tv Discussion on White Supremacy in Law Enforcement Military CSPAN December 7, 2021 11:30am-12:18pm EST
testifies today on u.s. policy toward russia before the senate foreign relations committee. watch live at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. online at cspan.org, or full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. maryland democrat congressman anthony brown and former alabama senator doug jones talk about white supremacy in law enforcement and the military. a discussion hosted by the center for american progress. >> thank you so much, daniela, it's a pleasure to be here today. first i want to introduce both of our panelists, starting with senator jones, i want to welcome former u.s. senator from alabama, senator doug jones, who will be one of our two panelists in today's conversation. as a u.s. attorney for alabama, senator jones successfully prosecuted two kkk members for their role in the 1963, 16th
street baptist church bombing and a prominent civil rights advocate throughout his career. notably senator jones has joined cap action as a distinguished fellow, focusing on racial justice issues, criminal justice, and democracy reform. i'm excited to announce representative brown, serves on the house armed services committee as well as the committees on veterans affairs, and transportation and infrastructure. the congressman is also cochair of the new democrat coalition for national security task force. he is a retired colonel in the united states army reserve. he has a military record spanning more than a quarter century as an aviator and jag officer and he was awarded the legion of merit and a bronze star for his military service. he's the author of legislation,
trucking extremism within armed services. so to get our conversation started, violent white supremacy currently poses one of the most lethal threats to american democracy and security. senator jones, you have prosecuted one of the most infamous hate crimes in american hit, and now you're a senior fellow at cap action, and you worked on the team that recently released the comprehensive national blueprint to end white supremacist violence. can you talk about the key federal actions needed to curb white supremacist activities in our government institutions and our military specifically. >> thanks, nicole, and thanks everybody for joining us today, especially my friend congressman brown for being here. this is such an important conversation, and caps national policy blueprint on combatting white supremacy is very important, and the first and foremost key is the recognition. you know, talking about this in
today's world and in light of everything that's going on, that has been one of the most significant developments in the last year or so. and cap has been leading that effort. getting this front and center, and there's any number of things, and i would encourage those that are watching today if you haven't gone on the cap web site and seen this blueprint, please do this, take a look at it, it encompasses good recommendations, and also provides the basis of where we are today. the things that we've got to do are relatively simple, but, you know, the devil is in the details. you know, we've got, for instance, it's incumbent on doj to establish some federal advisory committees, this needs to be a whole of government approach to develop policies and guidelines to implement strategies, that's the key is implementing strategy and helping law enforcement across the spectrum. federal, state, and local, to mitigate any white supremacist
action. we talk about extremist action, and that's true, and we should always talk about violence in a larger context. but i think we would be remiss if we didn't talk about white supremacy in particular because it has been acknowledged, that is the most significant threat that we face from extremist violence. we need to update, and this is what we're here today, we need to talk about the department of defense, and their processes, and resources in order to prevent infiltration into white supremacists, extremism, and the associated risk. remember, all of the members of our military today are also going to be veterans one day. and between the two groups, the infiltration of white extremists is extremely troubling. we have seen it time and time again, and i think it starts with both the department of defense and the veterans affairs. department of defense can develop recruitment and clearance strategies, do more on their questionnaires and
reoccurring background checks. monitoring, you know, the military is on the one hand very rigid, but on the other hand, they're also rigid for a purpose, and with that rigidity comes the ability to monitor better than any other department within the federal government. we've got to update and clarify the department's programs. we got to work on making sure that their policies, their expectations, and their training and enforcement policies all are rooted or based in trying to root out extremism. you know, and lastly, we can't talk about the military without talking about the department of veterans affairs. we see all the time that issues with our veterans these days, it is a serious issue with regard to mental health and access to mental health, veteran suicide
s, but that begins in part with the department of defense. i'm so happy to be here today. i'm glad each of you joined us for this important topic. i'm especially proud to share the virtual stage with my friend congressman brown from maryland. congressman brown, you have -- you have really devoted your life and career to keeping this country safe. both from foreign and domestic extremism. and you made -- clearly made in this congress, a goal of rooting out extremism in the military. you serve on the armed services committee, this is something that you're passionate about. i'd like if you would to just start out talking to us a little bit about your bill. what's there, what the prospects are and the importance of this kind of legislation coming from congress, not just the executive branch of government. >> sure. well, thank you, senator jones. i want to thank you for your decades of service to our
nation. and the justice department, talking on perhaps one of the most significant civil rights cases in the history of our country. i want to thank you for your service. and it's a real delight to be here with you this afternoon, this morning, virtually, i want to thank cap action for invite mega. and let me just start by saying, having spent 30 years in the military, i do know that the threats that our country faces that are military takes on every day are not just the threats that are presented on distant battlefields from foreign adversaries or terrorists. i know you know, that national strategy blueprint for counter white extremist violence is a much overdo and greatly appreciated document.
