on january 20th, donald trump entered the white house with a full agenda. >> the forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. everyone is listening to you now. you came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement, the likes of which the world has never seen before. >> on the eve of his 100th day in office, we examine his presidency so far. he has signed controversial executive orders on immigration, the environment, and the economy. he placed a new supreme court justice on the bench. >> the american people, i am humbled by the trust placed in me today. i will never forget that to whom

much is given, much will be expected. >> and trump took military action against syria. >> it is in this vital national security interest of the united states to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. >> but opposition to his agenda continues on capitol hill, in the streets, and in the ports. tonight on kqed "newsroom," the first 100 days of the trump administration ask its impact on california. hello. and welcome. i'm thuy vu. tonight on "newsroom," a special one-hour program about the first 100 days of the trump administration. we'll talk with californians who voted for trump to get their assessment. and we'll get a snapshot from different parts of california from kqed reporters around the state. wus we'll here from people who have become politically active for the first time since trump took office. first i talk with california

congressman adam schiff, ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee. he played a key role in calling for an impartial probe into russia's hacking of the presidential election. leading to this revelation by fbi director james comey. >> i have been authorized by the department of justice to confirm that the fbi, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. >> and joining me now is congressman adam schiff. congressman, welcome back to the program. >> thank you, great to be with you again. >> well, russia connections are continuing to make headlines in the first 100 days of the trump administration. particularly about michael flynn, president trump's former national security adviser. do you think he broke the law by not disclosing payments he received in business dealings with russia? >> it certainly does look like an apparent violation of law. think there are three legal clouds now hanging over general

flynn. the first is whether he was legally entitled or even able to accept the payments that he did from foreign powers, from russian entities, from the turkish government. the second is whether he violated the law by not reporting the receipt of these payments so when he submitted his forms for his security check where you are required to report contacts with foreign powers. then finally a question about whether any of the false statements he may have made also subject him to legal liability. so i think there are a lot of legal concerns in terms of the general's conduct. that may go into why the general has asked our committee for immunity. that is something that we wouldn't consider until we had reviewed all of the other witnesses and documents and determined, based on a proffer from general flynn, whether his testimony would add value. we'd obviously want to talk with the justice department to make sure that their equities were

considered. but i think there are a lot of legal questions now swirling around general flynn's conduct. >> how would you assess the performance of the trump administration so far in the first 100 days, insofar as its impact in california? >> well, you know, to be candid, it's hard to imagine an administration off to a worse start from the california point of view. an administration that is running in the wrong direction when it comes to issues like climate change, where california has been the leader. the administration has been repealing the obama clean power plan. wants to go backwards in terms of fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. may walk away from the global climate agreement we reached in paris that united states helped lead that global effort. so on environment, it's been disastrous 100 days. he's also thinking about repealing the establishment of some of the national monuments. when it comes to the immigrant families in our district and breaking up families, the far more aggressive deportation

policies are a disaster. when it comes to our relations with our southern neighbor, a wall proposal is a disaster. the health care plan the republicans have and the president supports would cut more californians off of health care than any other state. so in each and every way, whether it's tax cuts, immigration, the wall, the environment, this administration couldn't be more hostile to the values that our state embodies. >> president trump this week released his texas reform plan. it includes massive tax cuts for corporations. what is your reaction to that plan? >> well, i have a couple of reactions. you know, it's certainly good for people like the president that have a big business and would benefit from that kind of a major tax cut for corporations and for very wealthy americans. but the biggest problem is, none of it is paid for so it's all pie in the sky. it's all, well, we can give everybody a tax cut, we don't have to cut anyone's services, and we don't have to worry about our deficits and debt.

well, we already have a substantial deficit, a very substantial national debt, this will add $7 trillion to $10 trillion to the national debt. so it's not so much a tax plan as it is kind of a wish list of what the president would like to do to his wealthy benefactors, for his wealthy benefactors, and for his own family. but it doesn't offer much for americans and for people in california in particular, it would really hurt us. in a couple ways. it would hurt us because they're going to do away with the deduction for state and local taxes, meaning states like california that provide a lot of services will have to cut those services because the states won't get that kind of benefit anymore. and when you add that to the health care reform proposal republicans have, it means we'd be cutting millions off of medicaid in california. we'd be cutting millions out of the exchanges that have pre-existing conditions who couldn't afford coverage. and the states would be in even

worse position to provide any backfill support because of this tax cut plan of the president's. so for california, terrible news all around. >> also wanted to turn to foreign policy with you and ask about north korea and the rising tensions there. what tools do we have in our diplomatic arsenal right now to contain the north korean threat? >> the most important one that we have is our ability to use our leverage with china. we don't have that much leverage anymore with north korea. we already sanctioned them, at least directly, in as many ways as we possibly could. but there are other steps that we can take to impress upon china, which provides this lifeline, the safety valve, for north korea, to clamp down on the north if it's going to continue with its nuclear missile program. so there's a lot the chinese can do that they haven't been willing to do. and to the degree we impress upon china that, look, if you don't take these steps, we're going to have to do things for our own national security and that of our allies that you're not going to want to see. we're going to have to increase our military and nato presence

in the region. we're going to have to be more aggressive in terms of our implementation in missile defense which we're starting to implement in south korea. we're going to impose secondary sanctions meaning we're going to sanction chinese banks for doing business with north korea. these are kind of steps that the chinese do not want to see happen but i think if we explain, these are going to be necessary, it may motivate the chinese to do a lot more. it's still no guarantee that the chinese can get north korea to back off but we do need to explore every lever we have, because the military options are just so awful. >> all right. congressman schiff, thank you so much for being with us. >> you bet, thank you. still ahead, we will hear from people who have become politically active for the first time since trump was elected. but right now, for a different look at president trump's first 100 days in office, we turn to kqed senior editor for politics and government, scott shafer. >> joining me now are republican

national committee woman from california, harmit dillon. long dive time republican political consultant sean walsh. "san francisco chronicle" politics reporter joe garafoli, welcome. something we heard adam schiff talk about, that is the california penalty. noting that a lot of the president's policies on the environment, health care, immigration, the new tax plan, seem to be singling out california for additional punishment. sean, what do you think of that notion? >> i don't think it's singling out california for punishment, but california always wants to have it kind of my way. they almost act like they're an independent state. so i remember when governor wilson was governor, you had a number of folks who said, well, california can't have its own immigration policy, the federal government has that exclusive right and responsibility. now it's 180 degrees different. so the truth of the matter is california wants a lot and asks for a lot and acts like it's its own independent state but it's not being punished, it just has policies out of the mainstream

and policies donald trump articulated when he was running for office. >> is there an element of payback to any of this in terms of, you gave hillary clinton 4.3 million votes than i got? >> not at all. every republican i know and a lot of state voters and democrats are very much anticipating and looking forward to law and order returning to california. the immigration -- failure to enforce our immigration laws is a big problem for safety and security -- >> what about the tax plan? that in particular, and i realize it's just a one-page piece of paper and not implemented. >> a recently floated one-page piece of paper. i seriously doubt there was a lot of analysis that went into it with regard to that one aspect, the deduction of the state income taxes. i'm sure there will be a number of refinements. we have a lot of members of congress from california from both parties who will have a lot to say about that. so it's a draft. i don't see it as some kind of penalty. >> joe, just politics? >> california's treating it like it's a penalty. setting up their own sanctuary state. even talking about setting up their own sanctuary cannabis state. so california can have its own

