could execute people and we don't do that. how can you be sure that they are undocumented immigrants? just by looking at them? even in prior declared wars when the government used the alien enemy act during the war of 1812, world war i and world war ii, the folks who we picked up and we said you are alien enemies, they got hearings because they were entitled to challenge whether they were in fact who the government said they were. there are reported judicial decisions from the war of 1812, world war i and world war ii where federal courts looked carefully in the middle of a war at the question of whether a particular detainee was a german citizen or an italian citizen or perhaps a swiss citizen who could not be detained. if that was available during world war ii, our most complete

total war in american history, it is hard to see the case that the attorney general is trying to make that it should not be available today. host: let's go to bruce in new york, independent. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. good morning. i am a political anthropologist. i have a two part question. i have been watching a concentration of executive powers for decades. you are aware that there have been issues and escalating as an issue for some time politically. i have never seen it become a domestic problem where it is an attack upon institutions within the system itself. that's number one. number two, i appreciate your objectivity by the way. what i see is people keep taking trump's rhetoric as you had difficulty doing as an

equivocation that you cannot really be sure if it is rhetoric or what he means and people say you better take him serious, etc. when will we start seeing this as a pattern? it is not just the judges or the justice department under biden. it is not just the education system. he uses the same rhetoric all the time. we do not represent it as a pattern of his attack. the question of his attack is an open question as to why he is doing this, political power, whether he is trying to put accusations of trying to destroy democracy itself. that aside, the fact that he has taken a battering ram to institutions systematically including the free press, including every single institution in the country which seems to be subject to his wrath

and he is using the executive powers to do this. whether or not it is justified, whether or not it is legitimate, they use rhetoric to move ahead and the damage being done, they make no apologies. host: let's get reaction from mr. vladeck. guest: thanks for the questions. there are two different things going on. the first is that some of the moment we are in did not come out of nowhere. we have been building for several generations toward a state of government where presidents of both parties come to office, have very little policy support from congress even if their party controls both chambers of congress, and is left to do most of their major domestic policy work through executive orders. what that does is it heightens the conflict points. it means you will have more and

more conflict between the president and the courts because the presidents of both parties are claiming power that is less and less directly traceable to statutes that congress has enacted. we saw this to some degree with the biden administration. we saw it with the first trump administration, etc. in some respect, we have been heading for this for some time. there it is a conversation about how congress has abdicated so much of its regulatory responsibility, so much of its role in setting nationwide policy. even within that space where this is in some respects a difference of degree, there is still something unique about what the current administration is doing. bruce is right that there is sort of a hostility to institutions that we did not see even during the first trump administration. just yesterday the executive order purporting to try to start dismantling the department of education that we were talking about earlier this morning.

these are larger challenges to settled understandings than in prior administrations. those challenges are common -- coming in different funds -- forms. refusing to spend money that congress has appropriated. mass firings of federal employees without whom these agencies cannot function and not trying to shut her entire agencies. part of what is provoking all of these lawsuits and judicial rulings against the trump administration is a novelty of what we are seeing, not that it is new but it is new in ways that are fundamentally inconsistent with how the separation of powers of work in this country for the better part of 240 years. that is probably -- part of why federal judges from across the spectrum have been reacting the way they have. host: julia writes in the opinion section of the new york times, trump needs to legislate. there are limits to governing by

executive order and executive orders can easily be reversed by a future president and they can only go so far. guest: right. there is a larger story here about not just congress's faithlessness when it comes to president trump. but congress's broader abandonment over the last 30 or 40 years of the lead role in setting domestic policy. it used to be that a president will come to office and would have 100 days to try to get major policies through congress, to try to get legislation enacted through congress. when president trump signed the continuing resolution last friday, i believe that was the second bill he has signed since january 20, the second. it was just keeping the money on. it was not a policy bill. part of what has created the space for someone like president trump to try to do all of these

through novel assertions of executive power is that congress is stopping legislative power. thinking about longer-term solutions that are not just about the current administration and the current moment, we have to start thinking again about why it is important for democrats and republicans alike to be voting for folks who represent us in congress who actually are interested in the institutional politics of washington and not just parts of politics and that is a tricky road. host: let's go to christian in arizona, republican. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. what we have seen is a continuation of the interference from federal, district and circuit appeals judges. this continuance that we saw from 2017, really even prior to trump getting into office, some

of these judges were going after trump from the judiciary and when he became president they were interfering starting with the travel ban which was overturned, by the way. these 200 plus lawsuits in all of these different courts, none of these judges were elected president. i did not see their name on the ballot. they did not run in a contested primary. they were not nearly assassinated on national television. the idea that these judges or any one of these judges are the president where they get to make executive decisions from the federal judiciary, that is a threat to our republican form of government. host: christian, how do you respond to the judiciary being the third branch of government, coequal government? caller: say that again.

host: the judiciary is the third branch of government. it is they are for checks and balances just like congress -- it is there for checks and balances just like congress. caller: their job is not to challenge and rule from the bench with temporary restraining order's and running down these t ro's on a conveyor belt. that is not their job. it is a shame that congress allowed this. host: let's get a response. guest: let's be clear, that is exactly their job. the reason we have independent judges who are not elected is not an accident. the founders were very worry about the british system where the courts were not independent of the executive. the whole point was to have judges who were sufficiently insulated to stand up to what the founders called tyranny of

the majority. this is as powerful a moment of that as we have seen in american history. christian mentioned the travel ban. let's be clear what happened with the travel ban during the first trump administration. the first iteration, a chaotic friday night we get airport version, that was blocked by the trump administration took it down. the second iteration of the travel ban was blocked by the federal courts. that block was mostly affirmed by the supreme court in the summer of 2017. the trump administration went back to the drawing board. it was only the third iteration of the travel ban and after the meditation had responded to two rounds of judicial rulings that the supreme court upheld 5-4. that is how the system works. when christian refers to federal judges interfering with the executive branch, i would put it differently. it is federal judges insisting that the executive branch follow the law. if it is not going to be federal judges, the question everyone should be asking is who will it

be. or is the law whatever president trump says it is because if it is that, we are not living in a democracy. we have to come to terms with that. host: david is in baltimore, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. your guest said that if we cannot trust what trump says, who are we to take seriously? gillespie wrote a gym of a quote from one of his books. he says, "if there is no god, all things are permitted." i would suggest that politicians and academics and journalists speaking from their ivory towers, the streets have become welders -- wallace. the institutions have become lawless. even the church is becoming wallace -- lawless.

