president trump forges ahead with building a border wall by declaring a national emergency. as govern gavin newsom accuses him of manufacturing a legal crisis ask ows legal action. the fight to protect americans with preexisting conditions under the affordable care act. we'll hear from palo alto congresswoman anna eshoo. an inside look at the company tells us why he thinks the platform presentsa, quote, clear and present danger to democracy. hello and welcome to "kqed newsroom." i'm thuy vu. we begin with aotntial constitutional crisis over the border walrl eaier today president trump issued a national emergency to circumvent congress to fund building a wall at the u.s./mexico border.

>> so we're going to be signing today and registering national emergency. and it's a great thing to do because we have reason invasion of drugs, invasion of gangs, invasion of people, and it's unacceptable. >> the declaration opens up roughly $8 billion to wall and divert $4 million. meanwhile in california, governor gavin newsom calls the emergency declaration a, quote, national disgrac and vow the state would sue. also on on tuesday governor newsom delivered his first tate of thestate speech. both legacy projects formed under goveror jerry brown. joining me now to discuss all

this are kqed politicsnd government reporter katie or, politic strategist will walsh. welcome to you all. paul, let's begin with you. how is california's congressional delegation responding to the national emergency declaration and what are they planning to do about it? >> well, perhaps predict bly least when you talk about democratic members which are most of the californiare coional delegation, they're not responding well. you know, they said for a days weeks there's this idea of a national emergency declaration was floating out there, that they woul opposite it that they recommend the president not do it. we haven't gotten at least fromd nancy pelosi chuck schumer, we haven't gotten ant expli commitment to file a lawsuit but it's certainly something on the table and something you hear other members of the delegation pushing for.y it's definitn option. you also hear them saying that

now that is preside.has been se course on their republican side of the aisle you caow kevin thy in general has been supportive of the president, we're getting a little bit less pushback, but interestingly amon theroader republican congressional members, including in the senate, there are some that are also pushing back and saying that this sets a dangerous precedent. >> sean, when you were on our show last month whenta weaponry ing about the government shutdown, you actually said you were surprised that president hadn't already declared a national emergency. well, here we are. he has. and do you thinka willen now. there's a legal challenge governor newsom wants to put in pce, part of a series of legal challenges, a wave five-m

conservative majority in the supreme court. president trump predicts it will get tthe supreme cour how do you think it will play out? >> i think it's rich. back when it was going through the courts, all the democrats said it's theg federal ernment's responsibility. the states have no rights or should be acting, now the shoe is on the other foot. that said, with regards t national emergency, the courts have given presence wide latitude, nguyene with abuses of the nixon administration to let presidents take action from a national emergency perspective. it's bad policy, but if itoes go forward, this is going to clear the courts pretty easily, particularly with precedent and congress authorized money for this border fence now so legally it will pass muster. >> this is unique because those argue this is the first time this type of national emergency declaration has happened following the inability to get congress to go along with

something the president wanted. >> well, congress did aong with the president wanting, they just didn't g along with the dollar numbers that the president and the federal government administration thinks are necessary. so i will say i've been critical of the president on many instances, but in this one i think he real outplaye the democrats in congress. he got the money as part of the budget act, and he got his national emergency, and i think it will pass muster with the courts. >> katie, let's talk about the impact on california because as part of this emergency declaration, there will be about $4 billion diverted from feder funds that were budgeted for military projects. some ofhose projects are in california. so what will be the impact on our state? >> newsom held ares conference today with attorney gener javier beserra. california is going to be the most impacted state just because of the amonunt of that we get from the federal government. he was looing -- he sai

specifics were still being assessed because the order had just beensu d, but things like military stallations, as you mentioned, whether or not the national guard troops a tha he sa going to remain at the border to do drug search and seizur remain there if the federal government paid for them. so if they don't, thoseroops might be pulled back and redeployed. re general he said there a lot of partnerships between local and federal law enforcement agencies that really could be affected in terms of money but also in terms of momentum in that, you know, these projects get going and if you take the funding away, that's it and they'll cease. >> zbaichb wrong because we have so few military bases in the state of california anymore. we'll be a pittance share of what is distributed around the rest of the country. >> they also are raising the issue of some of the counterdrug defense department money agent going to be diverted and certainly a lot of the work