we know that for decades, if not more than a century, we have been grappling with extremist ideologies within our own communities, home grown, and even if our military ranks. so what i set out to do in partnership with my colleagues in the house, and in the senate is to essentially give the department greater tools and authorities to address this growing problem. army cid last year had a report that said that extremism in the military grew by 66% from 2019 to 2020. the d.o.d. reporting 2020 to congress identified extremist recruitment in the d.o.d. as a real threat. the department needs greater authorities and greater tools, so in a nutshell, the bare bone outline of the legislation is
this. first, we clarify that the secretary of defense has the authority to exclude from participation in the military enlistment or commission and separate from military service anyone who not only participates in extremist activity but is a member of an extremist organization, and we really think it's important to go after the membership piece as well. and i'm sure we'll talk a little bit more about that and the first amendment implications but we clarify that authorities. we direct the secretary to define extremism, to define the procedures that will be fair, and clear, for identifying and eliminating those members. the next thing we do is, and a lot of it is quite frankly, overlaps with the blueprint, caps blueprint is data collection, right, you can ask different members of the military the extent to which
extremism exists and you'll get a varying degree of responses. some commanders will tell you there's no extremism in my ranks, that's wrong. others will say, yes, we have a serious problem but we don't know the full extent. we know data collection and reporting and analysis. the third component is training. it's important that we train everyone from the private to the four star admiral general, what do we mean by extremism, how to identify it, how do we promote the values, our values against which extremism is inconsistent. so training is very important. and the final piece, and that training, i should say is not just for military but for those who are going to be transitioning out of the military into veteran status, and then the final piece is to develop an institutional capacity within the department to do the oversight, the monitoring, the training, the education, and the enforcement
because we know that so long as extremism exists in america, the military will be the object, not the subject, but the object, the target of extremist groups that want to recruit from the military to get the training and the experience that the military provides to its members for the purposes of defending our nation, not for the purposes of filling the ranks of extremist organizations. as long as extremism exists in this country, we need that institutional capacity within the dod to fight the good fight against extremism. >> let me ask you real quick about the data collection. that's a really important part of the cap blueprint. from someone who has dealt with this in the private sector, data collection is a real problem. i mean, we have got thousands of, literally 12,000 or so agencies out there that report
no hate crimes whatsoever. even though they were all on the books. and having been a local prosecutor, sometimes i can understand that. they don't want to get tagged with that, but without the data, you really are facing an up hill battle to try to root out this. i know the military, as you noted, is pretty rigid and there is a lot of deniability there for the same reasons. tell me a little bit about how this bill is going to help with the data collection, and will you be able to get the department of defense buy-in with it to try to make sure that the data is collected appropriately. we have seen, and i know you know this, even on sexual crimes and sexual harassment issues within the department of defense, there's been a low level of data collection. how can we make this better when it comes to white supremacy and extremism in our department of defense. >> sure, i'll start by saying that it will be a challenge. it will be an up hill battle,
regrettably, to get the department of defense to work with congress on this issue. and, you know, when it comes to issues other than that, you know, the level of funding for, you know, tax bill fighters and other procurement accounts where we seem to work better with the d.o.d., when it comes to the issues surrounding protecting the force, supporting military families and personnel. we always find it much more difficult, addressing sexual assault was one example. addressing the racial and ethnic disparities under the uniform code of military justice is yet another example, and unfortunately in addressing extremism, the department just recently sent their policy statement to congress in which they outright oppose the provisions that are in the house