when moses got the 10 commandments, the kings of the earth were writing their own laws. if they did not like them, they would change them. look at what happened to daniel and his people in babylon. they did not like them so they wrote laws to condemn them. show me the person, i will find the crime. we have to get serious about whether we want to live or whether we want to die. whether we want this nation to thrive, just in a normal, peaceful way, or whether we want to see it crumble as russia did in 1917. host: all right. mr. vladeck, any thoughts? guest: the first question is the right one, who should we trust. the old proverb's trust but verify. part of why federal proceedings are able to bring clarity and shine light on what the government is doing to a degree that white house press briefings are not is because you have

lawyers who are speaking before judges with a duty of candor. you have statements filed under penalty of perjury where lying is not just what everybody does but actually can come with serious consequences. you have the possibility of professional misconduct charges for lawyers who misrepresent things to the courts. i am not here to say the courts are perfect. they are not. there are lots of things we need to do to fix the courts. it is much more likely that we will get an accurate sense of what the federal government is doing when federal officers are testifying under oath, when federal government lawyers are answering questions under penalty of professional misconduct than in any other space in our current discourse. it is not that i trust courts implicitly. folks are looking for facts. i would look at what the government is telling courts as opposed to what the government is telling friendly media outlets. host: jerry is in virginia,

republican. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: first, let me say that one radical lunatic judge does not have a right to be race 77 million american votes. then you talk about process. you are right. the people should have been processed when they entered our country. i.c.e. knew that these people were criminals. it is against federal law to release them into the country, fly them anywhere they want to go. they knew they were. they knew they were criminals. host: mr. vladeck. guest: two things to say. again, we are not talking about a radical lunatic judge. we are talking about dozens of

judges. with regard to undocumented immigrants, the question i would ask anyone who takes that position is if i.c.e. were to pick you up off the street tomorrow and take you to an immigration detention center in louisiana because someone in the government says you committed a crime, you entered the country unlawfully, you are not american, you don't have a visa, we would all want you or i or anyone else in that position to have a meaningful opportunity to contest what the government's basis is for arresting you, detaining you and removing you from the country. we can debate how severe our immigration laws should be. we can debate whether the alien enemy act even applies. i think it ought not to be an issue that divides democrats and republicans, that every single person is entitled to some due process before any of that can happen because even if the government is not acting maliciously, the possibility

that the government might make a mistake should always be on our minds. host: we are showing video of these gang members that were deported from the united states. they were not brought back to their home country of venezuela. they were brought to el salvador and were met by soldiers and the el salvador ian president. what you make of that? guest: it raises a separate host of issues. there are circumstances in which the government has the authority to remove noncitizens to a country other than their country of origin. the supreme court in 2005 largely upheld that. the problem is there are two different federal laws, the u.n. convention against torture and a federal statute called the foreign affairs reform and restructuring act that bar the federal government from removing anyone to circumstances in which those folks credibly fear

torture or cruel, inhuman treatment. at least from what we know from the pictures, there is a nonfrivolous claim that that is what is happening on the far end of this. i go back to where we started which is even if you think the law should allow the federal government to do this to folks who are members, we should all have common cause that it only allows the government to do it to folks who are those members and whether or not you or i or they are members should not just be up to the federal government. host: the alien enemies act of 1798 is the law that the president and his administration cited and it says whenever there shall be a declared war or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the united states, all subjects of a hostile nation or government

could be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed as alien enemies. when has this law been used? guest: we talked about the three most visible of prior indications of the act when it was used against british nationals living in the u.s., world war i when it was used against predominately german nationals living in the u.s., and world war ii when it was invoked against german, italian and a handful of japanese nationals living in the u.s.. what is striking is you read the operative provision. there is also a provision that provides specifically for judicial review. even during wartime. a context in which there was not a lot of judicial review. that's why it's really important when folks are learning about this 1798 statute to point out that even during world war ii there were literally hundreds of court cases where people we were holding under the auspices of this statute objected on the

grounds that they were not who the government said they were or that they were not nationals of countries with which we were at war. federal courts reviewed those claims. they often rejected them because often times they were meritless but not because the federal courts lacked the power to hear those cases, not because these folks did not have a right to judicial review. part of what is so disheartening about our current discourse is that there is the sense that as long as the right labels are used to describe the wrong people, due process does not matter. it seems to be that we should all keep in mind the idea that whether a few people are the right people or the wrong people is a due process question. we can believe that the government has remarkably broad authorities to remove people in this country unlawfully. how do we know that they really are? that's why so much of the issues surrounding the alien enemy act

case, surrounding what is happening with these mass removals to el salvador is the absence of due process. host: just go to jacksonville, florida, fran, democratic caller. caller: i totally agree with your just -- with your guest today. it seems like all of these people are calling in, giving the president the authority to do whatever he wants. this is just too much. i don't care who the president is. this is a country of laws. that's why so many people want to come here. they think they will get a fair shake here. if a person is a criminal, that is determined by the court, not by the president. people who are calling thinking this is ok, they want a king. then the king can off anybody's head including theirs and they should keep that in mind. host: mr. vladeck. guest: what she is saying is

right. due process is how we have faith that the government is acting according to law. justice robert jackson who was on the supreme court from 1941 to 1954 and was the lead u.s. prosecutor at the nuremberg war crimes tribunal after world war ii, he wrote a series of opinions after he came back in which he tried to contrast what had gone wrong in the legal system in nazi germany versus what he felt was right about the legal system in the u.s. every time he had one of those cases, it always came down to the same basic idea that you could have harsh substantive laws. you can have substantive laws that are rights-restricting as long as they are applied fairly, in a way that is not arbitrary, in a way that is meaningful. he put it in one case in a

colorful way. he said if given the choice, i suspect most of us would prefer to live in a world with substantive law and american procedural rules than the other way around. it is a nerdy insight but it is an important one. we can have policy disagreements. we will always have policy disagreements about what the rule should be for the federal government's behavior. the notion that the rules should be enforced in a way where we have faith that they are being enforced properly, that they are being enforced correctly and that they are being enforced against the right people is really what separates the rule of law from something else. i get very nervous when anyone, whether it is a supporter of president trump or a supporter of president biden, says we should defer to the president on this. that is not the system that the founders set up and they set it up that way on purpose. host: let's go to michigan ,obe,

independent. good morning. caller: good morning. donald trump came through in the courts, lost one, moving forward, fast. now he is the president. he is still lying. doing this, doing that. bogging the courts down with his lies. he should be held accountable. first he should tell the truth, be made to tell the truth. facts and not all mouth. goodbye. host: when it comes to the deportation of these alleged gang members to el salvador, what can the judge do at this point? they have left the country. guest: federal judges don't have authority over prisons in el salvador. judge boasberg has not claimed that authority.

the federal courts have authority over the federal executive branch. we have been led to believe by statements from the president of el salvador that the reason why these folks are being held there is because we are paying for that. we could stop paying. indeed there are other immigration cases where individuals have been wrongfully removed from the country, where federal coats -- courts have ordered the government not to bring them back but to take all possible steps to bring them back. that might not be sufficient and it is possible that the nearly 300 folks who were removed last weekend will have a very hard time having that reversed. i still think there is real important and part of why i think judge boasberg is still pushing on this issue is in trying to prevent that from happening again. it is one thing if the executive branch takes one action that is unlawful. it is something else entirely if they are able to do it over and over again. part of what is happening in that case is not just trying to

get to the bottom of the authority for what the government did last weekend, but whether the government has any authority to do that again in future cases. host: bill is in florida, republican. welcome. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on the unconstitutional use of executive orders. executive orders, they are federal executive orders. they apply to federal employees, federal land and the military. executive orders do not constitutionally applied to the state. they are being used to bypass the constitution and other unlawful ways. would you comment on that? guest: sure. it is a little tricky because not all executive orders are ev il. they are not problematic. the typical executive order is