that's done along the san dgo border, there's a fair amount that happens in california, but an administration official told me they haven't even made a list of militar construction projects they intend to take money from at this pot. you can't really with any certainty what is going to be affected because at this point the white house itself hasn't gone down the list and said what will be affected. i also wanted to go back to the issue of the court challenge a minute. you know, there are certainly legal experts who think that it's credible that the court may uphold this authority, b there are some issues, and one of the things that tou often decides on is not a substance issue, but a procedural issue. and in his press conference today the president explicitty said that he didn't need to issue this order but did it because he wanted things to move faster. that kind ofco versation, the fact that this was threatened for weeks, congress was given an

opportunity act only after they sort of set what they were willing to do, did this emergency get declared, really you understa undercut the presence of urgent action. so tt procedural argument not necessarily whether the border needs securing those are the types of arguments that can sometimes doom this type ofe procedn court. >> all right. also a lot going on in the national front, obvietusly. but talk about state politics. this week governoravin newsom livered a state of the state address and in it he created a lot of conusion when he talks about the current high speed rail project and said it would c cost too m and take too long. what does that mean? is the project dead ore will the high speed rail but not going from san francisco to l.a., which is what the voters had approved i 2008? >> well, you know, he's limiting the segment for now. we're hearing it's asf bakeld merced segment. that's created a field day for

republicans up here in washington. kevin mccarthy is almost leeful. he's been handed a political gift saying he all along said hey believed it was a waste o money and it wasn't feesble. and this news from gavin newsom dropshe same time that democrats are talking up their green new deal proposch, w called for vastly expanded high speed rail. so you havecalifornia, which theoretically could be a shining example ofigh speed rail adds a green initiative, you have the governor, the democratic governorcaling it back, and kevin mccarthy is very ready to tell that to anyone who asks. >> sean, president trump is juing in. his interpretation is that high speed veil dead and he's saying, hey, california, give us back the $3.5 billion we gave you for this project.ha what are thees of that happening? >> probably slim, actually. i think the state's going to take all the money they can from

that and try and has actually deployed it. when the initiative goes forward, we kn the flights from bakersfield to merced will be the first ones that will bec eled for the high speed rail project. it's just silly. i will tell you, when i was director of the office of planning and research we study high speed rail and the viability both in cal across the country and even europe is scaling issue.on that he needed to get out of it but unfortunately he handled it very nfpoorly. he ced the press and public about what it is and what he said originally he wanted to do isn't legal with regards to the initiative. now he'sr feelingnd and trying to -- >> all very nebulous. katie, the governor also said in his speechre thatdent trump's depiction of america is, quote, at odds with california values. what kind of proposal is newsom offering to counter what is coming out of the trump administration? >> i think gavin newsom talks a lot about a california for all and the california dream.

he's proposing things like entually starting a single payer health care system here, which, of coue, is something that the trump administration actually would require a waiver for them to even start going down that path. who knows i they're even likely to get that. but initiatives like that, he's talking about free community college for a second year, fadesing in universalpr chool eventually. >> extendingl medi- including undocumented immigrants until they're 26. >> exactly. so i think if you want to be throwing around a term people don't like, you could hear critics saying socialism, socialists, who's going to pay for this, taxes in california are already high. are you going to raise them even more to cover all these programs? they would argue on the other hand at, you know, it's cheaper in the long run if everyone has medical insurance and isn't going to be emergency room for everything. so that's sort of the pu and

pull of the argument there >> we have about 20 seconds. there's a saying as california of the goes the re nation. how are our lawmakers reacting to some of the things that newsom is putting out there? will they follow suit? >> i think you're going to watch a lot of eyes o californirom both sides of the aisle who are going to be ready t pounce if things look like they can be replicated, other states are going to moe to do that. if anything looks like an example as a failure, republicans are going to point to it immediately and use it against democrats nationwide as well. >> washington corresponnt with the "san francisco chronicle," thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you. >> and thanks to katie or with kqed and sean walsh. always nice thave you guys re. >> thank you. palo altocongresswoman anna eshoo is the new chair of the energy and comerce health subcommittee. this week she held a hearing on four bills, including one she

authored. it would also educate consumers about the risk of short-term medical plans on the market. some are pushing for a so-called dical for all plan. joining us now by phone from menlo park is congresswoman anna eshoo. we understand there are service problems were you live right now so we couldn't get a video link. thank you for joining us. yo >> thank. >> i would like to ask you ability the president's national guard emergency declaration. what isour reaction to that? >> i think that the president hasn't read the constitution. this will certainly be challenged in the courts and it should be because it is a violation of the constitution. the frame is placed in our constitution that it is the congress that appropriates dollars. so i think it's an act of