version of the fiscal year '22 defense authorization act addressing extremism. that's concerning, and one of the items that they identify as onerous is the data collection and reporting requirements which everyone who is looking at this issue understands is critical, fundamental to understanding the scope of the problem, and getting after the problem. so i'm hoping we're going to be able to work with the department on what their true concerns are so we can get them to yes as well. some of the things that we're looking at in that reporting, and we've worked on it even before this year, is you have to improve things like the questionnaires and the surveys that are conducted every year in the total force. asking service members about their experience, so you can understand the prevalence, the frequency and what it really looks like. that's really important. the other piece is encouraging the d.o.d. to work with other
agencies, homeland security, d. o.j., and the fbi, sharing the information and trying to harmonize what that database looks like, what the data collection, i mean, literally down to the fields that you populate in a data base so that the information can be easily shared and analyzed. we also need for the department to really update and publicize and report to congress on this data that they are collecting. we want to look at the -- how many instances are reported, not only in surveys, what about disciplinary actions that are taking, that involve extremist behavior, whether it's separations, administrative actions, actions, criminal punishment under the uniform code of military justice. i think by going broadly, we will -- and only then will we
have a full understanding of the scope of the problem in the military. >> you know, congressman, i have never seen any government agency or private sector people who want to collect data. they always talk about the burden. but i think with what you're doing is so important, and you laid out exactly why the data collection is important across the board. nicole. >> thank you. i just wanted to dig in more to this interests conversation about data collection and limitations, and toss this one back over to you senator jones. you referenced voluntary law reporting regarding hate crimes and law enforcement, not military but law enforcement themselves. can you talk a little bit more about the challenges of getting law enforcement data on hate crimes and extremism in communities and within the law enforcement sector? >> yeah, it's extremely challenging. and you've got -- at one point, there was a component mainly about the communities themselves. you really don't like to collect
this data in the sense that they believe it somehow reflects badly on their communities. mayors, and county commissioners and chiefs of police and sheriffs, they don't want their communities being tagged as a hate crime-filled community, and they also know that quite frankly with a lot of these hate crimes comes a lot of publicity. so there's been a reluctance to really collect this data. i have seen it, especially here in alabama, i mean, you would think that we were just a bastian of equality and diversity in alabama, and we all know that that's not the case. and i think it's even exacerbated now because of the political dynamics that we see here between extremism on the right, and extremism on the left. i was last week at the national association of attorneys general, the d.c. attorney general had an incredible conference on hate and combatting hate.
there were a number of folks who did not come because they felt like it was a political issue targeting them on the right, political right. so i think that the challenge now is both a practical challenge in terms of the law enforcement and the community themselves not wanting to be tagged and labeled but also there's a political dynamic as well, where people just will not look but one way or the other, and that's just something we just got to get over. we've got to get past that. >> well, senator jones and representative brown, you both have distinguished careers in law enforcement or in the military. representative brown, can you talk about your engagement with military and veteran communities in developing the legislation that you have done and can you talk about how those consistencies have been receptive to the forms you're outlining? >> sure, i mean, we've done a number of things, for example, i
participated in a conference with the association of defense communities, and i want to make clear that they're not promoting any policy provisions to address extremism, but they did have an open forum to discuss the topic and the issue, and i was able to present here back from representatives in defense communities across the country. they too have done, taken a look at this, and they have done a study. they understand the extent of the problem. we've engaged informally with the department of defense. that's why, for example, in the provision that we put forward, we were initially going to define extremism based on the discussions with the military informally, we deferred to the military, it's our understanding that the d.o.d. is currently working with the department of justice in coming up with a definition that will withstand constitutional scrutiny or
challenge. we also in those conversations deferred to the department to establish the procedures and i'll add that both democrats and republicans have really been harping on this with the we've engaged academics on this. we've engaged various advocacy groups. southern law center. and tapped in to the best thinking. to understand the best practices and the best approach to giving the tools for admission.