either directed toward the federal government, the internal workings of the executive branch or is the president articulating his interpretation of authority he has whether directly under the constitution or as delegated to him by congress. part of the trick is that whether an executive is lawful or not really depends on the validity of the interpretation it reflects. let's take birthright citizenship as an example. the president has the power to interpret immigration law by executive order, just about every president since harry truman has done that. the problem with the executive order in this case is that the way that president trump is interpreting the statutes is unconstitutional. the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment does not provide for the reading that the president is offering. my suggestion would be for folks to try to separate out the

inherit validity question which i think is a red herring from the specific claim each executive order is making which is about a reading of a statute or a reading of the constitution to give the president the power to do a particular thing. a bunch of those readings are probably valid but not all of them and that is where we run into the court balance. host: tony is an independent from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. excellent conversation. i agree with many of the principles that this torstar professor is putting forward -- that this georgetown professor is putting forward. we need to get back to rule of law, freedom of speech, the basic first principles. i am worried that around the world democracies are under threat. we can see a growing authoritarianism, oligarchy. these forces are building and

undermining this democracy has been happening for decades. it is not you, it is trump. i am worrying that many of the colors think this is new. if you have pointed out that we have had these issues for some time. one study i would point out is a princeton study in 2014 that looked at legislative outcomes. there is no relationship between voter preference and legislate of outcomes. there is a very significant relationship, three quarters of the time special-interest lobbyists get what they want legislatively. it is not democracy. it is not even a constitutional republic anymore. it is a fascist system controlled by corporations and big money. you cannot have democracy and people like elon musk. if you have billionaires, democracy in a society like that is not possible. our system has been overthrown. it is not a democracy or

constitutional republic. host: i will let mr. vladeck is his response. guest: i share a lot of tony's concerns and i agree that this has been going on for a lot longer than the last two months. i don't want to get over my skis. part of what is missing from our current discourse is the notion that institutions matter for their own sake, that we've gotten to a point where the separation of parties has really become the dominant question in american politics is opposed to the separation of powers. it is those conditions, those circumstances that make it possible for what over the last two months, that make it possible for someone like elon musk to wield the stunning amount of power he is given without meaningful pushback from congress. there are broader occurrences not limited to the u.s. that will be hard to resist. one of the ways that we can all insulate ourselves better

against those pressures is to go back to basics when it comes to the separation of powers. james madison wrote an federalist 51 that the way we will preserve liberty in this country is through ambition. ambition must be made to counteract ambition. we want an ambitious executive. we want an ambitious judiciary. we also want an ambitious congress. the idea is that the branches will push up against each other and that is how we will be the safest. part of what we are seeing today is the culmination of decades of one of the branches, congress, no longer being ambitious in the institutional sense. when we think about how we recover from this, it is not just about who we are electing to lead the country from the white house. it is about who we are electing to represent us on capitol hill. the more we can push for people to run based on commitments to congress's institutional power

and not just a short-term political win, the more we will be in the position to defend against the pressures that the caller is raising. host: deborah is in pennsylvania, democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. i think this is one of the best conversations i have heard in a long time. this professor is spot on with everything he is saying. if you called in defending the executive branch, heed's warning. he is spot on. we have three equal branches of government. defying the judges orders in the deportation of migrants was definitely an overreach by the executive to the judicial branch. the whole reason is because there could be human error. a doctor was among the deported and a tattoo was misread in the image. i fear we are losing one of the hallmarks of our nation, home of the free.

host: mr. vladeck, pick up there. guest: i don't know what to say. i would hope that even in these toxic political times when we are so inclined to disagree and just trust each other's motives that the one thing we can all agree on is that folks are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before bad things happen to them. not because they have earned it through their conduct, but because we need that confidence that the government is acting in a way that is responsible. we need the confidence that when the government is arresting someone and takes them to el salvador, they are arresting someone who they have the right to arrest and not a political opponent and not a mistake and not a family member. that is the mentality that has been missing from so many of our conversations because we have become so fixated on whether our side is winning. our side to me is not democrats or republicans. it is the rule of law and the

rule of law right now is losing to a degree we have not seen in a very long time and it should scare or even folks who like the bottom lines of what is accomplished. host: stephen vladeck, georgetown university law professor, thank you. we will take a break and when we come back, we will zero in on the president's immigration and deportation policies. ken cuccinelli will join us for that conversation next. stay with us. >> c-span, go ahead. >> celebrate the 46th anniversary with a conversation on the beginnings of cable gift to america on saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. the founder of c-span brian lamb

will join former co-ceo susan swain to talk about bringing coverage of congress to every american home. >> a lot of people are surprised that c-span does not receive government funding. they just assume it is a public service, it is a nonprofit, it must get government funding. never thought about it. >> not only never thought about it, i would have never been involved. i think it is a very bad idea to have a government institution fund media in any way. >> from the very beginning viewers who were part of this and understood that it was important to them to preserve and expand what we were doing, i think that is true today even with the work we are doing here with participants with the call in program, how active our social media channels are. for those people who get it, it matters. >> stories of c-span's early days, the people and work that went into bringing live coverage

of the house of representatives and eventually the senate, white house, supreme court and more televisions across the country. we will reflect on the network's five decades of coverage including many signature projects and c-span's continued role in delivering democracy unfiltered in the years to come. watch the c-span story, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span or online at c-span.org. c-span, bringing you democracy unfiltered. >> sunday on c-span's q&a, loretta ross, author of "calling in" critiques cancel culture and advocates for a more inclusive way to hold others accountable, drawing on her past experiences working with white supremacists and her own history as a survivor of sexual abuse. she supports a more nuanced approach to addressing harm in

the social media age. >> whenever we think we are irritated or have beef with somebody, we want to publicly shame and humiliate them. the reason we do it that way so publicly is that we want others to see us holding somebody else accountable. we call that virtue signaling. let me show you how woke i am and i will put this other person down for not being as woke. >> loretta ross with her book "calling in" sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. listen to all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting highlights. these markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on videos.

this tool makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. spend a few minutes on points of interest. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us this morning is ken cuccinelli, former trump homeland security, acting director of u.s. citizenship and immigration services in the trump administration and former attorney general for the state of virginia. thank you so much for your time. let's begin with this legal battle. viewers are familiar because we were talking about it in the last hour. the legal battle between the judge and the trump administration over to reporting these alleged gang members from venezuela but deporting them to el salvador. the trump administration invoking an 18th-century wartime law, the alien enemies act. your take on using that law.

