combines government grounds and private donors. >> they had a millionaire funding them for a while and moved to the subscription model. we have to make sure we support local news. we have to pay a little bit for it. >> i love the nonprofit model. this is going to allow us to apply for purpose and grant funding. making our content available to anyone who wants it. i think this new model will help us. >> they shifted the business model from a sales model to an advertising model. interestingly enough, it is swinging back to more of a preventer ship -- presenter ship model. >> it's going to be involving other media, basically making

our content available to anyone who wants it. >> the work we do as journalists is important, essential. we have to defend great jobs. most of the national stories at some point in this country were first a local story. >> the viability of the nonprofit model depends on all of us. democracy is on high-quality, unbiased journalism and it is up to us to help save it. i encourage you to help save democracy by supporting your local newspapers and news stations. >> to tch this and all winning entries, visit at studentcam.org. ♪ host: good morning. it's thursday, april 4. on this day in 1949, 12 countries founded nato.

at the time, president truman called the new alliance a "field against aggression." today, there are 32 members, with sweden enjoyed and last month. today, we would like to know your thoughts on nato. do you think the u.s. should increase its financial commitment, maintain current levels, or decrease it? if you say increase, call us on (202) 748-8000. maintain current levels, it's (202) 748-8001. and if you say decrease, it is (202) 748-8002. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003. include your first name and city and state. we are on social media, facebook.com/c-span and x, @cspanwj.

welcome to today's washington journal. we will start with a gallup poll on nato taken at the end of february with the headline "americans remain committed to nato." and here's what the article says. 47% plurality of americans want to see the u.s. keep its current commitment to nato with 20% feeling support for the alliance should increase. meanwhile, 16% think the u.s. should decrease its nato commitment. 12% would prefer the u.s. withdraw from nato entirely. and you can see here the graph. you can see those same things visually. this top line is to keep it what it is now. this blue line is to decrease. and the green is to increase. you can see that going up slightly. and then the red dashed is to withdraw entirely.

you can see that going up a little bit but back down towards the end. yesterday, before the start of a nato ministers meeting in brussels, secretary of state antony blinken spoke about the importance of the alliance. here he is at the nato headquarters. [video clip] >> the work today, the work tomorrow, the work of the summit is about the next 75 and everything we need to do now to ensure that this alliance remains what it has been, the most successful in history, a defense alliance with no designs on the territory of any other country but with a determination to protect the territory of each of its members, and to do it in a way that's been unique inhuman history -- unique in human history, based on the principle that we have each other's backs, that if one of us is the victim of aggression, all of us will be in the help. that's the best way to prevent

aggression from happening in the first place and to create an environment in each of our countries where people don't have to worry about security in that sense and they can make the most of their lives and reach their full potential. that's what this alliance is all about. but it requires constant renewal, constant effort. it does not just happen by itself. and so the work we are doing today to prepare for the summit to ensure that everyone is picking up their share of the burden, to make sure that the alliance has the capabilities, the capacity, to contend not just with the problems we have had to face over the last 75 years but new challenges, some of which the secretary journal alluded to -- secretary-general alluded to. all of these things are front and center. host: secretary blinken from yesterday. also on that screen is nato

secretary-general jens stoltenberg. he will be stepping down at the end of this year. we go to calls on nato. first to jim in muskegon, wisconsin. good morning. caller: i think we need to focus -- [no audio] host: we will go to darrell in caldwell, idaho. good morning, darrell. caller: good morning. i honestly think there's a big problem with human beings. you know, russia wanted to join nato when bill clinton was the president, and bill clinton said he would look into it and came back and said no. obviously, he said no because there's no reason to have a military structure like we have got now pouring tons of money. here we are, a nation that is now in gaza using our bombs. and they are just regular bombs.