their primary mission is to deter war. and sometime in all of that effort, to focus on winning. so, this is an opportunity to say let's not forget about the good, bad and indifferent. put into good use because we do not want the military want it. and hand it to him for further retool. >> and i think it's so important. and in congress. this needs to be in all of
government and while it's directed more towards the department of defense for sure, i think it would be appropriate to rely on that department of defense or the executive branch. congress needs to stand up and speak out on this. because it will be both right and left extremism. clearly white supremacy is the biggest issue in the military and across this country when it comes to violence and domestic terrorists. and i think it's really important what congressman brown is doing with regard to the congress. just like last year in the nba, the department of defense make the issue of renaming bases and other asset that have been named
for confederate generals and officers. this is a very similar to that. it's in assistance to let them know congress is serious about this. and the biden administration recently published an aggressive or counter domestic extremism with the huge premium. or priority on that whole government approach. so, it's not just the department of defense. not even -- it's homeland security. so, frankly, it's helping human services because there's an aspect of underlying causes of extremism behavior and ideology. we're going to go after those
pauses t takes the whole of government approach. not just the federal government. federal government work with state, local and tribal government. working with international partners. while we're talking about domestic terrorism and extremism, that's originating in home grown here, we're beginning to see the branchs and affiliation, right? and so, it's the whole of government approach and that's certainly been the focus of the biden administration and it is also the focus of congress. >> thank you for mentioning that. the strategy is so important. so, questions that what strategies past the domestic
policies and leading this work and partnering with civil society to tackle the problems and root causes of white supremacy in america, including the military and across society. so, what do you think are some of the key actions for domestic policy to consider and similarly what is it necessary with this bill or in general to tackle this problem in this session? >> congressman, i'll let you tackle that first. >> some of the things we've talked about, which is collecting information and making sure it's shared broadly. and for example, congress's response to the january 6th insurrection, we tried to create an independent commission to look at information sharing across government. so, whether it's focussed just on january 6th, or more broadly,
extremism, also i do think that we've got to -- and what the strategy calls for is getting greater resources, not only to prevention of domestic terrorism and prosecution and to make sure all of our u.s. attorneys, all of our state attorney generals and district attorneys are reading off the same sheet of music, sharing resources. coordinating their effort. i know jones would know much more about that than i do and things like investigation. but also, and i did mention this earlier because i knew this to be one of the important pillars of this strategy is going after some of the long-term issues that contribute to domestic terrorism. what is perpetuating the hatred and the division, this sense that we live in a zero-sum sort
of economy and society and [ inaudible ]? how do we foster a quality of opportunity and where everyone feels like they've got a real fair shot at the american dream. and so, those are some of the pillars, some of the strategies, things we're working on. and congress stands ready to support the initiatives coming out of the domest -- president's domestic policy counsel and any other branch of government that's willing to work together to address domestic terrorism. >> that's -- those are all perfect. and nicole, i got to be honest with you. as you are, we're very proud of the fact that so much of the biden administration's blueprint for doing this is taken from the cap work that we did with the mckeen institute. and it's because it's in recognition of the issue.
and what essentially we're doing is try to leverage the executive branch and the united states government to really enhance the responsibilities across the government, both state and federal. you've got to prioritize the threat. i think that is happening for too long. this was kind of written off as just a spotty problems here and there. i think we have seen now that this is a real priority. it has to be because, in part, this is a national security issue. there is no question because of the context over seas and domestically. we've got to elevate this threat, continue to elevate this threat. we've got to enhance cooperation. and you can do that with carats and sticks. you do it with carrots by working together with the state ags, local law enforcement. but on occasion, you got to use a little stek. they have local communities and state ags and investigative
authorities rely on. you can infuse that leverage a good bit to get them on board with so many of the priorities we've got here. we've talked about data. that's an important part of the recommendations. we won't go to through with that but the qualitative data is so important here. for congressman talked about prosecuting crime. sometimes prosecutors get hung up on the prosecution angle of this, and that's really important, to call a hate crime out for what it is, a hate crime. because it sends an incredible message. but protecting the communities is much more than that. it's much more than simply an after-the-fact prosecution and alleged deterrent. what you have to do is work with communities for transparency, to get education out there and educating the public about what is going on and educating people about the problems that we've
got in this and dealing with mental health issues. never underestimate the mental health part of this. and finally i'll talk about some of our financial and technological tools. we have a lot of tools with the treasury department to root out those financing the issues. these are, in part, lone wolves, but in large part, they're not. they're getting more organized every day. we saw it with january 6th and while we have to balance the first amendment, we have the financial tools. that's how the ku klux klan got damaged in the 1980s, when the southern poverty law center not only got a judgment but broke them financially. we have to make sure we have the ability to go after them financially and go after them in a civil context.