cannabis laws and push back on the federal intrusion to those. so it's definitely politics. you know -- it's good for politicians -- >> that's the way the states and the south acted with regard to the slavery issue as well. and so there are limits to the concept of federalism and the federal government does have exclusive jurisdiction over some areas of our laws. and california needs to respect that. >> so scott -- >> what adam's not saying is, so california, huge companies that have hundreds of billions of dollars offshore. >> apple, google. >> if we repatriate that money to the united states, apple, google, those companies are going to bring that money back to california and california is going to have a windfall of tax benefits. >> taking a step back, big picture, almost 100 days of the trump administration. one word for you that encapsulates the first 100 days? >> gorsuch. >> gorsuch, okay.

>> slow, steady progress. not one word -- >> that's not one word. joe? >> chaos. >> so i'm wondering, certainly the gorsuch nomination, big success, everyone would agree. he has done a lot of the things he said he would do on immigration, environmental regulations. yet his approval ratings are very low. i'm wondering why do you think he hasn't been able to move beyond his base in terms of what people think about him and whether they support him or not? >> he doesn't -- he's not yet learned that governing is different than campaigning. fantastic campaigner as we saw. but he didn't come in with -- he makes these pronouncements but there hasn't been the policy behind them. whether it be syria, which was well received on both sides of the aisle. what's our syria policy? he violated politics 101 by bringing the affordable care act vote or halting that -- >> was that him or paul ryan? >> both. he has to own that too.

reince priebus should know better, paul ryan should know better. he has both houses of congress. this is his time to act and we're not seeing it. >> joe said he violated all the rules. he's been doing that all along and people keep waiting for the laws of gravity to apply and they don't seem to apply to him. >> my abuse of the one-word rule, number one he only has his cabinet secretaries in place. i've been back in california the past two weeks. it's almost a ghost town around the executive offices. the assistant secretaries and deputy secretaries have been appointed but not confirmed and put into place. i think you'll see progress on that issue. the one area i think that i have concern about is mr. trump is going to have to work with the members of congress on the republican side and get legislative successes. it is critical those two elements work together. because the clock is ticking. when you go into next year, you are going to be looking at a re-election cycle. everything changes. >> has he squandered the honeymoon? typically the first few months you can get a lot done because

your popularity is high, people are giving you the benefit the doubt -- >> he's not playing by any traditional rules. i agree with both the other speakers here that he's -- if it could come from his mouth and directly to his base and sign it like the executive orders, then that's gone very well. that part where he's able to exert his will over the jurisdiction that he has. but where dealing with congress is a predicate to getting things done, i think that's where the team has got some ways to go. >> on the executive orders, the first travel ban was struck down. the second one was as well. and he didn't run it really by the agencies that were affected. homeland security, so on. even i think linreince priebus didn't read it. that is a failure of just being coordinated? rookie mistake? his temperament? what accounts for that sort of beginning? >> what accounts for that beginning is i'm not sure how many people actually thought mr. trump was going to win.

he ran an unconventional campaign that was very small so he didn't have very large teams in place that then get pulled up and put into an administration. even his white house team. i don't think he had the personnel and people around him to implement what he wanted to do and i think he rushed to try to execute things he said i'm going to do on day one. you say day one but you need to have your act together, your policy in order, and your fact sheets done. they just threw it all out there and it was easy to get mashed up in a blunder. >> day 100, he doesn't have number two, number three, number four, number anything in the department of justice. s so the lawyers who are arguing and processing the defense of all these important issues are either legacies from obama administration or career officials who don't share the views of the president. and that shows in the lawyering. >> but he's also, like in the state department, said there's a bunch of jobs i'm not going to fill at all. because we don't need them. >> that appeals to the base. less government is more. and -- but you have to also have

enough team players to get stuff done. the thing is, he played 103 promises during the campaign. he's kept six so far. and none of them had to do with the cooperation of congress. so he has to link arms. and -- but let's face it, here's a guy who's come from -- spent his career in a family-owned business with no board pushing back against him. there's nobody who's pushing back against him now. and he has to learn to play in the sand box with other people. he hasn't been doing that. >> you mentioned california at the beginning with adam schiff. and whether or not is he taking it out on california? there was also a $650 million grant for cal train electrification that got yanked back. what about that? is that not punishing the state or punishing jerry brown? >> it got more yanked back, actually, from republicans in congress who don't think we should have the high-speed rail and that's effective use of the money. i wouldn't conflate that as punishment for california, they just don't like that policy, they don't want to see the federal government on the hook for tens of billions of dollars

which will probably be over a $100 billion train all said and done. >> it's exposes regional differences in california. devin nunes told us at the quenlgs, why doesn't silicon valley pay for that? all those rich guys there. why is that incumbent on the federal government to pay that? >> there's regional pay -- back -- >> he ran on infrastructure, we haven't seen any plan which presumably would include rail. >> there's legitimate concern by any sane person looking at the way california has run its finances, the uc system slush fund for example, can you trust california for money? i give them money for this, maybe not looking at the fine details, and will it go into some other pocket of pie in the sky project like the high speed rail project that democrats and republicans a lot of them have concerns about. >> go ahead, sean. >> well, and to further add to that, california is part of their health care put 4 million people on medi-cal. 4 million. so they are now putting -- >> it's also a very stable

exchange. >> well -- let's see. when the bills come due and the fact that the federal government as it phases out or ramps down how much money we're going to give to the state of california. putting forward a single payer initiative? last time mr. leno put a similar bill forward, department of finance scored that a $250 billion cost. >> jerry brown has indicated he's not going to sign that. >> also those folks on medi-cal, the expansion, a lot of those folks are in trump counties that he won. he could be his own political seed corn if they lose their health care and they're like, wait a minute, what happened, i voted for you. >> obviously i think the president acknowledges that and frankly a lot of conservatives have taken issue with the president's details about wanting to satisfy all of these concerns, but i think we're going to see something else. i don't think it's fair to say that the current situation here in california is stable. i don't hear anybody who's happy with it. >> really quickly, going forward what would you like to see

change? >> i'd like to see get staffed up. i'd like to see a methodical execution on the policies that he articulated when he was running for office. don't rush to the party. get it done. you don't have to get it all in one bite. he's got four years and possibly eight years. do it in a slow, methodical way. after four years you'll have success. >> we'll be back after the next 100 days and see how we're doing. thank you all very much. sean walsh, dillon, and joe, thank you. immigration has been one of the biggest issues for this administration so far. here's a timeline of key events. on day eight, trump signed an executive order to clamp down on travel from several countries in the middle east. it ignited a weekend of protests at airports around the country. on day 21, the ninth circuit court of appeals ruled to block it. trump threatened to take the case to the supreme court but issued a revised version of the ban. another executive order to cut off federal funds for sanctuary