guest: i think that the president has set goals of deportation for himself that would effectively result in the largest adjustable undertaking domestically of our lifetimes. it is hard to nail down exactly what the goal is. he said he wants to deport more people than any other president. it may surprise people to learn that the recordholder is barack obama. that number is around 3 million. if president trump is going to do that in this administration right now, earlier this month they held a show off press conference. look at all these things we have done. the pace at that point was one third of the pace of obama. what you see going on here is an attempt to expand their legal

authorities to minimize due process and that may sound funny to people because we are used to prizing due process but the reality is that is for u.s. citizens at the 100% level. the courts have said that for those who are aliens, whether illegal or legal, they get the due process congress has given them and the alien enemies act gives very little. it allows the president to make a determination and remove people associated with a nation he is targeting. in this case, venezuela. and it does not require a war. that statute is at 50 usc section 21 and he utilized the invasion clause, declared that tren de aragua has invaded the

u.s. and done harm here. they clearly have done harm here. i would point out that in other invasion cases, typically around the invasion clause of article four section 4, 4 different courts of appeals all across the country have addressed the question of invasion and all four have ruled that it is nonjusticiable, which means the courts have found that they themselves do not have jurisdiction to review that determination. that it is solely in the hands of the president. in the case of tren de aragua, president trump has based his utilization of the alien enemies act on the determination that these folks have invaded the united states. by the way, a characterization with which i agree, though i would say that about all of the illegal aliens who came across,

who have come across our border not just a hunter biden but under trump as well -- not just under biden but under trump as well. they knew there would be a fight over it and they started it early in the term so they can fight it out all the way to the supreme court and have the legal question settled. host: as you said, the president cited this alien enemies act of 1798. i want to read it for the viewers. "whenever there shall be a declared war or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the united states, all subjects of the hostile nation or government could be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies." our last guest stephen vladeck said there is due process provisions in this law as well. you said the same. do you think the president has followed the due process for these undocumented immigrants?

guest: i think that if his assessment is correct, for example, if somebody was not venezuelan, the process that he has put in place would not properly apply. i agree with the professor and i listened to the tail end of the discussion. there is some due process. my point is that the president is looking for ways, i will call them pipelines, to deport folks who have as minimal a level of due process as possible and frankly it is hard to get a lower due process requirement level than that that you will find under the alien enemies act. i think that is why this is being used. i should point out from a security and safety standpoint, tren de aragua is not like any other gang that has come into the united states from this hemisphere. you mentioned that i was virginias attorney general. during that time and still today

, the most dangerous from a violent crime standpoint group in virginia is ms 13. they are the most violent, the most dangerous group in virginia right now. tren de aragua takes that first position in some other states, not necessarily virginia. ms 13 never had any connections to the government in el salvador. tren de aragua, there is reason to believe that tren de aragua has done the dirty work of the maduro regime in various parts of the western hemisphere. they actually have nothing formal but an informal working relationship with the maduro regime it appears. that is important here because the alien enemies act with seemed to fit a lot better for tren de aragua than ms 13.

as a simple matter of smart, strategic deployment of law, they have chosen a good first target in tren de aragua and venezuela to prevail. they have set themselves up with facts and law that are about as favorable as can be. it is smart lawyering and smart presidenting, if that is a verb. if it will go through the courts, we will see how it ends up. host: i want you to explain more of what you were saying after i read this from democratic senators. "let's be clear, we are noat war and immigrants are not invading our country. furthermore, courts determine whether people have broken the law, not a president acting alone and not immigration agents picking and choosing who gets imprisoned or deported. it is what our constitution demands and it is a law that ump is bound by no matter how

much he tries to mislead the american people otherwise. these protections are there to make sure u.s. citizens are not wrongfully deported or people who have not committed a crime are not wrongfully punished." guest: parts of that are correct and parts are incorrect. there is no declared war with venezuela. congress has power to declare war. i definitely disagree as i have already said with the notion that we are not being invaded that they assert. in fact, we have been being invaded for a longtime. perhaps not by government entities directly, but i would point to a different part of the constitution, article one, section 10, the very end of article one lists things states are not allowed to do. one of them is wage war. well, it contains an exception,

unless actually invaded. texas has been being invaded for some time. they have argued that they have the right to repel that invasion. at least two of the judges on the fifth circuit have agreed with that position. we will see how those cases play out, particularly now with a trump justice department. i think they will agree with the position of texas. that will end the discussion on the question of invasion, frankly. critically, what will end up happening in those cases is that the courts will determine that they don't have the authority to determine whether an invasion is occurring or has occurred because that is left to the executive branch. one of the reasons it is left to the executive branch is because the alternative brings courts into managing the response to an

invasion and that's not -- that does not have judicial standards that courts can apply reasonably and certainly not on a timely basis. some of this will play out. it will not just be in judge boasberg's court room. it will be in other courtrooms as well. as just a constitutional litigator, i find it all fascinating. -- as someone who wants to see aggressive deportation policies in the united states, i appreciate what the president is doing. if i were a betting man, which i'm not, i would bet on the president's side winning this contest and i would give it fairly decent odds, like 2-1. but that is going to take a while to play out. host: let's go to pennsylvania, john is a republican. john, welcome to the conversation with ken cuccinelli . caller: i wasn't able to get on

the last segment with the stephen guy, but this is my question. the judge is from washington, d.c. the detainees were not from washington, d.c. i thought the judge -- in other words, i thought it had to be the state from where they were flown out. and no one brought it before the judge. the judge took it upon himself. no one came in and said that this is unconstitutional. the other thing i wanted to say is that the daughter of this judge makes her money representing these illegal people. that's not a conflict of interest? he shouldn't recruit himself question -- recruiters -- which he was himself? i remember when clarence thomas was told that he had to recuse himself because his wife didn't like the outcome of the election. where were all of these judges when joe biden was flying these people in overnight and dropping them off down in texas?

i don't understand where these judges were? i think it's totally political. host: ok. mr. cuccinelli? guest: there is a few points there. let's start with the appearance of impartiality. like the judge that heard the new york civil case against trump in new york, this judge's daughter makes money off of political consulting of one form or another taking on the president. i think the judge should have recused himself. i think the judge in new york should have recused himself. there are plenty of other judges who can hear the case. the fact that a judge in this circumstance does not recuse himself suggests to me that he wants the case. if you want a case, there's a reason you want a case and you are already moved off of the center point of impartiality. i think it's unfortunate. i think the judge does harm to

the opinion of the judiciary by not letting another judge who clearly doesn't have a conflict take a case. but here he is, he's on the case. you mentioned a jurisdictional question. he ran to a judge in d.c. by the way, the judge didn't start the case, the aclu represents some of these deported venezuelans. so, they brought the case. that being said, it certainly was not brought from any of the localities where the venezuelans were picked up or transported out from. in that raises the question of district judges dealing on a national basis, something that the supreme court has very slowly been cranking down on. for example, in an abortion case out of idaho, the supreme court upheld an injunction imposed by

a district court judge, but they limited it to the parties in the case, as opposed to saying, essentially wiping out the application of the law. i think you are going to begin to see that much more aggressively under the trump administration. if you look at the statistics, the overwhelming proportion of all nationwide injunctions this century have been delivered against president trump, two thirds of them. those have been delivered, 92% of them, by democrat appointed judges. those statistics are ugly, from the standpoint of an objective judiciary. and they are doing harm to the opinion of the judiciary. as you noted, taking her last point, joe biden was flying

people in and out using military aircraft. guess what? he set the precedent. no one can complain about trump doing that. biden was using military bases to stage in and out. trump is free to do that without the expectation of any blockage because of the precedent. i find it very interesting that people who think that in the deportation space, there is some kind of problem with how the trump administration has behaved here with judge bowes berg, but they had no problem with joe biden literally defying the u.s. supreme court on student loans, something clearly 100 percent domestic, and then even someone like nancy pelosi pointing out beforehand that the president had no authority to do. so, there wasn't any controversy about the outcome. i don't think that there is