killing all kinds of people. we have a war going on in ukraine. we are not there and everybody is proud of that. yet thousands of ukrainians are dead. the russians are losing their men too and russia is a nuclear power. for some reason or another, there's a scripture. revelation 12:9, satan has deceived the whole world. there's another that says there's a way that seems right to man by the end thereof is the way of death. you look at what human beings are doing and how people are squatting in homes now. human beings are made to do this. that's why you have to have police day one. the way the world is going now, an organization building mansions for people in military areas, the rest of us are forking it out.

so i don't think the united states -- i don't think the world is headed in the right direction. host: let's talk to ruben in philadelphia, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning, mimi. what i'm trying to understand here is i believe we should maintain nato but what i don't understand is how canada and the united states, which is part of north america, is part of nato. why isn't mexico included in there? it's basically european nations. host: it is north atlantic so it includes the u.s. and canada. so here is an article from the washington -- the wall street journal, and it says this. "nato turns 75, an old foe and new squabbles. nato now strains to unify 32 members.

nato, fresh from a fight over sweden's accession, turns 75 thursday," today," amid a new spad over who should lead the alliance." nato leaders had hoped to resolve the question of who would succeed secretary-general jens stoltenberg when his term ends september 30. stoltenberg has led the alliance since 2014 and has had his initial four-year term extended four times. we will hear from the secretary-general now. this was from yesterday. about nato's goals leading to the summit in washington happening this fall. [video clip] >> when nato made the pitch to invest 2% of gdp on defense back in 2014, only three allies made that target. today, two thirds of nato allies

are spending 2% of gdp on defense. that's significant progress but of course we want all allies to get to 2%. 2% is the minimum. this is the message we convey strongly. tomorrow, we will also meet with our asia-pacific partners and i think the war in ukraine demonstrates how intertwined the security of europe is with the security of asia and the pacific. north korea, china, iran are supporting russia's war of aggression. so this demonstrates that security is truly global and it's important to work together with our asia-pacific partners. thank you for the strong u.s. leadership on this issue. lastly, tomorrow, we will celebrate nato's 75th anniversary. we actually meet tonight, but also tomorrow, we will market there at the nato headquarters.

and then we will also mark the 75th anniversary of the nato summit in washington in july. thank you for hosting the summit and it will be a great summit to celebrate the alliance and ensure we continue to adapt and nato continues to be the most successful alliance in history. host: that summit will be in july in washington and we will be sure to bring you news about that. he did mention that 2% of gdp to be spent on a nation's defense, so here is an abc article about defense spending of nato members and there's a chart here that shows this -- that shows who is doing that. so you see here this is the 2%. the line is 2% of gdp spent on a nation's defense. poland actually has the highest level at 3.9% followed by the

united states at 3.49%. so here are all of the countries that are meeting that goal. below this line are the countries that are not. for instance, france is at 1.9%. at the bottom is luxembourg at .72%. now, this 2% requirement was instituted in 2014 by the nato members. incidentally, 2014 is also when russia invaded the crimean peninsula. let's talk to ed next, carlisle, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning, everybody. i am opposed to any funding for nato. when the soviet union started coming apart in the 1990's, they received assurances that nato would not expand. however, during the clinton administration, and also the george w. bush administration,

nato started to expand. in 2008, vladimir putin warned that you guys are expanding nato and if you try to expand into ukraine, that's the redline. so in 2022, when the war in ukraine started, this is a result of the expansion -- continued expansion of nato. and when the war started, every american politician cap saying that this war in ukraine was unprovoked. let me just say that this war is a provocation. the russians have been threatened by the expansion of nato. and i think it is time for the american public to stop knowing and start learning about how this war started. host: who do you think should

not have joined nato, then? when you say the problem with native expansion. caller: i don't think they should have tried to include georgia. i don't think we even need nato. this is the nato. now we want to expand nato to ukraine. we are trying to include japan and korea. host: yeah. japan and korea are not joining nato but let me show people at nato.int, you can go and there's an interactive map you can look at. if you press on any of these, say, france, it will tell you what the contributions are, when they joined, all that kind of information here. there is spain. spain joined in 1982. the united kingdom was one of