cities was challenged by san francisco and santa clara county. day 95, a federal judge knocked down that order. for many people, donald trump's election was a turning point. one that inspired them to get more involved in politics to make their voice heard. i talked with one of those people, eleanor chang, who at the age of 60 found a new calling for political action, both online and on the streets. san francisco retiree eleanor chang is a u.s. citizen who never thought much about politics. >> i have never been politically active, being from hong kong, we were told as youngsters not to be political of anything, right. >> reporter: but donald trump's election changed everything for her. for the first time, she felt she had to publicly stand up for the values she treasures. >> as a student from hong kong to come to the united states, i felt i had wonderful opportunity to get a good education,

establish a very good career, i felt very lucky to be a u.s. citizens. i feel as immigrants we all help build america. >> reporter: at 60 years old, she headed to washington, d.c. for her first political protest. >> when i learned about the women's march, i was so excited. because i said, i have to go and be part of that. >> tell me about this photo here. >> this is my cousin and her daughter. the three of us, first-time marchers. >> all three of you? >> all three of us, all the generations, putting on pussy hats. >> i love that. >> here's the shot of this woman who gave me the poster after i admired it. >> what was it about that poster that you liked so much? >> you can see her hair was just amazing. and then her looking up. and the expression, just the hope to me. it says hope.

>> also a strong message about women. >> very uplifting. >> reporter: after a long career in the banking industry, chang says she's discovering a new passion, political activism. >> i'm hoping that they will send a message to president trump that his positions are not exactly what everybody is thinking in their minds. that he would listen to us and help us become more of a diverse and civilized society. >> reporter: but if president trump doesn't get this message, she feels she can still make a difference by empowering other women to find their own political voice. so vreally nice things about upcoming programs they have going on -- >> it's really important for us to have a network of friends to continue to talk about the issues that we face. and then to also keep up the momentum and to cheer each other on to continue to resist.

a lot of them, they're afraid of public speaking. and actually, once they get trained, it's really not too bad. not too hard, right? >> yes, exactly. >> because we do it. >> right. >> this whole process let me think that i've been empowered to do something that i believe in. that i could be active and engage and tell people about it. i'm really excited i found that in myself to be able to be politically active. >> it will never be too late, even at 90. >> as people like eleanor chang were protesting around the country, another clash was quietly mounting as attorneys began filing complaints and lawsuits. the steady stream of court challenges has placed lawyers on both sides and judges at the forefront of policy in the first 100 days of this new administration. joining me now with analysis is uc berkeley interim dean at the law school, melissa murray, good to see you again. >> thank you for having me. >> president trump has a broad agenda.

we've seen lots of demonstrations. at the end of the day it seems like the people at the forefront of this fight against the president's proposals are the attorneys. >> it's a great day for law schools. lots of things are happening. every new administrative effort seems to spark some kind of legal response. and lawyers have been right there. lawyers from my own law school, uc berkeley. it's been really energizing for the legal field. but also a bit exhausting. it's been nonstop for the last 100 days. >> so legal challenges to presidents aren't anything new. we saw that in the nixon era. his fight to keep his oval office tape recordings secret, went all the way to the supreme court. we've seen the obama administration's immigration rules facing court challenges. what is different this time? >> well, what's different about this time is it seems to have started immediately at the beginning of a presidential administration. and it doesn't seem to have let up at all. so it's only been 100 days but there's been so much to talk

about. and lawyers have been at the forefront of all of it. so from the travel ban to the neil gorsuch nomination to the planned to defund planned parenthood. this is nonstop legal action, all interesting to follow but again, really exhausting. it's a lot to handle and we have 1,300 days left. >> speaking of the travel ban, the attorneys that brought those challenges scored a victory but there are some other suits out there. do they possibly face tougher hurdles? for example, i'm thinking of the one that the group citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington has filed. it has to do with the emoluments clause. charging that the president's failure to sell his business interests really put them in a blind trust, actually violates the constitution. how tough are the hurdles for that type of lawsuit as opposed to an immigration ban challenge? >> so in every lawsuit there are two big issues. one, procedurally, does this lawsuit belong before a federal court? are the plaintiffs the right plaintiffs to bring the case? and then the substantive issues

like on the merits does this violate the constitution? here, before we even get to the merits question, we have to determine whether or not the plaintiffs are the right plaintiffs to be bringing this. and the public interest group crew that you mentioned has brought this suit but immediately faced a question of whether or not they have standing as plaintiffs because they are not directly harmed by the president's refusal to put his interests in a blind trust. they've amended their lawsuit to include a group of restaurants and other hotels. but they still face something of a hurdle on the standing question because even though these groups might be able to claim injury due to the president's failure to put his interests in a blind trust, there's still questions about whether or not this can be traced directly to the receipt of an emolument and whether it's redressable by a federal lawsuit. there are a lot of standing questions in that suit but it raises broader juanness of the emoluments clause and violations to it, and that puts the administration in the hot seat. >> let me ask about the ninth u.s. circuit court of appeals as

well. the rulings huntsmanhalting the bans, both ended up in the ninth circuit appeals court. this week president trump said he has absolutely considered proposals to break up the ninth circuit, carve it out, make it smaller. how serious is that threat? >> he's not the first president to talk about breaking up the ninth circuit. it's the largest circuit in the country, headquartered here in san francisco. but it takes on all of the western states. so everything from montana and idaho to alaska, hawaii, california, arizona. it's massive. >> nine west coast states and two u.s. territories. >> it's a massive court. it also hears quite a large volume of cases. the charge has always been that it's famously liberal, but it hasn't really been that liberal in recent years. president carter appointed a number of nominees who were famously liberal, but in recent years, president clinton has appointed the largest number of judges to that court, and president obama and president bush have also appointed

members. and they're more moderate than they used to be for sure. so the idea that this is a left-leaning court, that's changed a lot i think over the last couple of years. it's much more moderate still, the idea that it as liberal court lives on. again, this particular imposition on the ninth circuit that president trump has raised sort of around the idea of politics, that this is a court he will not get a fair hearing in because it is liberal. lots of people have made that claim but it's very hard to break this up. you have to get congressional approval, it has to go through congress. many judges have said this would not make sense to break up. the natural splitting of this particular circuit doesn't seem that natural at all. the last time we had a circuit split is when the fifth circuit, which included southern states, texas, florida, georgia, split into the 11th circuit -- >> what year? >> back in the '80s. >> you alluded to people have accused the ninth u.s. circuit court as being activist judges. so we have neil gorsuch in place