controversy about the perspective substantive outcome, and it's not domestic, it's dealing with immigration and foreign affairs, traditionally skewed by the courts to deference for the executive branch for good reason. host: i will have you respond to our previous cast, he talked about the judges ruling against the trump administration in his second term. [video clip] >> where the federal government is, you are getting random assignment across the entire federal court bench here in washington or across the state lines in maryland or even up in boston. it really has been not just one judge or two judges or three judges, but 25 or 30 judges. as much as the president has taken to calling these rogue judges, there comes a point where if there are this many judges from this many different backgrounds appointed by this many different presidents going against your policies, may be

the rogue actor is not the courts. host: mr. cuccinelli? caller: the -- guest: the fact that let's presume for the moment the chief judge was randomly assigned to this case, that doesn't change the recusal analysis. he still should have recused himself in favor of a judge that had no family ties whatsoever to the circumstances before him or her. that's not law, so much. that really is opinion. different people can have different views on that. and i don't mean a daughter who felt strongly about it or who was an activist. we are talking here about making money. that's puts things in a very different category. with respect to the seat of government, that is true and it demonstrates they were targeting a national effort and not just

defending the clients that the aclu had. i think they had five clients or so. i could be wrong about that, signed up among those who were deported this way. you should be bringing those cases from the location of what you alleged to be the offense took place. they clearly weren't there to defend their clients. they were there to attack trump. there is a difference between the two. it brings up the whole question of national injunctions and judges reaching beyond the borders of their jurisdictions. i think that's a very legitimate debate to have. it's a debate that has been simmering for a long time under republican and democrat administrations. host: linda, st. louis, good morning. caller: hi, thank you for having me. i get so sick of them, they want

to go all biden did this, you did -- what about doing what is right? they are disrupting people's lives with this immigration crab, you know? grabbing the wrong people? you can't say anything? if you are a migrant, not illegal, have a green card, whatever, you can't say how you feel. you can't even speak to these days. i'm just tired. host: let's take a look at those points. freedom of speech. caller: thank you, linda. i appreciate it. that's an important subject. let's keep in mind the baseline here. the constitution, we will collect 100% of constitutional rights belong to u.s. citizens. that is not the case for noncitizens. there are various degrees. khalil had a green card. that puts him in one category that is somewhat different than

someone who, for example, has overstayed a visa or who is here illegally and crossed over illegally. it's not at the hundred percent level. when you are a guest of the united states, no one has a right to be here other than u.s. citizens. no one. i think that's just a fundamental difference in how some people view these circumstances. khalil was removed because he was offering support to an acknowledged terrorist organization, including by organizing their support. that in terms of speech only, that would be arguably not a problem for a u.s. citizen, it does not protect someone with a green card when you are organizing for a terrorist organization. let's be real clear what they

were doing in columbia, they were intentionally threatening and intimidating jewish students. in my view, this was low-level terrorism. when i say low level, they weren't trying to kill people, necessarily, but they were trying to scare them so badly that they would leave. thus my low level appellation, they weren't killing people. burning teslas for political reasons? a bit higher low-level terrorism , they seemed to be doing it in a way where they don't want people to get hurt, but they are creating fires and destroying property and are willing to risk the lives of at least fire fighters, so it's still terrorism. when you make threats, which khalil was involved in organizing, for political purposes, that's terrorism. we have typically not been very tolerant of that until recently.

the only people that were tolerant of it on my view are on the left. i wonder if the caller, linda, had problems with people burning cities in 2020 after the joys -- george floyd murder. those police officers were prosecuted for violating the law . does that make it ok? did she call those peaceful protests, like so many elected officials who were condemning police were protecting folks? in minneapolis, if my recollection serves, 60% of the property destroyed in minneapolis by those left-wing domestic terrorists were uninsured. those people were ruined. they were ruined. i can't imagine that downtown minneapolis, that those were very many folks, other than left of center politically.

they clearly weren't specific targets, but the people doing the burning, the destroying, the killing, didn't care. if we are going to accept violence and terrorism against our country from either side, then i think we have reached a threshold that will be hard to return from. back to khalil, in my view khalil was in my view supporting, and in the view of the secretary of state, supporting a terrorist organization. support israel, get booted out? let's be honest, that overstates the case. this guy was organizing for hamas, threatening jewish students, that was part of the purpose, and then the book -- negotiating from a position of strength with columbia, which was rolling over for him. columbia allowed a lot of this to happen, but khalil led the way and he will not be invited in this country any longer. he will lose the privilege of

being in the united states. host: bob, rhode island, independent. caller: hi, greta. good to hear your voice on. i want to say quickly that this is the far greatest program on tv of all time. i watched the story the other day with brian lehrer and what's going on right now, i pray to god you will be able to stay on the air. host: thank. caller: the previous guest you had hit the nail on the head as far as i'm concerned about this issue. ken, i'm sorry, you are a good looking guy, got some good words, you put things together, but in my mind you are a place that i think we have to deviate from and get into the more specific problems of how people are treated in this country.

we are losing the law in this country. if we lose it, we are done. host: ken cuccinelli, let me pick up on what bob is talking about and focus it on "the new york times" story today about the fourth amendment. i wonder if your argument about undocumented immigrants in due process applies, that trump administration lawyers have determined that the 18th-century law we have been talking about, he has invoked it to deport suspected members of a venezuelan gang, allows federal agents to enter homes without a warrant, according to people familiar with an internal discussion, reflecting the aggressive view of the trump administration on presidential power, including setting aside a key provision of the fourth amendment that requires a court order to search someone's home. it goes on to quote chris a full well -- christopher wellborn, who says the fourth amendment applies to everyone in the united states, not just individuals with legal status.

guest: yeah. again, i think they are picking a strategic legal fight to determine the parameters. they have staked out a position. i can have some disagreement with bob and some disagreement with bob's comment. i've been concerned about the deterioration of the law for some time. i think what you are seeing from the trump administration is not some willy-nilly we will do what we want. it is a strategically thought out effort to actually define and have the courts define, by the way, they take a position, courts will decide things, to define the parameters of that presidential authority. i think that is fairly reasonable, frankly. it looks rough on a case-by-case basis, i understand that.

i have not studied, you know, the first, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth amendment will play out differently depending on the circumstances of the aliens at issue. let's say a legend aliens. a simple case is you could be wrong. they may not be the people you think they are, you could be going into the home of a u.s. citizen. of course, under the fourth amendment, the doctrine would bar anything that you uncover their from being used in your case for the government. you would be ordered to release the wrong folks you had picked up, presumably that would be ordered once it was realized. so, different elements of constitutional rights are going to be handled differently by the courts. for good reasons. but you know, here we have

another test. where i think you actually have a little bit of the opposite of what bob is saying is going on, where they are trying to defy the parameters within which they can work and as the president said in his sometimes in artful ways, they intend to abide by it, but they want to define them and this hasn't been really directed as a legal effort over the 250 years of our country. now it's going to be. we are going to get a lot more definition out of the circumstances and that's going to be in place for the hundreds of more years of the united states of america. host: ohio, george, republican. caller: thank you, ken, for all that you can do. the only one that can declare a national state of emergency is the president, correct?