the original members in 1949. so you can take a look at that and get some information on each specific country. and sal is in bayonne, new jersey. good morning. caller: i strongly believe we should decrease our involvement with nato. we should have a gooprence in nato, financial and mity support, but let the europeans st uto the forefront. and of t rson i say that is the freh,he germans, the italia, eritish, they have excellent weapons, excellent tanks, excellent ammunition, excellent aircraft, great ships. let them supply the ukrainians and other nato allies with equipment. we have our own problems in this country, our own financial problems. we should help our own people. we cannot keep finding all these alliances in europe and around the world. we have to take care of our own people and let the europeans fight for their own defense. host: and michael is in

warrensburg, vermont. good morning. caller: good morning. i think it's wise to maintain if not increase our support our -- support for nato because if the u.s. pulls out of nato it's going to be like a domino effect. it will eventually fall apart. it's a symptom -- this idea of even debating this issue is a symptom of, you know, the maga world putting it into doubt. it's a flawed idea. the united states needs to support these alliances. it's a way to contain somebody like putin, who murders and butchers his opposition, puts people in jail, you know. the country is basically run by a criminal organization which he sits at the top of. and he's a terrorist and a murderer and should be -- he

should be toppled at all costs because he's a threat to world security, a big threat, and he's got a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons that he is constantly threatening to use. nato needs to be a strong organization to stop him and keep europe safe and also the united states as well. thank you. host: all right, michael. and back to that poll from gallup from the end of february. it says that republicans are least supportive of nato. it says 53% of democrats and pluralities of republicans, 46%, and independents, 43%, say we should remain in nato. 23% of democrats want to increase our commitment but only

7% of republicans sure that you. one in six republicans and a similar proportion of independents want the u.s. to withdraw from nato. you can see here. the red is republican. the increase is at 7%. keep it what it is now is 46%. decrease is 26% and withdraw 16%. this is in relation to democrats here who say that increasing should be -- the percentage that said we should increase our commitment is 27 percent and withdraw entirely is at 5% compared to 16% of republicans. let's talk to caleb in gastonia, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. yeah. i think it's a little bit of a misnomer of how we should

increase or decrease or maintain. i am definitely for nato. i mean, if we look at the past 100 years of history, we have had to fight two world wars and the cold war in europe and the only reason we had a cold war instead of a hot war was because we were there. the u.s. built and led the nato alliance to defend europe and its allies, to keep the peace. it was a defensive organization to keep the peace. and the only time that nato has actually been used to defend one of the member nations was in afghanistan. our nato allies went with us to afghanistan and fought with us in afghanistan. lots of their soldiers actually died in afghanistan defending our mission. so it's kind of crazy that we should back out or drop out or

decrease when we are the ones who have actually benefited the most from it. but like i said, to go back to the first point, we are not paying into a community fund or anything. we are paying for our own military. their own military is what, actually, we bring to nato. that's how it's set up. all these other countries are paying for their own military. but i think right now, if we are looking at the incidence in ukraine, it's kind of separate from ukraine funding. i think we should definitely fund ukraine. another caller said that they invaded because it was an expansion of nato. well, i remember, before the invasion, most of the european allies, including our own administration, were ready to say that ukraine would never be part of nato. they were willing to give that to putin, that that was not

going to be part -- that was going to be part of a deal, from what i understood, to keep them from actually going to war. so the fact that they went to war when they had that in their pocket, that ukraine would be independent, is kind of against the wind -- but european countries now are paying a lot more in consequences for the war in ukraine as far as that is concerned on defense spending. they are not independent -- not energy independent like the u.s. is. they have i don't know how many millions of ukrainian refugees. we have a problem on our southern border with refugees coming up from south america but we are able to maintain that. in europe, they are having millions of ukrainian refugees living in their countries all while trying to become energy independent from russian oil and

dealing with shocks like that that the u.s. has not been part of. i have heard a lot of people talk about that. that's all i wanted to say. host: got it, caleb. and a few facts about nato put on your seen. it was created by 12 countries from europe and north amica on april 4, so today, 1949, 75 years ago. there are 32 member countries. membership is open to any european state in a position to further the principles of the north atlantic treaty. in 2014, nato countries agreed to commit to percent of their national gross domestic product, their gdp, to defense spending. and constance is in chesapeake, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning, honey. i wanted to say that i strongly support nato. my father fought in world war ii. i'm 71 years old and i have watched the republicans in action.