on the u.s. supreme court. and some of these challenges may end up in the supreme court at some point. with the court's current makeup, how do you expect that to play out in the system of checks and balances? >> so when justice scalia died, the court was poised maybe five on one side, four on the other, sometimes justice kennedy might be a split vote. i don't think that has changed. neil gorsuch takes on justice scalia's seat as a conservative. what i think you will see is perhaps in these rulings, a more extreme position on -- we don't really know as much about justice gorsuch as we do about justice scalia. we'll hear more over time. one thing we know is he is perhaps more deferential to presidential power than his predecessor. i think in cases like this that will be really important. >> much to watch, thank you so much. >> thanks for having me. later in this program, we'll get an update from reporters from around the state. up next is kqed politics and

government reporter marisa lagos with a look at why some bay area supporters supported trump and how they feel now. >> president trump has proposed massive tax cuts and pushed for more business-friendly regulations. i sat down with three bay area women who voted for president trump to get their impressions of the first 100 days and their hopes for the future. joining me now are uc berkeley student clair kiara, california director of african-americans for trump curran rankin, and alameda county republican chair sue carroll. welcome to the show, thank you for being here. i'd like to ask each of you a little bit about why you supported trump and what your impressions have been this first 100 days. and sue, i'd love to start with you. >> i'll be perfectly honest. i didn't vote for donald trump during the primary. he's an unconventional candidate, unconventional situation. i didn't think he was going to win. but when it got to the general election there was no choice, to

me. i didn't like hillary clinton at all. it was going to be donald trump. i voted for donald trump. >> so far, are you happy with that? >> happier than i expected to be, frankly, yeah. i think he's doing some very good things. and i think we didn't see this side of donald trump as much during the campaign. the kinds of management skills he brings to the table. how he listens to people. some of the good picks he's making for his cabinet to lead agencies and so forth. so yeah. >> clair, how about you? what kind solidified your support for president trump, and how would you evaluate this first couple of months? >> i really appreciated the fact that he was an outsider to national politics and politics at every level. i think that our government for many decades has been plagued by career politicians and bureaucrats that are simply out of touch with the needs and wants of everyday american families and workers. and so to rate his presidency so far, i think that the first 100 days have been really incredible

and that they've lived up to the promises that he made during the campaign. he is absolutely committed to the same ideals that he claimed to be committed to during his campaign. oftentimes we see a reversal once people get elected and once they hold office. they flip-flop. and the people that supported them are left questioning whydy vote for this person? i think donald trump is living up to his promise to put america first in a variety of ways. and i absolutely stand behind that. >> corinne, you're a small business owner. and a strong donald trump supporter. i think from the beginning, right? >> i was. >> so tell me, i mean, are you feeling the same way? >> absolutely. i feel clair probably took the words out of my mouth. i was excited about his candidacy from the moment he announced that he wanted to run for president. i immediately threw my support behind him. i liked a lot of the things that i heard during the campaign about putting america first. and as far as his first 100 days in office, i'm happy with what i've been seeing.

he came in and hit the ground running. and he's sort of running it as a businessman, sort of running our country in an unconventional way. and i think it's working. >> yeah, so one thing you guys have all hit on is this idea that he's playing to his base. i'm curious as supporters in a very blue state, if that worries you at all, if you think he needs to have a broader message as he moves throughout his presidency. >> corinne, is that something that concerns you? >> no, i don't. i don't think that anyone in our country can have a problem with him saying that he wants to put america first. that's what any president of any country should be saying. i think we're not used to hearing it. but once people -- i think people are starting to see him more presidential now versus on the campaign. i feel like i'm seeing the same person that i saw in the campaign because i've always

listened to what he said versus the rhetoric from other people's opinions. >> i'd like to know who his base is. i think that there's a false concept about who donald trump's base is. i certainly don't think that the media had a good idea about where the voters were going to come from who were going to vote for donald trump. they didn't get it during the campaign, they didn't get it on election night, they haven't had it since he's been in office. so there was a very interesting article that was printed in "politico" this week. and the title of it was, "there is a media bubble and it's worse than you think." i don't know if you saw it. >> yeah. >> and the idea was that the major media installations or organizations are clustered in the boston to washington, d.c. corridor and the west coast from seattle to los angeles. and maybe around chicago. but they're missing a whole lot of what's going on in america. and clearly they didn't see

donald trump coming. >> i'm curious, one of the issues that's come up a lot is coal jobs. which is clearly important for some people in donald trump's base. but it's also a very small, tiny fraction of the economy. and we talk about more broadly we're losing jobs in retail, there's a lot of heartache in many industries around automation and what technology is going to do our work for us. what would you like to see in that area? is this focus on coal from where you sit in california a little misplaced? or do you think it's fair? >> no, i think that the focus on coal jobs fits into trump's larger narrative that we need to reinvigorate our country's economy, we need to be focusing on niche industries as well as national industries. every single american's job matters. it's not just the industries that are popular on the west coast and east coast. it's not just tech. so i think with trump's tax plan he just rolled out, we see a large priority placed on ensuring that businesses have an incentive to bring their money back to this country to employ american workers, lowering the

corporate tax rate to incentivize businesses to want to grow. so ultimately, going back to the america first and fixing america's systemic problems, donald trump is placing his largest focus on ensuring the quality of life of americans. and that ranges from safety to jobs to the economy, foreign policy, lots of different areas of practice. and so i don't think that his focus on coal is limited in scope, i think it's one piece of a larger picture that we're seeing. >> i was just going to say, i grew up in ohio. when you -- when you're in that part of the world, indiana, ohio, kentucky -- as recent as ten years ago, 40% of their energy was coming from coal-powered electricity plants, electrical plants. i used to have conversations with congressmen, we have to shut down coal, it's a dirty industry. i said, do you know what will happen to the economy, to people who have snow in the wintertime? this is not something that can be done overnight. i think he figured that out.

>> so one area that has not -- he has not been able to tackle is health care reform. i know you've been involved in the republican party for long time. that was a big thing that both congressional members and he ran on. are you disappointed? do you think that's going to happen? >> i do think it's going to happen. they're very excited. it seems to me in washington, just today, as we speak, because they are putting together an agreement between the two different groups. the moderate republicans and the freedom caucus conservatives. so i think we won't have a vote this week in the 100 days but i think a week from now, 15 days from now. >> great. before we go, i want to ask each of you, what impact have you felt in your life since donald trump was elected and became president? is there anything you can point to that you're already feeling? >> i honestly feel better about the economy. just looking at it from a national perspective. it excites me to see the changes in our national security that

he's putting more emphasis on keeping america safe. those things, they've always been appealing to me. and they're exciting -- i'm excited to see this. >> i am very hopeful. i'm very encouraged. i'm inspired. and i'm graduating from undergrad in weeks so i'm entering into the job market. i'm feeling a little bit more confident there's going to be a place for me in the emerging american economy, especially with the new tax plan that just came out. i'm feeling very excited and i'm very happy. >> jobs and the economy is probably the number one issue for most americans across the country. and if we don't get some growth back into the economy -- we've been muddling along or muddling through at 1%, 2% growth. if we don't do better than that, people like clair aren't going to be able to find jobs. >> you guys are on board with this tax proposal he rolled out? i know it's a little skimpy on details still, we're waiting to see kind of if he has cuts to offset what he's proposing. otherwise it would be -- add

massively to the deficit. is that a concern? >> they still have to work out some wrinkles, for example, the border adjustment tax is a big issue as far as revenue producing on the tax. whatever tax legislation comes out. and i understand there's a lot of republicans who don't like it in the senate. probably won't vote for it. so they do have to work out a few more things. >> corinne? you're a businesswoman. are you happy to see these proposals? >> yes, i am. california -- i recently read an article about the 50 worst cities in america to do business, and california was home to five of those cities. so for someone like me, i hope that as a business owner, i hope these cuts really help my fellow small business owners. because i think that we get forgotten a lot. we are a big contributor when it comes to being job creators. >> yeah, i thought that was interesting. when the corporate tax rates cuts proposals are huge, so are ones for sole proprietors, people like yourself, people like donald trump too.