congress can't, trump if he wanted to, he could declare a national emergency about immigration right now, couldn't he? guest: he has, i believe. caller: that's a fact. i heard democrats talking about immigration. when my mother came from yugoslavia, she was an immigrant. she had to learn the language. i'm 70. article one, section eight of the u.s. constitution only gives the right of a government to impose taxes for the defense and welfare of the american taxpayer . that judge better have trillions of dollars. if he wants to supply the funds for the u.s. government, let him do that? guest: even james madison back to 19th -- 1875, they were spending money on things that felt politically nice and he said words to the effect of i can't put my finger on the part of the constitution that allows

us to spend money for your benevolent purposes, but that general welfare clause has been read by the courts to be immensely expansive. so, spending money, even on aliens, legal and illegal, is viewed as it can be explained in terms of benefiting the united states. that's all it takes to make that spending fit within the boundaries of the clause you just read. i may not like that, you clearly don't like it, and part of the reason i don't like it is i have great concerns about our debt. it doesn't seem like many people in washington are concerned about it. if you are 70, i'm guessing and hoping you have grandchildren. they are being burdened with that debt to a degree that will debilitate their government at some point.

for the republicans in the defense, defense hawk saying i want to defend against china, yes, but i want to be able to do it in 2050 and 2075, not just 20 25. all of the spending has to get rolled back, but that's a subject for another day and i would be happy to come on talk about it. we have to rein it all in. including the unit -- immigration space, by the way. host: chris, new mexico, democratic caller, you are next. caller: i think you are grossly misusing the word invasion in the alien enemies act. to me, it clearly refers to an armed invasion by a foreign power. what the immigrants are doing,

you might call it an infiltration or something like that, but it is clearly not an armed invasion. you used the term invasion as a part of a propaganda campaign to frighten gullible people in the united states, just like trump calls them rapists and murderers and child takers. this propaganda campaign against immigrants is very, very similar to the nazi campaign against jews in the 1930's. host: ken cuccinelli? caller: if you want to go there, chris, i'm not going to do that. i'm going to say you -- stay respectful. if all you have is ad hominem attacks, i presume you recognize

the weakness of your own arguments. we will start with the economics. basics. large-scale, unskilled immigration hurts american poor people very badly. it has for a long time. it has been allowed to go on on a bipartisan basis because in my view the people that fund both parties, the tops of both parties, have made sure that sheep, even legal labor has been made available so that companies can benefit by keeping their costs down and running profits up. at the expense of who? american unskilled citizens. we have a lot of those. we have the data to prove it. inch clean 19, just before covid, after tax cuts and

deregulation, and after three years of actual earnest enforcement of immigration laws after more than a decade where it hadn't happened, some might argue more more than a decade. the economy was doing well. when you break it down, the people doing the best were at the bottom of the scale. that is why black unemployment spent more time under 80% during the first trump term then the rest of my life combined up to that point. the same is true for hispanic unemployment. the poverty rate reached the lowest level in recorded history up to that time, because poor people were being benefited by detecting their labor market so that wages can go up and they can get jobs. they being the poor american

citizens. it's who i'm the most concerned about. you don't hear people on the right, and it is a lament that i have that people on the right don't talk about how much better our policies are for the american poor then the policies of the left. this is an example where it is absolutely completely true economically. if you have a problem and want start -- and want to make allusions to the nazis because people like me favor american poor people over poor people in the rest of the world, that's your problem, not my problem. if all you can do is assign motives because of preferred outcomes, you are not honestly looking at the question in the first place. your knowledge -- analysis of the alien enemies act, it's so obvious to you. you cited nothing but your own obviousness.

you didn't cite law or provisions. there are elements of the constitution and law from early united states that do in fact reflect the position you stated, where invasion deals with invasion strictly by nationstate. that is not spelled out in the alien and sedition act. it's not the case under article one, section 10 of the constitution. i would go back some 20 odd years after non--- 9/11. the declaration of war against congress -- from congress itself was against individuals or groups. it was very amorphous. they call it the authorization for the use of military force, the constitutional equivalent of a declaration. i think your scratch legal

analysis is 100% driven by your preferred position and hatred for donald trump and that's not a way to analyze a legal position. host: idaho, republican line, next. caller: good morning to you, america. can you hear me, greta? host: weekend, you are on the air. caller: i'm a retired marine out of idaho and you are spot on. i've got stuff i do want to bring to light. first, april 16, 2019, go to [indiscernible] 71 years of foreign aid. who is spending the money? americans. refugees coming to america get 3032 dollars per month, per person. who pays for it? american taxpayers. 7 million dollars a week. health care, medicaid, meta-card, part d, illegals

coming into the white house, china, tax dollars, we are paying for it. show america. the democrats won't have a leg to stand on. we will sue them. democrats can spend 2 trillion on foreign aid. the republican party old. trump spent 29 billion in his first four years. 41 billion in his sixth. trump, 29. trump, $16,700,000,000,000, 38 months, two weeks, four million, 24 hours, that's trump. you've got the door. give it to me. c-span, "washington journal," i'm looking forward to being on top and fixing this. thank you. host: all right, rick. caller: thanks for the service, rick.

foreign aid enthusiasm has been bipartisan, in my view. as someone who, i have already tilt -- told you, i'm very concerned with the fact that we haven't balanced our budget, that we are digging a deep, deep, deep hole for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren that will debilitate the government when they need it, foreign aid is an obvious thing to shrink. i would note, i would note, and i will expand this to immigration, that you know, some people are critical of folks who hold my views, where i have very restrictive immigration views. not zero, of course, but i think that we have overdone it. certainly on the illegal front, no question. i think that the american people resoundingly made that statement with the last election. but america for a long time has been the most generous nation in the world on the immigration

front, in accepting people from all over the world. even if i don't think we should, the fact is, we have. that has been going on for a very, very long time. my problem is that accepting people from all over the world, i think we should be a lot more selective in ways that help america first, before just throwing doors open. the refugee program is part of our foreign policy, for an image, if you will. we do spend a lot of money on it. no question. both legal and illegal aliens here absorb a lot of government funds. forget the federal government. look at school districts. you know? i live in central virginia. i was talking to a teacher recently, one third of her students, one third, are listed

as "homeless." they are not actually homeless. they are living in hotels paid for by us, the taxpayers. really, heart grandchildren, because we don't have the money right now. that money goes and is gone. we have to make it up at some point. the financial argument is strong in terms of cranking down with the federal government does for folks who are here, especially illegally. it's also a good argument to move large numbers of them out through mass deportation. there is costs savings to be had. host: ken cuccinelli is at the center for renewing america, former trumpet administration official with homeland security. thank you as always for the conversation, we appreciate it. caller: good to be with you as always -- guest: good to be with you as always. host: when we come back, we will

be in open forum. there are the numbers on your screen. start piling in. ♪ >> saturdays, watch american history tv's series, first 100 days, where we explore the early months of presidential administrations. we learn about accomplishments and setbacks and how events impacted presidential terms and the nation up to present day. saturday, the first 100 days of the jimmy carter presidency in 1977 after defeating gerald ford in the 76 election. he promised to move the country forward after watergate. he offered proposals on energy, taxes, welfare, and reform of government. he passed away in december of 2024, at the age of 100.