constitution vandalism and it's deeply he is targeting california because it's been reported that emergency funding would be that pot of money would be robbed as well as others. but i don't believe that it will withstand the scrutiny of the courts because i believe it's constitutional. >> what do you plan to do about it? re you planning legislation to try to blockit? >> there's already been a bill that, been introducd i'm a co-sponsor of it. heere will be several challenges and certainly will be one that comes from members of congress. >> let's turn to health care. because you are the chair of the health subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee. you held hearings this week on legislatie to reve the trump administration's changes to

affordable care act. which provisions are you hoping to restore? first of all, our top two prioriti are the promises that we made to the american people. and that was to strengthen the affordable care act,o protect preexisting conditions, and to lower drug prices. so the legislative hearing that we had that conducted this week had four pieces ole slation that were reviewed. one of them was mine, and it relates to these short-term junk plans that the administration is putting forward. >> these are short-term plans thaton't necessarily provide any protections for people withx prting conditions, correct? >> correct. these essential benefits and the

reform of the health insurance industry that we're part of the affordable care actpread across all health insurance policies in our uny, not just those that are enrolled in the affordable care act. the administration continues to sabo the affordable care act. bout t me ask you also a medicare for all. some progressive democrats who support medicare for all are upsetouhatre not holding hearings on their proposals and they say thatou have backed away from your claim earlier last month that you will hold a hearing. why did you decide notol to a hearing? >> it's not that i decided not to old a hearing. we only had two and we've only had one legislative hearing. >> do you support medicare for concept, though? i know there are different variations of bills out there, but do you support the co aept? >> i'ways been for universal coverage, s,ways, alwoing back to my days

serving on the san mateo county boarde board of supervisors. my goal has always been we have universal coverage. it's how are we going to get there. the number one examination the is torotect the affordable care act because that's what we have in place. nt fair enough. also last gavin newsom signed an executive order to lower prescription drug cost by requiring that the state buy medications for people who are on government-run programs like medi-cal. would you support democratic proposals to target drug pricing at the federal level by, for examp, including allowing medicare to negotiate prices? >> well, that's one of the chief proposals of thes. democr it would be medicare part d because that's where most of the prescription did you go dollars

spent. but i think it's important to have hearings -- >> as you know, some consumer groups say no more hearings are necessary because there's plenty of research out there showing that big pharma drives up prescription drug prices and they think you're too close to the pharmaceutical industry. how do you address their concerns? >> i think it's si i have such ag l record, 36 years ofdu prong for consumers. i have thousands of constituents that are employed in the biotech dustry ere, not only in northern california, but front and center in my district. i've always been for the consumer. i will continue to be. as biotechnology industry supported me in the congress, yes, i'm proud of it. i'm proud of it.

>> you also said you don't want to punish the pharmaceutical industry. that's what you tld reporters. >> this is not about punishing anyone. this is about reforming how drugs are priced in our country so that people can afford them and that there is safety, that the is affordability and innovation. >> congresswoman anna eshoo, we appreciate your time despite the service problems you're having at yourme. thank you for joining us. >> thankkou. th you. bye-bye. >> bye-bye. more than 2 billion people around the world log on to facebook to share vacation photos, scroll throug news feeds and streamntive eve but has growth come at a price. data breaches affecting tens of millions of users and misinformation campaigns to influence national elections have prompted hearings from capitol hill and aublic backlash against the tech giant

and the ceo, mark zuckerberg. now, a new book by a facebook regulation mayts be the only way to protect personal data that is key to the company's growth and profit. joining me is the author, roger mcin a mee >> thou, it's a pleasure. >> you were an early adviser to zuckerberg and later an investor. you write about how in 2006 you advise him not to sell the company because you thought the company could achieve its mission much bettered by staying independent. what did you feel faceok was back then? >> i thought mark had found the holy grail for creating a large networ ofeople who wanted to interact with each other. he was the first social networo ome along that required authenticated identity, my space and the predecessors hadn't done that. but with authenticated identity i was convinced he would build a company as large as google was at that time, and it would be -- >> you thought it could be a