>> since the wealthy pay most of the taxes, there's going to be -- there's a cut in tax rates, the wealthy are going to get some of those cuts. you know. but they did change. there's a couple of things they're changing at the lower end that are going to help middle class families as well. larger deductions, what do you call the deduction, the general -- >> standard deduction? >> thank you. i couldn't remember the phrase. the larger standard deduction. higher levels before you get -- have to pay taxes. so there's going to be some changes there too. >> great. thank you all for coming in. it's been fabulous talking to you. >> thank you. >> thanks for having us. in addition to climate change, health care is a key issue here in california. let's take a look at the timeline for those two issues. day 56, president trump proposed cutting the epa's budget by 31%. 6864. trump's effort to dismantle obamacare failed to get enough support from republicans to pass. >> obamacare is the law of the land. it's going to remain the law of the land until it's replaced.

we did not have quite the votes to replace this law. and so yeah, we're going to be living with obamacare for the foreseeable future. >> day 68, trumped signed an executive order to roll back obama-era climate regulations. >> we are lifting job-killing restrictions on the production of oil, natural gas, clean coal, and shale energy. and finally, we are returning power to the states, where that power belongs. >> last saturday, the main for science was held in hundreds of cities around the world. in san francisco, roughly 50,000 people took to the streets in peaceful protest. we met up with one young researcher who helped organize that event. for him it was all about standing up for the value of science to benefit people's everyday lives. >> i love science for the uncertainty. i love science because of the unknown. without science, i don't think i would have the purpose that i have currently in life.

we should all care about science and how it impacts us in our everyday life. my name is robin lopez, i'm 28 years old, and i work as a research social at the berkeley national lab. i study how water resources are affected by climate change. i'm one of 12 siblings. eight sisters and three brothers. i'm the first in my family to graduate college. i was recently awarded the national science foundation graduate research fellowship. essentially that will allow me to pursue my goals to become a scientist as it will cover the majority of the costs and expenses associated with doctorial studies. as an aspiring scientist i'm most concerned with donald trump rhetoric against climate change. >> with today's executive action, i am taking historic steps to lift the restrictions on american energy, to reverse government intrusion, and to cancel job-killing regulations. >> climate change is real. the data is there.

for our society to be told that we should go back on years' worth of research and effort to combat climate change, and to mitigate what we have done, is beyond me. personally, i feel that science is under attack like never before. i feel that you play on the sidelines and don't take action, it could be disastrous for our economy, for our role as a world leader, and for our educational system. i'm helping to organize the march for science in san francisco. the march for science is a global movement for people to show and express their support for science at more than 500 locations throughout the world. not just san francisco. we're talking france, germany, canada, and mexico. we have march for science sf coming up this weekend. brian, you got numbers on projected attendance numbers? >> we are expecting 13,500

people confirmed. we have another 17,500 that are interested. >> i sit on the steering committee of the social media lead where i'm active on twitter, facebook, instagram, and other social media platforms to try and get the word out. all right, so does anyone else have any ideas for marketing strategy on social media for march for science sf? >> it's not about everybody, it's about the individuals that are marching. the more we highlight those individuals' stories, the better -- i think the better message that comes across for what's at stake. >> trump's rhetoric against undocumented persons and immigrants has greatly crippled the scientific community. time and time again during our planning efforts, we have many great speakers potentially lined up. many great volunteers who want to participate. were turned away out of fear of what may happen to them and

their career if they are caught participating due to their status. and with my participation in the march for science san francisco, i hope that i can be a voice for them. all right, everyone. thank you for hopping in on this call for march for science sf social media. let's make this as visible as possible. let's have fun too. >> see you on saturday. >> see you on saturday. >> thanks, robin. >> this is my first time participating in such a political activity. walking with other marchers in support of the science. it's something i never thought i'd have to do. but knowing that i was a part of that, and knowing that i helped bring people together, it brings me much pride and joy. knowing what i'm capable of doing. not just in science, but in policy. looking forward to the next four years under donald trump, i do still hope that progress can be made. however, that doesn't mean we should take the back seat and

hope for the best. we need to encourage action. and we need to continually encourage action over the next four years. >> 4 a broader perspective, let's check in with our reporters around the state and talk about what they're hearing in their regions. we'll begin with vanessa runcanyo who joins me from fresco, our central valley reporter. farms in the central valley rely heavily on immigrant labor. what are you hearing from people about president trump's positions on immigration? >> right. well, take these numbers with a grain of salt, but the official figure from the usda is that 50% of crop workers in the united states are undocumented. but experts say that's probably higher in california and 70% is a better estimate. so when donald trump came to meet with farmers in the central valley last spring, they raised this issue with him. and what he told them was, yes, there's going to be a border wall but there's going to be a

door in that wall. a lot of those farmers voted for him. so they're basically trusting that he's going to make good on that promise. >> do you think that trust is still in place now, 100 days into the administration? >> there's just a tremendous amount of uncertainty. i think some people are more hopeful than others. farm workers certainly are extremely frightened. >> there's been a fear that raids of farms will happen. are you seeing any evidence of that? >> there are always rumors among farm workers. but neither advocacy groups nor farmers have actually reported any raids up till now. what i have heard is that individual workers have been picked up. sometimes on their way to work. >> the agricultural industry, there's something called h2a program which allows agricultural employers to bring in seasonal workers. what is happening with that program right now, and are there enough agricultural workers

right now for the central valley? >> most farmers here would tell you that there are not enough workers. and that's been the case for a few years. but it seems to be getting worse. border security has gotten tighter over the last few years. the economy was not great here for a while. so fewer people are crossing the border illegally to work in fields here. and the workforce that is here is getting a lot older. so all that has pushed wages for farm workers up a lot. and even so, farmers say they can't get the workers they need. >> also wanted to ask about sanctuary cities. there are a number in the bay area. in fresno, the county sheriff is taking an opposite approach, she's cooperating with i.c.e.? >> that's right. in 2015, she basically invited i.c.e. into the jail. she's given them full access to the jail's database. she allows them to come in and interview people several times a week. and i.c.e. has taken more than