watch our series, first 100 days, saturdays at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span two. ♪ >> stephen guillen was the scholar in residence at the history channel for more than 20 years. he has written 12 books on subjects, including the history of the united states, the kerner commission, lee harvey oswald, and the life of john f. kennedy junior. his latest book is entitled presidents at war, how world war ii shaped a generation of presidents, eisenhower through jfk, reagan and george herbert walker bush, closing his book saying that ironically the threats facing america in the third decade of the 21st century are very real and in many ways similar to the challenges the nation confronted in the 1930's. >> stephen guillen with his book, "presidents at war," on

this episode of book notes plus, with our host, brian lamb. book notes plus is available on the c-span now free mobile app or were ever podcasts. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime on c-span.org. videos featuring markers guiding you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos, making it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through, spend a few minutes on the points of interest. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back in open forum. any issue on your mind, call in and share with us.

you can also text, post on facebook and x. from "the washington post," trump and hegseth to deliver remarks from the oval office. we will have live coverage of those remarks at 11 a.m. eastern time, right here on c-span. you can follow along on c-span.org, or our free mobile video app, c-span now. the remarks are scheduled for this morning from the oval office. the white house has not advertised the subject matter. reuters is reporting that they will be announcing the pentagon decisions on the next generation of fighter jet contracts. separately, elon musk is scheduled to get a briefing from the defense department focused on the threats from china and the work of the billionaire to cut government bureaucracy, people familiar with the matter told the post. the president, putting this out on his social page, re-tweeting

elon musk, saying that it's pure propaganda and i look forward to the pentagon people leaking fake news, it's a "failing new york times" saying that elon musk is being briefed on a war with china. how ridiculous. china won't be mentioned or discussed. how disgraceful. discredited media. lies. story is untrue." brandt, washington, d.c., good morning. caller: thanks for having me on. i was really hoping to talk to ken cuccinelli. he was chiding callers for going ad hominem while he was defaming every single campus protester, many of whom were jewish, by the way, at columbia university by

calling them all hamas supporters and not really listening to what they actually were, which was anti-genocide and anti-ethnic cleansing protesters. i suspect we could do a little thought experiment here. there was in fact an israeli green card holder banned from campus for engaging in actual violence, including stalking and harassment. do the thought experiment, would ken cuccinelli and his ilk support the deportation of green card holder [indiscernible] who, like cook -- cuccinelli, favors genocide and ethnic cleansing against palestinians? host: those are grant's thoughts. want to give a programming note to you, 10 a.m. eastern time on c-span three, we will be covering the un security council , they will have a debate on

israeli settlements in palestinian territory. that's taking place at 10 a.m. eastern time. you can watch it live on c-span three, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. donald in michigan, let's hear from you, republican line. caller: yeah. i, ah, i have a couple of words to say. all of the politicians on both sides are liars and cheats, all kinds of bad things. democrats call the republicans that, republicans call the democrats that. we've got to figure out right away what we are dealing with. we are dealing with a crook. people, also, schools don't teach history near what history really was. i've done quite a lot of research and reading over the years about history. they think that jfk was the best thing since sliced bread.

well, the first thing he did when he got elected was create the bay of pigs problem, which created the missile crisis. then he got us into vietnam. then he got himself killed. if he was a great president? i don't think so. thank you. host: all right, donald. dorothy, what's on your mind? caller: there is a higher law, that is the law of god. god said that if you hate your brother, you are in danger of judgment. he also says that if you hate your brother, you are a murderer like cain, and no murderer has eternal life. stop fearing immigrants. fear god. he can destroy your body and your soul in hell. they need to preach this to

their congregation. we are talking about hatred. hatred of our brothers. host: all right. dorothy's thoughts in omaha, nebraska. kristi noem was in florida, yesterday, touting the seizure of half $1 billion in cocaine and marijuana off the coast of fort lauderdale. listen to what they had to say. caller: -- [video clip] >> the core mission is simple but crucial, directly aligning with the trump vision to make america safe and strong again. thanks to the coast guard and their relentless maritime security and interdiction efforts, 517 million dollars of illegal drugs will never reach american communities here, by what you see today, as a result of these weeks of work. fewer families will be torn apart by addiction. fewer lives will be lost to overdoses.

fewer resources will be at the hands of dangerous and violent cartels seeking to do all this harm. this action is a testimony to the trump commitment for delivering for the american people and his unwavering dedication to our military strength, or border security, our law enforcement who are producing incredible results, and his leadership that makes america safe again. host: defined all of our coverage of the trump administration, go online to c-span.org. sherry, myrtle beach, good morning. caller: hey. how you doing? i wanted to comment on what was said. i'm 100% for immigrants not being in the united states of america unless they are a citizen of the united states.

we're tired of our children not being able to find jobs because they are taking our jobs under the table. no, it's not that i hate them, i love all people, but there is a time and a place for everything. they have their own place to live. why don't they go ahead and work there and fix their place up like we are trying to do? host: lee, rockville, maryland, independent, good morning. caller: good morning, greta. enjoy the show. when -- in the first trump term, nancy was asked why trump was cozying up to dictators like putin. she said they have something on him. they have something on him. one of your callers a couple of weeks ago alluded to this. putin used to be a colonel in

the kgb. the kgb is a spying agency that uses all kinds of dirty tricks to, you know, get, get influence over foreign people. they had the minister of defense in great britain back in the 50's into a scandal with a bunch of ladies of the evening because he, they, the ladies of the evening compromised him and got the british defense plans. that's what i think happened with trump. all right, -- host: all right, lee with his thoughts. the president saying that he will sign a minerals deal with ukraine soon. this according to reuters. the president will sign the deal

shortly in his efforts to achieve a peace deal for the country. he said they were going well after talks with the russian and ukrainian leaders. that is something to look out for in the coming days. sharon in dade city, florida, democratic caller. i would like to caller: -- -- caller: your previous guests, who did a lot of "i think, i believe," he talked about the false equivalency that liberals are ok with rioters and looters during blm protests or college campus protests, that we are all ok with them destroying property , they make that false equivalency, and then support the january 6 riders who took

lives and destroyed property. he talked about the black unemployment rate going down under trump. he didn't mention that the wages were stagnant and people were working two jobs in order to make ends meet. i wanted to clear those things up. the picture painted his propaganda. people need to do the research and use some critical thinking skills. thank you for taking my call. host: sharon, florida. trump yesterday moving closer to a campaign promise to abolish the education department, signing an executive order that would dismantle it, saying it would be put back to the states, that a lot of what the education department does when it comes to k-12, the education department in k-12 only funds about 10% of the funding. the rest, 90% comes from states and local governments.

here's what the president said about what would be preserved under his executive order. [video clip] >> useful functions. they are in charge of them. pell grants. resources for children with disabilities. special needs. preserved. fully preserved. all of them. all going be. the pell grants, supposed to be good. that program. title i, resources for children. special disabilities. special needs. they are going to be preserved. redistributed to various other agencies. departments. departments that will take care of them. that's important. it's important to linda. it's important to all of us? beyond the core necessities, we will take all the awful steps to shut down the department. we will shut it down quickly. quickly as possible. does no good. want to return students to states.