force for good? >> totally. what about now? >> what basically happened is they discovered it was possibe to build a network that connected the whole world. that was his goal at the beginning as well. if they got rid of authenticated entity as a requirement, relaxed the privacy settings, they would grow a lot faster. in each step along the way they compromised the safety of the people using the product in ordendto get to bigger bigger growth and more and more profit. in the end, the real miracle is that they got to 2 billion people on the network before we started to see the problems. it's a realribute to how smart and clever they were. >> with the problems they're facing n with data privacy, the example of facebook as t technology has evolved, the

people don't use facebook the way he does.e how canolve the problems if he doesn't change his thinking? >> this is exactly the issue. it's not just mark. it's not just facebook. the thing i discovered, ia be i was so close to facebook and i saw the issues first there, i inought orly it was just an issue being done to facebook. what it reall is something that affects all iternet platforms that are based on advertising and attention. so google and instagram and youtube and twitter and snapchat are all affected but the challenge here is that success is a reinforng thing, and after a while you think you know all the answers and other people don't. e mistakes that were made here in my opinion are forgivable. what'm having trouble with is the resistance to change in the face of incontrovetible idence. we know for certain that there are issues with public health, democracy, privacy, competition aninnovation. and pretending otherwise is

harmful not just to facebook and google i anstagram and the rest, it's harmful to society and it's harmful to zblerch if these companies continue to be resistant, what is the solution. do you think they should be regulated, and what should that regulation look like? >> there are several areas they need to thk out. one of the questions off the top is there are business practices that take pace in our society that we have accepted without thought. one is that companies that collect our data are allowed to sell it to anybody they want or trade it to others as facebook would do. for e mple, why is it reasonable for people to collect our credit card transaction data d sell it to somebody else? i think we need to have a debate on that same thing for geolocation data from cell phones. why should it be legitimate to gather data on minors, people under 18. ?"a this is debate we need to have. we also need to have anti-trust

regulation. they're behaving like month on the part of i want to see regulations that are not as complex as european global protection but going after the specific problem as the selling and sharing of the data that is so private that it shouldn't happen. right now all these guys hide hind this notion of consent, but it's like me too consent. it's people in power againop without power. so it's not what i would characterize as a fair trade >> you were an investor early on and you made millions. how much sponltd do you bear fos what appened and what should have been your role in demanding for social responsibility? >> that is a completely legitimate question, i continue to own myhares of facebook stock. i've sold some along the way, but i still own it i. i was involved from 2006 to 2009.

the business model that created e problems didn't begin until many years after i left. i'm telling you angry it took me all the way to 2016 to see the problems. and so it is from that self-criticism that i have taken up this mantle. i'm no longer an investor. i'm a full time activist trying to essentially take my biography, my experience, and the platform i have to try tai e awareness and help direct us to a good lution. fo some people, i'm not the right messenger but hopefully i will help tget this issue in front of people and help them understand it. >> really a lot of people, a lot of criticism has been leveled ar mark zurg because of the sheer power and reach of facebook. but what about the role of sheryl sandberg. you were a instrumental in her hiring at facebook. she had been offered a top executive position at "the washington post." you said, no, why don't you

consider facebook instead. she took the facebook position and when it comes to the company's operations, you say mar leads tusiness side to her. how much responsibility does she bear for what has happened? >> to be clear, they're the leaders of the company, so they bear a lot of responsibility. bak the thing i want to clear is that the management of all these companiesegan with an idealistic version, in ,ogle's ca collect all the information. in facebook's case, to connect ierybody. thue was the business model nds of side effects that currently these companies don't fpay the cost . it's like a digital chemical spill and they're not paying ths which they have to. i don't think changing management, whether you get rid of mark and sheryl at facebook, or larry and sergei atgoogle, i don't think that's the answer. you have to change the business model and it would be betterf t existing founders did that

because they're the ones with the moral autrity to make those changes. >> all right. much more to come on this, i'm sure. >> thank you for havme. >> pleasure to talk to you. thanks for being here. >> my pleasure. >> that will do it for us. you can fd more of our coverage on kqed.org/newsroom. i'm thuy vu. thank you for joining us.

robert: off the rails. the president declares a national emergency. i'm robert costa. welcome to "washington week." president trump reluctantl accepts a bipartisan spending deal then declares a national emergency to but the border. president trump: we're talking about an invasionntf our c with drugs, with human traffickers, with all the tes criminals and gangs. robert: democrats and some republicans accuse the president of sidestepping congress. >> it's not an emergency what's happening at the border. it's an humanitarian challenge for us. >> i'm disappointed that the president that is chose on the do be the this resume. >> nomination is confirmed. robert: is a new attorney genel