300 people into custody through this program. now the sheriff says that this is about keeping the community safe and keeping dangerous people off the streets. but immigrant rights advocates say that programs like this actually deter immigrants from cooperating with local law enforcement and that people who haven't actually been convicted of a crime can end up getting deported. >> okay. an interesting perspective from the central valley. thanks to vanessa runcano joining us from fresno, our central valley reporter. now to our southern california bureau chief, steven quevas, joining me from los angeles. what are you hearing and seeing from people in southern california about how donald trump's first 100 days are going? >> well, as you probably already know, it's not exactly trump country down here. though he does have pockets of support. i'd say orange county, parts of inland southern california as well. local leaders here in l.a., city of l.a., county of l.a., have actually put forward policies

manipulate to sort of counteract any negative effect that may come from policies, especially when it comes to the issue of immigration. so even before president trump was sworn into office, l.a. was kind of moving forward with plans that would essentially help shield immigrants, if you will. there's also been a lot of street demonstrations, both for and against, though mostly against. we'll have a big one on monday, on mayd day, around the issue o immigration and in support of the contributions that immigrants make to the l.a. region. >> so you say that there are some policies there ready to shield immigrants. is los angeles though an official sanctuary city? has it declared itself as such? >> not by definition. it's never taken any sort of vote to declare itself as such. local law enforcement leaders have made very clear they don't want officers or deputies to essentially become like de facto

immigration and customs enforcement officers. they will turn over, for example, jail inmates if there's a warrant. but they typically do not hold inmates beyond their release date unless there's some serious felony involved. again, as i said, the city and the county have created an office of immigrant affairs. and created a program to help immigrants have easier access to legal aid as well. so you could take all of that and say, l.a. is a sanctuary city. but it has not declared itself such. >> what are key issues southern californians are concerned about? >> homelessness continues to be a perennial. mayor garcetti especially has really put this forward as one of the most important issues facing los angeles. locally, the county level, there was overwhelming support for a bond measure and for a county tax hike.

money from which would go towards additional housing and other services targeting the homeless. so voters have made it very clear it's a top priority for them as well. but there's some concern that with a new hud chief coming in, ben carson, that some of the federal monies that the city and the county get to help support these and other programs, could be affected. because he's made it pretty clear that, you know, he's skeptical at the very least of a lot of public assistance programs. >> all right. that is the view from southern california. steven quevas, thanks for joining us from los angeles. >> good to see you. now let's go to our sacramento politics and government reporter katie orr from sacramento, hello to you, katie. >> hello. >> we just heard steven talk about the street protests that have been happening. in the state legislature, lawmakers are really waging their own war against president trump's policies? >> yeah, that's right. and that's largely come in the form of legislation. perhaps the most high-profile

bill we've seen is sb 54 which would essentially make the entire state a sanctuary state. meaning local law enforcement agencies couldn't use their resources to help federal immigration officials with deportation. we're also seeing a couple of bills related to a potential border wall. one would prohibit the state from awarding contracts to companies that help build the wall. and another would encourage the state's retirement agencies to divest from companies that participate in building the wall. >> also a bill on data privacy, right? >> yes. there is a bill that would limit the information that state agencies collect to only the essential information they need to process applications. and that is meant to ensure that the state doesn't have more data than it needs so that if the federal government comes looking for kind of specific data, the state wouldn't even have it to give to them. >> we've got a lot going on from

lawmakers regarding immigration issues. but governor brown seems to have his own alleged when it comes to the trump administration. >> yeah, that's right. governor brown certainly has made protecting the climate a hallmark of his term in office. and we have seen him ramp that up since president donald trump took office. governor brown has reached out to different governments around the world, big and small, and encouraged them to join in with him in keeping the global temperature increase down. and we're seeing this at a time when the federal government is moving away from climate protection policies. for instance, president trump just signed an executive order that would allow for more offshore oil drilling and we saw governor jerry brown come in with a statement opposing that executive order. and furthermore, the governor says he will visit china in june to talk about environmental protection. >> so what can we expect, then,

to see in california during the next 100 days of the trump administration and for the rest of the year? >> i think what we really have to look for in immediate future is how the federal budget is going to impact the state. california's budget is due in june. and for instance, if donald trump and the republicans are successful at repealing or overhauling the affordable care act, that could have big financial implications for california. >> and katie, we have a situation now in california where both houses of the legislature are led by latino men. we've got assembly speaker anthony renn and de leon, both democrats from los angeles. how is that shaping what's coming out of the legislature in response to what's coming out of washington? >> it's interesting because a lot of these lawmakers are second-generation hispanic-americans. their parents were immigrants. they were farm workers, they were housekeepers, they had come from low-income families. and so we're seeing people like

speaker renden and president pro tem de leon have a lot of empathy for the immigrant community and the hispanic community and i think we're seeing that in their legislation. >> all right, katie orr, thawing for joining us from sacramento. >> you're welcome. that is it for our special program on the first 100 days of the trump administration. for more of our coverage, go to kqed.org/newsroom. i'm thuy vu. thank you for joining us.

robert: the end of the beginning. on the eve of his 100th day in office, president trump talks candidly about his biggest achievement and unexpected setbacks. i'm robert costa. we'll explore why mr. trump thought being president would be easier. since taking the oath of office nearly 100 days ago, president trump says he's tried to stay true with his contract with american voters. his biggest victory, the confirmation of neil gorsuch to the supreme court. but even with a republican controlled congress the president has come up short on other issues including healthcare, a border wall and his promise to withdraw from nafta. president trump: i decided

rather than leaving nafta, we will renegotiate. robert: this week's rollout of a tax reform plan was delivered with big promises. >> this is going to be the biggest tax cut and the largest tax reform in the history of our country. and we are committed to seeing this through. robert: but few specifics. and other initiatives including a travel ban in funding cuts for so-called sanctuary cities are stalled in the courts. on the world stage, former foes -- president trump: china a currency manipulator -- robert: have become frenleds. and unlikely partners against unpredictable enemies like north korea. plus, another investigation involving russia and former security advisor michael flynn. we tackle it all with michael

scherer of time magazine. abby phillip of "the washington post." julie hirschfeld davis of the new york times. and jake sherman of politico. announcer: celebrating 50 years. this is "washington week." funding is provided by -- >> their leadership is instinctive. they understand the challenges of today and research the technologies of tomorrow. some call them veterans. we call them part of our team. announcer: additional funding is provided by -- newman's own foundation donating all profits from newman's own food products

to charity and nourishing the common good. ku and patricia ewing through the ewing foundation committed to bridging cultural differences in our community. the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. once again, live from washington, moderator robert costa. robert: good evening today marked the final day in the mythical first 100 day milestone that all new administrations are measured by. president trump traveled to atlanta to thank some of his most strident supporter at the n.r.a. annual convention. his message was reinvigorating the republican base after watching the white house reverse course on a few campaign promises. president trump: you came through for me.