and they have been trying to ruin our country. and it's all because of misogyny and race and it's disgusting to me and i support our jewish friends but i do not support netanyahu. host: so, constance, sticking with nato, why do you support nato? why do you think we should increase our involvement with native? caller: well, the old saying, together we stand, divided we fall. they seem to have forgotten that. they have forgotten it. and, you know, i stand by our european friends. i appreciate all they do and they do well and good for others. i'd use -- i do not support killing people. they are the ones that are attacking ukraine, attacking. they are the ones attacking. putin is organizing all of these attacks. he is the disgruntled person in

the world that wants to ruin everything for nato, for the united states, for the united states, and for freedom in general. and we are not going to stand by and let him push his autocracy or his religion down our throats. they use religion to make people hate each other and kill each other. that's not of god at all. host: all right. caller: and, you know, i support freedom, i support freedom, support women's rights. host: we got that, constance. i wanted to show you this article from axios. it says this. "trump says he will keep u.s. and nato as long as everyone pays their fair share." it says that "former president trump would 100% keep the u.s. and nato -- the u.s. in nato if he returns to the presidency so long as the europeans pay their share." it says the nominee has long

been critical of the alliance, leading to questions about whether he would try to pull the u.s. out if reelected. he says the united states should. -- should pay its fair share, not everybody else's fair share. this was in an interview with nigel faraj, a former u.k. politician -- nigel farage, a former u.k. politician, and we have a portion of the interview to show you now. poll why should -- [video clip] >> why should we guard these countries? i went there and had it out with them and now they have stopped paying again. but now they are paying because of those comments you saw. a lot of money has come in since those comets were made. so nato was not paying. i said, well, they take advantage of the u.s. on trade like crazy, as bad as almost anybody, and on top of it, nato,

largely the same countries, they were not paying their bills. i went to the first meeting and i saw that. i did not want to do it my first meeting. i just got there. i went to the first meeting early in my administration and saw what was going on and so you will have to pay your bills come everybody. the second meeting, i hit them hard. the question was asked by the head of a major country, 20 countries at the time, including us, are you going to protect us from russia if we don't pay our bills? i said, you mean you are delinquent? they said, yes. nope, i'm not going to defend you. if you are not paying her bills, we are not going to defend you. it's very simple. and hundreds of billions of dollars came flowing in. if i say i am, they are not going to pay their bills. obama would make a speech, bush would make a speech, and frankly -- i don't know if that's still true, i would hope -- the secretary-general, stoltenberg,

could not believe it. he said, i cannot believe it. he got people to pay up. hundreds of billions of dollars. and nato became strong because of me. now, nato has to treat the u.s. fairly, because it's not for the united states -- if not for the united states, nato does not exist, but they took advantage of us, like most countries do. >> this is being used in brussels as we have got to have a european defense force, even talk of brussels having a nuclear weapon. let's try and get somewhere on this. if they start to pay their bills properly and the club is fair, are places like: defendant? will america be there? >> the united states should pay its fair share, not everybody else's. >> fair enough. >> i believe the united states was paying 90% of nato. it could be 100%. it was the most unfair thing. and don't forget, it's more important to them than it is to us. we have an ocean between some

problems. we have a nice, big, beautiful ocean. it's more important to them. and they took advantage of us on trade and -- >> if they start to play fair, america is there. >> yes, 100%. >> thank you. host: that was the former president talking to u.k. politician nigel farage. we have this on facebook from ry, who says i was stationed a neato in greece during the cold war. but the alliance has its faultso and need of reform. not really an alliance if the is doing all the defending. the europeans have to step up and do their part. one-way street.ld not be a the russians were to invade alaska, how many nato allies would cross the atlantic and lp us? again, i am not for us withdrawing, but nato needs to become a true mutual