and finally, i think we have to recognize and this is perhaps one of the biggest challenges. is that our social media platforms and our technology companies bear some responsibility to their public and to their users as well. just last night we're seeing the "60 minutes" show regard to the facebook whistle-blower and i'm not going to make allegations one way or another on that per se. but i'll say we've got to balance this and get the technology companies and the social media platforms engaged in this because it can be a blessing but also a curse and dangerous. again, nicole, thanks for this. great discussion, congressman. and again, i want to encourage everybody interested in this to take a look at the cap program that's on the website. our blueprint is an outstanding piece of work. >> thank you. and i'm actually going to
introduce another senior fellow at cap action, simon clark, to start addressing some of the audience questions. the first question from the audience i'm going to direct to you, simon, is a -- simon is a significant contributor to the blueprint mentioned. can you talk about whether the administration is taking the threat of domestic extremism, particularly white supremacy, seriously and what actions you've seen them take to date? >> thank you very much. the congress and the senator are both right. this administration has done an extraordinary job focusing on the national security threat from white supremacists and other antigovernment violence and really coming up with a strategy to deal with it. from the white house was impressive. having said that, they can't do it on their own. and they need help. they need help from congress.
they need help from civil society. we need to keep the focus on this threat and good reporting makes a difference. good civil society activism, specifically online recruitment makes a big difference. and having congress be engaged and looking for solutions as representative brown is doing is absolutely crucial to making sure that we make progress. >> and another question from the audience that i will direct to both you, senator, and representative. first question is what do you see as the relationship between racism and white supremacy in the military? how successful has the military been in rooting out racism? >> i'll take that, if you don't mind. and let me start off by saying that by extremism, while
extremism rooted in white supremacy and nationalism is the predominant component and threat that we currently face and it's not new. go back to the ku klux klan and the immediate aftermath of the civil war. think proud boys and oath keepers today. by extremism, we're not limiting it to those motivated by racial hatred, religious or ethnic hatred and division. it also includes those who just want to disrupt and overturn government, right? think january 6th. there were many people within that insurrection that had no affiliation whatsoever with the more white supremacist, white nationalist group. they want to disrupt democracy. when you think about his experience, while he was gently
associated with white supremacist groups, his primary moteival is disrupt government and topple government. and saw government as overreach. you have that component and of course, you have some extremists who are single-issue minded, whether they're acting out on their views about abortion, about environmental issues, about animal rights. you see extremists behaviors as well in the single-issue oriented people. but yes, white supremacy and nationalism is probably the primary driver that we're seeing in the military and across the country. that's why fbi director wray, spoke to congress about that. that's why secretary, defense secretary austin ordered the stand down earlier this year. general milley has spoken passionately and appropriately about the lives of white nationalism in the military.
so, it's important to get our hands around it. you have senior commanders, who have literally said before congress that extremism does not exist in my formation. and we know that's wrong. just statistically speaking, it's inaccurate. so, the dod, they are committed to eliminating extremism. they need to do better reporting, better data collection, better training. so, it's really incumbent upon them, if they're going to be consistent with the president's commitment to address it, commitment with where congress wants to go on this issue, we've got to work together. congress and the department to get after extremism, and in this case, we're talking primarily white supremacy. survey after survey show that in the military, service members are experiencing more and more racism, anti-semitism, in
language, in conduct. so, the problem exists. we got to get after it and they need the tools. they need to accept and embrace the tools congress is ready to give them. >> and part of the problem. i think we have to be candid that part of the problem in the military is a reflection on parts of the society as a whole. as our country becomes more diverse, there are people whool are fearful of that. they have felt all along that they were part of a dominant class. and when they feel like they're not going to be, they strike out. and i think that is especially true because the military and their hierarchy and the superior officers, verses the subordinate officers, people are drawn to that. and i think we have to recognize that a little bit that this is a part of a fear for some folks and we have to address the fear to let folks know we're all in the country together and our military is to support everyone
and protect this democracy that we cherish so much. >> you've both spoken quite a bit about policies, training, data collection. that needs to change in the military and law enforcement. to root out extremism and have military law enforcement that lived up to its reputation and served everybody in america. keeps everybody safe. what kind of resources are required to carry this out and is there currently sufficient resources to implement these policies or would more be required? >> again, i'll be happy to take that up first and i stated this publicly to secretary of defense austin and general milley last week in a hearing. the hearing happened to be on u.s. evacuation operations in afghanistan. but i took it as an opportunity to make a statement about extremism in the military. and while i dmend commended both of them for their actions to
address it and the department's commitment, i said you are opposing these previsions. you're saying data requirement and collection are honers. we have three of the four committees responsible for the level of defense spending in the house and senate. three of the four and i think it's going to be four for four soon, are going to appropriate an additional $25 billion to the department of defense above the president's budget request. so, you can't tell me that data collection is honeerous. it's about doing difficult things. and that's what this is. it's difficult. i have no doubt about that. but it's not becauses of a lack
of resources. the resources are there. >> in a broader context, we need to have either a reallocation of summary of resources or additional resources that ges to the department of education, goes to hhs for mental health issues that come in a form of grants that come in the states and communities so the non-profit organizations that are out there, trying to elevate this issue and root out this cause as well. as again, we talk about the whole of government. we need have a whole of country approach as well in this. because so many things can start at that local level and our families and communities and schools. so, when we're talking about resources, we need to be thinking about that as well.