and i am going to come through for you. the eight-year assault on your second amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end. robert: julie, fascinating speech by the president defiant in tone. but he gave this revealing interview to reuters the day before talking about how his grappling with power, the brutal reality of governing and the presidency. which trump are we seeing at the end of this first 100 days? julie: i think we're seeing a president who is starting to recognize the limits of the powers of his office and also how much of a paradox it is. he is the most powerful person in the world. but he has very little personal autonomy. there's this sense of being cloistered in and limbed not just in his movements. he talked about not being able to drive a car, being in a cocoon but also being able to flip the switches that he wanted to flip and have things happen.

that's not happening on immigration. and he feels frank in a way that we heard him be about how surprising that's been for him. the question is what's he going to do to change that reality? can he do anything. robert: he keeps coming back, michael to one of his core issues of his campaign to trade. he talked about possibly withdrawing from nafta. the back pedal a bit. what does that tell ug about trump? >> i think about three weeks ago there was a shift in the whole way trump was approaching his presidency. it was wreck everything in site and tear down what obama left behind to the failure of obamacare repeal, the strike on syria, the internal fights between bannon and his sun in law jared kushner. he had to recalibrate. he doesn't pivot. he zigs and zags. but there is something that has

shifted and he is bending now to reality. and he is recognizing it. he has decided that his main goal here is not to fulfill every campaign promise, it's actually to get wins on the board. to figure out how to accomplish things. it wasn't just that that he backed down on. he backed down on the funding for the bored wall -- border wall, backed down on the currency manipulation by china. he has to reckon with something we in the press were not able to force him to reckon with in the campaign which is the reality of the world. robert: if there's going to be a recalibration, who's going to lead the president along? who's the chief advisor in his ear? because we talkinged about the faction nal infighting within the white house. abby: he kept the core group the same which has come as a surprise to some people who know him.

the issue here is going to be determiner of who has the lead, who's next up to bat in this case, he wants to focus on taxes. two of his advisors the cabinet secretary, treasury secretary and his national council are up now. it's their turn to show what they've got. there's no really telling whether they're going to actually be successful. they have some of the same problems that some of trump's other advisors do which is none of them have ever passed anything on the hill. what trump wants more than anything else is a legislative victory. he wants something durable and big in his administration. he thinks tax reform is that thing. so going forward, you know, you have some folks out there like gary cohen who have some managerial ability. can they get legislative wins? we don't know that.

robert: the president seems torn between the populace wing and the more business wing of his white house. he's talking about in this reuters interview how he's a nationalist and a globe list. julie: with nafta back and forth. you have steve bannon whist -- whispering in his ear that the trade agreements haven't been fair to american workers is a really important them. we need to get that withdrawn from nafta. you have rines priebus and thing a culture secretary showing him a map saying well, yes, this is how it would affect american farmers. this is how it would play out in realtime. that was a realtime example of the struggle that's going on for him. he has to figure out -- and i think in a way that he didn't reckon with before he took office which of those roots he's going to take. he's the decider. and with nafta he basically

coming out where he started which is we're going to renegotiate. if i don't like the results, then we'll withdrawal. robert: he's going to atlanta to talk to his base. but when you think about the conservative base, so many of our sources, you and were in the capital reporting. they say his failure to pass the affordable care act is being sometimeyed again and again. it's a revealing about how he's not been able to get a handle of the republican controlled congress. jake: first he tried to negotiate and work with speaker ryan to pass this bill, the repeal and replace bill. that went up in flames. now he's working with mark meadows the chairman of the freedom caucus. he doesn't have anyone who's guiding him and figure out who are the honest brokers, who are the people he should spend time with. on healthcare, he's starting to contend with the issues that you and i have covered for so long. this is a very deeply divided

house republican conference. you're seeing a reality that about 10 to 15 and minute -- maybe even 20% does not believe he's political advantageous or smart or good politics to repeal this law. it's taking away benefits, they think. republicans were telling us we're never going to be able to take this away. this is a benefit. robert: for american who are out there wondering if this repeal effort is for real or not. they look at the house. the house hasn't brought it up for another vote. where is it going? is there going to be a vote to repeal the affordable care act? and even if it passs the house does it stand a chance in the senate? we're talking about reality or political drama? >> police cal drama. they are closer than -- political drama. they are closeer to passing this. i don't mean to under estimate mitch mcconnell who is the

senate majority leader and political guru, but i don't think it stands. it's got to be significantly changed. whether that can come back to the house where it would need another vote and get the president's signature, i'm deeply deeply skeptical of. >> republicans are positioning themselves who they can blame for the repeal and replace not coming out. this negotiation with meadows allows the freedom caucus allows them to say it's not us, it's the moderates. if they figure out how to get some turkey out of their body and goes to the senate. and they say it's the senate blocking and if mitch mcconnell can send it back to something like a conference, then it would be back like a house. we're going o see this football passed around. ideally they will get closer and closer to something they can come to agreement. what's happening with meadows doesn't seem to be in closer to

what could pass in the senate. robert: i picked up that there's a frenzy of activity in the white house. but when it comes to actual law moving forward, it's moving a a glacial pace. that turns to the tax reform issue. the president announced a sweeping tax reform. they laid out his tax policy which is one of his biggest campaign policy. the plan will reduce the corporate rate from 35% and create 25% and 35%. repealing the alternative minimum tax and estate tax. democrats call the plan wildly unrealistic and even some republicans are raising questions about the lack of details. i was reading, julie, your front

page of the "new york times." they say they're moving about this, but they don't have many details. julie: when president trump said i'm going to have my tax plan by wednesday, even a lot of people said really? we didn't know about that. that's news to us. they've been talking about this and working on it behind the scenes for weeks. there's no question that the timing of the announcement was designed to come before the 100 days. if he's not going to have a healthcare bill or a tax bill, he wanted to have a proposal out. but what we got on wednesday was a sheet of paper that was a wish list of cuts. independent wasn't a tax reform plan. independent wasn't a plan of any kind. it was basically a list of ingredients and a piece of legs that he was endorsing. and because it didn't have any cost estimates, because it didn't have any, you know, specifics about which income

levels were going to be paying which rates, it's almost impossible to say what the net result is going the be other than most of it is going to go to the wealthy and big and small businesses and family that have a lot of wealth that's going to be inherited. it may be that in the end the way that the brackets are designed, the way that the deductions are condensed and eliminated and replaced does help the middle-class, does help folks other than big businesses and wealthy people but what they provided were cuts if the rich and not really a reform. they were talk about simplification and the overhaul and you heard steve saying this is going to be the most significant reform in 30 years. this is not a reform. this is just a package of cuts. robert: when i spoke to the economic advisor to the president, he said the president just wanted to move on taxes. but abby, when you're reporting on the white house, how is the

white house dealing with the fact that it's base, blue collar areas of the country, how are they dealing with tax cuts for the wealthy? >> there are a lot of internal disputes about some of those details that julie mentioned that are so unresolve. one of the big disputes that happened this week anded the parts that they did release about who gets a tax cut? do wealthy people get a tax cut? and there were some people in the white house arguing not do -- to do that because that does not jibe with the president's message that he had on the campaign trail. but those people lost that fight. and the tax cuts are both for high income earners and also for corporations. there are quite a few unresolved things that stouch on this question dush touch on this question. how popular are his are going to end up up being? that has some people worried about how this is all going to go. the white house is still trying