defense alliance in reality, not just on paper. by the way, gary, there was only one time article five was invoked, and that was in response to the attack of 9/11, so it was in defense of the united states for that. earl in california, good morning. caller: yes. i support nato. because the russians have been trying to build an empire since peter the great, which was a long, long time ago, and they desperately want warm water ports. they would love it if we let them keep their ships in san francisco or any warm water port but we find they are a little too aggressive to have them visit san francisco. host: and mike in butte, montana, good morning. caller: good morning, mimi.

i think antony blinken is embarrassing. i mean, the problem we have in this country, and that very limp wristed speech he gave with the european leader there was pathetic. nato needs to go. russia is now almost 100% christian --i will say mother russia -- and this is bald-faced and designed to extract every last dollar available for middle-class americans. host: mike, getting back to nido, you said -- 10 nato, you said mother russia? caller: i love russia. it is christian. they have no designed to further their so-called aggression, everybody says. they just want ukraine back. they own it. president obama went there and overthrew the existing president

and put in this puppet and zelenskyy is just a total embarrassment. europe is an embarrassment. they are going broke. there awoke and worried about -- there woke and worried about climate change and they are broke. russia's not going into europe. i looked on a map. i cannot believe iceland is part of nato. give me a break. host: aren't. nathan, franklin, indiana, good morning. caller: good morning. we have a split republican party. one is a reagan republican nato is important. if you get enabled work, it is going to be us versus russia, china, iran. russia is the largest country in europe but has the east water --

the least warm water ports. the first place that took crimea -- place they took was crimea. the next was donbas. that created a bridge to the black sea. now they are in moldova. the places that occupy in ukraine border the black sea. without the ocean, their navy is junk. host: what threat do you believe russia poses to u.s.? caller: all you have to do is listen to them. they don't like the idea that u.s. is the number one power in the world. he thinks there should be two equal powers, russia and u.s. on your to do is listen to his speeches.

he has laid out what he thinks about u.s. you don't have to listen to the crittenden wing of the republican party, they don't know their history. russia has been our enemy for the last years and have changed passion and has not changed -- and has not changed. of course he does not like nato because nato is not a threat but it is a defense against his desires to become number two in the world or even number one. host: let's take a look att article five says. the parties agree to any armed attack against one or more of themrope or north america shall be conside attack against them all and consequently they agree if such

an armed att occurs, each of them in exerf the rig individual or collective self-defense recognized by e 51 will assist the party by taking forth with individually and in concert with the other parties such tions as the dreams this -- as it deems necessary, including armed forces to maintain the security of the north atlantic area. that is nato's article five. let's talk to carlos in springfield, ohio. caller: good morning. i am glad you could take my call. i listened to the individual from pennsylvania outline everything that happened in that area in relation to the warsaw pact aired nato.

over the years we had an easy peace between u.k., ukraine, and russia until nato decided we have to have ukraine and stage big missiles, offensive missiles directed at russia. nato is responsible for the issue we are having now between russia and ukraine. it is pretty obvious to me that nato -- i guess i am still on

the television. that is my viewpoint. the other issue is when these countries had to percent of their gdp, where did the money go? it goes to u.s. and the other countries that provide weapons for nato. this has got to be a massive amount of money. nato is beneficial financially for the u.s.. that is pretty much what i have to say. host: we have this from sonia who says increase, they are

frontline. vincent says we have the greatest military on planet earth, we don't need to spend on to any -- on in two anymore. allie says it iso protect u.s. interests also. it appears to some people are misinformed believing each countryays a certain amount of money >> the collective security group was established on april 4, 1940 nine and included 12 countries from europe and north america. the organization has 32 members. after the addition of sweden earlier this year. you are watching live coverage on c-span. >> and ways to bolster nato defense and deterrence. to help me answer these questions, i am joined by a distinguished panel of next-generation experts. please help me welcome