some of the governors are so happy. they want education to come back to the states. they will be phenomenal. do a phenomenal job. so phenomenal. denmark, norway. sweden. give them credit. china. top 10. can't now say bigness makes it impossible to educate. china, very big. countries do a good job with education. i believe, like governors, some of them are here today, some of the states are run well. big states, like texas. states that are run well. they will have education. education that will be as good as sweden. china. denmark. top countries. they do well with education. they will do every bit as well. what you think? governor? agree? think so? ron? think so? agree?

florida? iowa? that's right? i believe it? they will be as good as any of them? host: trump yesterday before signing the executive order to dismantle the education department. if you missed the event and the signing, find it online at c-span.org. maurice, we are in open forum. what's on your mind? caller: greta. good morning. good morning, america. the guy that you had on earlier, stephen vladeck, you should bring him back again, again, and again. he was spot on. he made a lot of sense. host: what did you agree with? caller: due process. without due process, rule of law, america is nothing. we become something else. speaking as an immigrant, i came to this country from nigeria.

it's not even the technology, it's not even the printing on the money or the dollar being the global reserve currency. it's due process and the rule of law that makes america great. without it, you have nothing. host: all right, maurice. chuck schumer, agreeing with you, saying in an interview that will air this sunday that a lawless trump has caused a constitutional crisis. here is his interview on "meet the press," for this sunday. [video clip] >> the president called to impeach a judge who ruled against him on deportation of gang members. john roberts released a rare statement rebuking the idea of using impeachment to settle judicial disagreements. some constitutional scholars and fellow democrats calling it a constitutional crisis. do you agree? is the u.s. and a constitutional crisis? >> i do, kristin.

democracy is at risk. look, donald trump is a lawless, angry man. he thinks he should be king. he thinks he should do whatever he wants regardless of the law. he thinks that judges should just listen to him. we have to fight that back in every single way. we actually have had over 100 cases in the courts where we have had a very good record of success. so, donald trump, infuriated by that success, said judges should be in punt -- impeached. let me tell trump and the american people, democrats in the senate will not impeach judges,. . >> trump said that he would not defy a court order. do you believe him? >> i don't trust him. we have to watch him like a hawk. defying court orders is why our

democracy is at risk and we have to do everything back in that regard. guest: the senate democratic -- host: the senate democratic leader appearing on "meet the press," this sunday. james, good morning to you. hey, james, you have got to mute your television. you ready to go? all right. terry, dixon, illinois. terry, what's on your mind? caller: good morning. yes. hey. good. love your show. i've been listening for, oh, 20 years. i was calling about ken. ken, he sure has a different view on the justice system, you know? he calls for these judges to be impeached or investigated because their daughters get money? did it go over his head that we have clarence thomas and anthony scalia in the supreme court?

thomas's wife, she was collecting money and thomas was going on all of these vacations with the coke brothers and all this, on their dime, but when we call for him to recuse himself, he says no, i don't have to recuse myself? ken, i'm sure he was like "my gosh, he didn't do that, but he can. this double standard? sorry, due process is due process. if he doesn't like the judge's decision, they can appeal the decision to the supreme court, which we know the supreme court, especially two of those justices that trump really, how would i say, really pushed his agenda, have conflicts of interest and they should step down, you know? host: all right.

terry, programming note, congress is in recess. congress and the senate back in their home states and districts. some have been holding town halls and we have been covering them here on c-span. mike flood, harriet hagman. senator michael bennett us. c-span cameras were in colorado yesterday for that town hall. tonight, we are going to show you coverage of bernie sanders of vermont, and congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez, they are holding a rally in denver, part of the tour of congressional districts narrowly won by republicans. they are expected to discuss the economic policy agenda and the rise of authoritarianism in america. watch live at 7 p.m. eastern time on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. saturday, a marathon of town

halls with andy kim, doing a town hall in brick township, ocean county, new jersey. you can see it live, 10 a.m. eastern time on c-span, c-span now, free video mobile app, or online at c-span.org. you can find all of these town halls online, on demand, at c-span.org. susan, san diego, good morning, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. great show. i wanted to come in and say that the center for renewing america was of course started by russell vote and the heritage foundation. when are people going to wake up and see that this is just one big web of christian white nationalists trying to take over this entire country? consolidating power. donald trump is just handing get to them.

he doesn't care, he won't be around. he's an actor. chuck schumer said he's angry? i don't he's angry. he's a good actor who knows how to stir up the angry people in america and it's really sad. host: laverne, wisconsin, republican line, let's hear from you. caller: good morning. c-span has this policy of when there is a guest on, collars are not to use ad hominem attacks. i agree with that 100%. but what i would like to see, so many people are talking about can't we please come together. how about c-span having a policy so that every time a caller makes an ad hominem attack, they are automatically cut off? this idea of -- donald trump is a liar. yeah? has he told a lie?

sure. has every caller that's called in and called him a liar never told a lie? that's the pot calling the kettle black. how about bringing people together? change or policy. at prominent attacks. you're done. -- ad hominem attacks, you're done. host: all right. jeff, democratic line. caller: i would like to know about the elon musk theory on social security. the other day he said it was nothing but a ponzi scam. i would like to know what his opinion is about 401(k) plans. talk about a ponzi scam. everybody out there puts in 80 grand and thinks they will make a living on it when they retire? it's terrible. the company i work for, they hired a company from new york. after the meeting, i went up to this gentleman and asked him --

what if i pick something and i lose it? i lost everything? his response back to me was -- not everybody's gonna make money on this. you have a nice day. host: duane, north liberty, iowa, independent. caller: how you doing? thanks. anyway, talking about the drug scene. i watched this show on discovery. contraband at the border. those guys work there butts off. they show drug boats crashing. stuff to wash up on the shore. it's been going on for years. he's just taking credit for the one time. i've got four different points. host: one, we are running out of time. caller: immigrants. i work for a school. does the funding go away when

the education department shuts down? there is no way small-town iowa, nebraska, small towns anywhere can survive on state and local funding without raising taxes. then people will complain about that. host: let me go to george, independent. we will end with you. caller: good morning. you are doing excellent job. one thing. with all of these lunatics out there, marking the tesla vehicles, burning the tesla vehicles, burning the dealers, do they understand insurance pay for everything? insurance collecting for the people. so, the people they market, they got to realizing they have to pay back to insurance. the time it comes for renewal,

insurance car, insurance got to go up. host: all right, george, final thoughts there before we let you go. trump in the defense secretary will be delivering from the oval office at 11 a.m. eastern time. tune it here on c-span, online at c-span.org, or the free video mobile app, c-span now. thanks for watching. we'll be back tomorrow morning, 7 a.m. eastern time. enjoy your weekend. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] ♪ >> 80's and gentlemen, here's the deal, that $36 trillion number is not going away. it is not going away unless we deal with medicare and medicaid.

>> we are not interested to hear that you are in the minority, we know that. we want you to show some of the backbone and strategic brilliance that mitch mcconnell would have in the minority. we want you to show fight, and you are not fighting. >> this weekend joined c-span for a special congressional town hall marathon. watch unfiltered conversation with tell -- with lawmakers as they engage with their constituents. it starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern with new jersey democratic senator andy kim from new jersey. other members include wyoming republican congressman. hageman, glenn ivey, mike flood, colorado democratic senator, michael bennet and many more. c-span's congressional town hall marathon beginning saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org.