to figure out how to get the president something that -- that feels really big. and i think the tax reform plan that they put out, they've convinced him is reform even though as julie says a lot of people are looking at it and are saying this is really just a lot of tax cuts. when you don't pay for it, it's going to have to sunset at some point and that's going to look like the bush era tax cuts that have to go way after 10 years. and it's not a sort of big systemic overhaul that we saw reagan do. robert: jake, i feel like i'm coming to you for cold water on the congressional side. the president has these ambitions on taxes but how has congress reacted? >> this is a nonstarter. he might as well put nothing. there's nothing that looks like this that's going to ever pass capitol hill. it was a nice exercise to satisfy an itchy and aggravated president but i think the people on capitol hill who have been working on this for up wards of a decade say, thanks but no,

thanks. it cannot get to the senate. what we call reconciliation. it has budgetary issues. it doesn't have any plans. now, i do think that there is a process that's going to begin, the ways and means republicans are here this weekend, the tax writing committee and they're having a conference, a private meeting where they're going to discuss the actual plan that they're considering. robert: we'll see how this moves. >> remember, minushan said they'll pass it by august. i don't think 2018. we're a long way away. people should be very patient. robert: the big picture i keep getting from everything you're saying is on taxes and healthcare things are stalled. big initiatives are stalled but let's turn to the world. beyond the domestic agenda, the president has endured a number of flets. he lunched a missile report in sish yeah after the assad regime

launched a chemical attack on its citizens. he drop the mother of all bombs in afghanistan. and he forged with the chinese president to reform diplomatic pressure on north korea. are we seeing a world view from the president, michael, in the first 100 days? michael: i think we're seeing not an ideological big picture view, there's no trump doctrine that's intelligible. but we have seen a shift from his campaign which is i can fix and change everything to a recognition that the world is far more complicated than he thought and toward following his national security team. ander think there's an enormous sigh of relief across the city of the last month or so that people now believe he's listening to the right people even people like john mccain and lindsey graham are saying we're not as worried as we're used to be. he's listening to very smart

people. and he has recognized in office that there are real lives at stake here, that this is not just rhetoric. it's not something i can say to get a tweet going or get a rally. he's become more cautious. i think what we've returned to is something closer to the con sen active the plunl and national concensus. robert: but his rhetoric are not always cautious. there was breaking news about north korea firing another ballistic missile, the 75th of kim jong-un's tenure. we're seeing the president saying there could be a major, major conflict. the city as much as they see a more traditional world vee view -- world view it's on wedge north korea. >> in the first few weeks of trump's administration, folks were on edge with what kind of policy player on the world stage he was going to be, really nervous about some of the

statements he had made on the campaign trail. that has subsided a lot on recent days. but on north korea he has been talking pretty tough and a leader who is known for his own insen area, crazy statements is -- incendiary, crazy statements. and it started with fox where he said we're sending the armada. he talked about the submarines and how powerful the submarines. they're nuclear tipped submarines. there's a little bit of weariness what is he going to say that might up end this whole process. what is going to happen if china does not have the kind of influence on north korea that president trump is constantly saying he hopes that will have? how is this going to be different for the trump administration than any other administration that has been confounded to deal with north korea? >> would -- this week the

pentagon launched a new investigation into weather former national security advisor michael flynn broke the law by receiving hundreds of thousands of dowell doll -- dollars in payments from russia and turkey. the chairman of the house oversight committee is asking the pentagon to confiscate the money from flynn as it continues its probe. elisha cummings accused of covering up flynn after president trump fired him. when you look at shafitz, it makes you wonder where is oversight of flynn of russia stand? >> it's very difficult with a republican controlled house. you don't get the oversight. everything has to check out. and everything goes to the top. speaker paul ryan is going to have to approve a lot of these investigations because you are

pressuring the white house for documents. the white house wasn't willing to cough up some documents and then you get into the question are you going to subpoena something. this might have a little pause because jason said he returned to utah. he's not going to run again. he singled -- signaled he's going to have foot surgery and he might be away for three or four weeks. this might get paired back because of his foot. robert: does the white house recognize how much this has in some ways hampered their ambitions for the first 100 days? >> do i think they recognize that this story is just like a dark cloud hang over their heads. they can't get past it. but the problem for them it's unclear that they understand the depth of what is -- what is even there. it's hard for them to control a story when they don't know what they're trying to control. and that's where they are right now. there was not a lot of attention

to detail, not a lot of attention to staff and to vetting during the campaign and in the transition. they are -- robert: the trump administration is actually blaming the obama administration for not vetting flynn enough. >> the obama and ministration fired michael flynn. in spite of what they're saying they're right about that. it was cleared under obama but no one forced trump to take on michael flynn and then make him his national security advisor at a time when people were raising questions about his actions in that dinner that now is the subject of so much of this conversation. so the white house does not know the depth of where this investigation goes. it makes it pim possible for them to deal with it. so they are going to stone wall for as long as possible and see how far that gets them. it may get them pretty far because as jake notes, it's a republican controlled congress. they can kind of control the pace of how this whole thing

goes. >> one thing that has changed is that the white house is no longer escalating this issue. for the first cup of months you saw the president tweeting about obama wiretapping which wasn't true. even before he took office saying that the intelligence community was making a lot of stuff up about russia. they've backed out of those. whenever they try to elevate the issue they lose the fight. and now they're sort of doing typical damage control. it's a much more conventional approach. it may help them over -- >> although, it's worth noting that none of those times when they've escalated has been strategy. it's often because the president sun able to control his urge to fight back. so it's unclear whether he will ever get that control. >> and what is unusual about this damage control effort is that in a conventional white house, you would actually have the people who know something about this and have access to the information go back and try to recreate -- what actually did

happen? what can we say? what is reality and what is not? that's not happening here. they just want to push this away. it's unclear how long that's going to be able to be possible. robert: we'll be watching. thanks, everybody for coming tonight. and welcome, jake, to "washington week." our conversation continues online on the "washington week" extra. we will tell you who president trump signaled may be his democratic challenger in 2020. you can find that out on pbsorg/washingtonweek. check out some of the headlines of president trump's first 100 days an follow the top stories of our panelists over the next 100 days with news you need to know. that's every day at pbs.org -- washingtonweek. i'm robert costa on "washington week."

announcer: funding for "washington week" is provided by -- boeing. newman's own foundation, donating all profits from newman's own food products to charity and nourishing the common good. ku and patricia ewing through the ewing foundation committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities, the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

[female narrator] tonight, an untold chapter from an explosive era that changed our nation. in august 1970, journalist ruben salazar was shot dead by an l.a. county sheriff. [phil montez] he died believing in the constitution and the billf rights. that's probably what got him in trouble. [narrator] accident or assassination? i am absolutely convinced that he was assassinated. [narrator] for over 40 years, this question has been a mystery. he began to talk about what he really felt about things... ...and became more of an activist. the mexican-american in this country has been sold a bill of goods. people were shocked.