those folks, who end up in the military, but if we've already educated them and in a position to where they're not going to be susceptible, we have achieved a monumental goal at that point right there and gone a long way to diminishing the role of extremism in the military. >> and if i may add one other important area that needs to be resources is with our veterans. so, when you look at january 6th insurrection, it's alarming. i've seen different numbers but anywhere from 16% to 20% of those who are indicted had prior military experience. only one was active duty. they're all veterans. and we need to resource their department of veteran's affairs so they can stay connected to veterans. and often the attraction of these extremists organizations is to give veterans, who have
left the military, the purpose and focus they see in extremists organizations, that sort of substitute community. we've got to stay engaged with our veterans, keep them involved in programs and activities addressing their health needs, emotional, behavioral and mental health needs. especially. and i think that can go a long way as well. to insure that those men and women who get the soft and hard skills in the military are not going to be the target of recruitment by these extremists organizations. >> totally agree. >> thank you both so much for this incredibly rich conversation today. i'm going to end with one last question to both of you, which is you've mentioned the whole of government approach, you've mentioned really a whole country approach. for everyone is watching today or will watch this online virtually in the future, what is the take away that you would like them to have from this
conversation or the one thing that they can do in their communities to help address the threat of extremism within military and law enforcement? >> i'll let you lead. >> i'll go back to our friend, john lieuess. john lewis. stand up, speak out, cause trouble. so many people in our local communities will not confront the issue. they're afraid for whatever reason. some may be afraid for their safety but they're afraid. afraid they're going to get bullied online and i think people have to stand up and speak out. they have to talk to their children about this and i think they have to demand, and i mean demand, that their public officials, the candidates running for office and public officials now -- there now, also stand up and speak out.
this should not be a republican issue or a democratic issue. this is an american issue we need to deal with and we can only deal with it with people taking a strong stance and standing up for what's right in this country about all people and the equality that we represent. >> and what i would say and i whole heartedly agree with that is tool better educate and yourself as individuals and understand the history of this nation. given that, and i think we've talked about this. the overwhelming number of people involved in extremists organizations in the country today. have to do with white supremacy and nationalism, where race is becoming a divisive factor, the significance of race is as great today in this country as it was in the height of the 1950s and '60s civil rights era. and quite frankly, some may argue, right at the falloff reconstruction.
so, understand the history of this country and efforts to provide opportunities for all americans regardless of race or ethnicity or geography is not an effort to divide the country. it's an effort to demonstrate everyone in this country has an opportunity to pursue the american dream. but the country was founded on a document, the constitution that embedded racism into our founding document. there were laws and practices that perpetuated that. so, in our effort to overcome and get beyond that, it should be viewed as remedial in nature and not somehow creating division that don't already exist. we're trying to remediate and remillierate to get beyond racial divisions that go back centuries in this country. and that takes a lot to do for
the typical man and woman out on the street. the reason i say that is because a lot of members of congress have difficulty understanding that as well. >> well, thank you both so much today. thank you, senator jones, for being here, for your career and history and dedication to this issue. thank you, representative brown, for your service, your service in congress and the military and all you're doing to root out extremism in the military more generally. thank you for everyone for participating in today's conversations, in your questions and interests. please continue to follow the cap action website. as well as upcoming events. to rewatch today's event please visit american progress action.org. thank you all so much. be sure to turn off your cameras as we close out this event. >> take care.
host: good morning, it's tuesda ♪ ♪ to mark pearl harbor, flags are half-staff on u.s. federal good morning, it's tuesday . also today, president biden is set to host a high-stakes call with russian president vladimir putin. later this week, the biden administration hosts a summit for democracy, with a role of rallying democratic partners against the forces of authoritarianism. we're spending our first hour talking about foreign policy. give us a call, let us know what you think as america's top foreign policy challenge