 here, here at Carnegie, and greetings also to those of you who are joining us online. This isn't my typical thing, but I am instructed to tell everyone there is a hashtag. It's Bernie C.E.I.P. My name is Sarah Chase. I'm a senior fellow here at the Carnegie Endowment in the Democracy and Rule of Law program. So talk about needs no introduction. I mean, I'll do a little bit anyway. Bernie Sanders is the independent U.S. Senator for the state of Vermont, whose people he served here in Washington for 27 years. That gives him some perspective on these interesting times. His presidential campaign consistently, insistently put some uncomfortable issues on the table. They have to do with integrity of government and the reality of democracy beyond the ballot box. He's continued that work since the election. He's recently traveled to Europe, and he's here at Carnegie to share some reflections on threats he sees here, but on the other side of the Atlantic as well, to government in the interests of the government. Senator Sanders. Well, thank you. Let me thank Sarah for that introduction. Let me thank all of you for coming out, and let me thank the Carnegie Endowment for hosting this event. As I think everybody knows, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a truly international institution with centers in five major cities across three continents, working to advance the cause of peace, democracy, and the rule of law to engagement with all sectors of society in multiple countries, and I want to congratulate the Carnegie Endowment for all that they do. My remarks today, you'll be happy to know, are going to be fairly brief. And I think that much of what I will be saying is not going to be a shock to anybody in this room, but it is important that it be said by a member of the United States Senate. And that is simply stated that under President Trump, our country is moving in an authoritarian direction, and the very nature of American democracy is under attack. As we approach July 4th, Independence Day, it is important to reflect upon our history, the enormous sacrifices that men and women have made in defending American democracy, the lives that they gave up, the suffering they entail. And what, most importantly, the kind of enormous obligation we as citizens of this great country have to protect American freedom and American democracy. So let me begin by saying this. There are enormous policy disagreements in Congress today, and it should come as no surprise to anyone that I would be in strong disagreement with the policies being brought forward by a Republican president who, in my view, is pushing a very anti-working class agenda and a stridently anti-environment. That should surprise nobody. I am unalterably opposed to the Trump Republican healthcare plans that the plan has passed in the House as you know and was just released a few minutes ago in the Senate. I'm going to do everything that I can to defeat the Trump-Ryan healthcare proposal, but that should not be a shock to anybody. In fact, I support a Medicare for All single-payer program, and I do not, I'm not surprised, that a Republican president does not support my point of view. I am not shocked that President Trump does not support a single-payer healthcare plan. Nothing surprising about that. I believe the climate change is one of the most immediate and pressing concerns that face the entire planet. It is unfortunate, but at this point, I do not expect that President Trump or many of my Republican colleagues will hold the same view. Disappointing, but not surprising. I believe that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality when they're very, very rich are getting richer. That not only should we not be giving enormous tax breaks to the people on top that we should be asking profitable corporations and the 1% that pay more in taxes. Again, that is my policy point of view. President Trump, Republican leadership disagreed with me on that. So what? And on and on it goes. Whether it's education, criminal justice, immigration, gender equality infrastructure, or other major issues, there should be no great surprise that there are fundamental differences of opinion between progressives, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, independents. That is, in fact, what American democracy is about. We should be proud of that. And we should be prepared to engage in the kind of debate that strengthens, that brings forth our point of view and listened respectfully to people who have a different perspective. But there is one very fundamental issue that we should not be disagreeing about. And that is no matter what our political perspective, whether we are progressives, conservatives, or moderates, we must do everything that we can to preserve American democracy and oppose the current drift toward authoritarianism that I believe President Trump represents. And that is why I am here today. And let me give you some very specific examples of what I mean. It is no great secret to anyone here that public officials and politicians try to make the very best case they can for their point of view. And that's Republicans, Democrats, progressives, conservatives, whatever. And they try to explain why their position is better than their opponents. It is also an, oh, I will not shock anybody in this room to suggest that politicians sometimes stretch the facts. I know it's happened once or twice to make their best case. All right, that's what goes on and has always gone on. But there is no politician that I know and certainly no president in the history of our country who has told as many outrageous and blatant lies as Donald Trump has. Donald Trump told the American people that three to five million people voted illegally in the last election. His administration officials have repeated that claim. But let us be clear, it's not wrong, it is a blatant lie. There is no evidence whatsoever for it. Republican election administrators from Mississippi to Nevada have stated their confidence that the 2016 election was not tainted by fraudulent voting. In fact, the bipartisan National Association of Secretaries of State cast out on Trump's lie stating quote. In the lead up to the November 2016 election, Secretaries of State expressed their confidence in the systemic integrity of our election process as a bipartisan group. And they stand behind that statement today, end of quote, Democrats and Republicans together making that statement. Now this lie about our elections is also not simply the ravings of a sore winner. It is repeated with the intent of delegitimizing our electoral system. And this is a very big deal because it sends a message to every Republican governor in the country who is so inclined to accelerate efforts to suppress the vote to make it harder for people of color, poor people, old people and young people to participate in the political process. To stop people from voting who might vote against Donald Trump or other Republicans. Trump is trying to lower voter turnout at a time when we have the lowest voter turnout of almost any major country on earth. And when our job should be to increase voter turnout. He is also attempting to preemptively cast out on the results of any future election that he might lose or that some of his political friends might lose. His rhetoric has the effect of casting grave doubts over the electoral process in our country, the heart and soul of American democracy. And delegitimizing any president who might follow him just as he tried to delegitimize the president who came before him, Barack Obama, through his leadership of the so-called Bertha movement. As you'll remember, Trump's path to the presidency began with his becoming the principal spokesman for the vicious and racist lie that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and therefore was not constitutionally eligible to become president. Just a few weeks ago, just a few weeks ago, Trump told another outrageous and dangerous lie. Taking completely out of context a statement made by the Muslim mayor of London, Sadik Khan, in the wake of the terrible terrorist attack that hit that city. Mayor Khan's message was, and I quote, Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. There is no reason to be alarmed, end quote. That's what the mayor said. Trump lately mischaracterized this as if Khan was ignoring the threat and suggesting that people should not be alarmed by terrorism. And then use this lie to promote his divisive Muslim ban. Now, what does it mean for our democracy if we have a president who lies all of the time? For a start at a time when fake news is growing, when websites spread fabrications every single day. The other day, I was just stumbling through the internet and I learned that Clint Eastwood had died, did you see that? Well, I like Clint Eastwood and I'm glad that he did not die, but it was just one of these things put onto the internet. But what does it mean when we have a president of the United States who lies all the time? What it means is that it cheapens and lowers respect for truth. If the president of the United States can lie, you can lie. Mayors can lie, governors can lie, congressmen can lie. What's the problem? That's what we get used to. So what? And it makes it acceptable and easier for us not to have a discourse which is based on facts, but a discourse which is based on alternative truth. And I worry about that very much in terms of the future of American democracy. And not unrelated to this pathological lying is President Trump's unprecedented and vicious attacks on the media. Now, let me be very clear on this issue because like probably every other politician in America, I have expressed strong criticism of the media. In fact, the last chapter of my recent book, go out and buy my book, yeah, expresses deep concerns about the nature of media coverage in this country in the sense of what mainstream media considers to be important. That's a very important question. What ends up on the front pages? What ends up on CBS News? Who determines what is important and what is not important? That's kind of the thrust of my criticism. And in addition to that, like probably every other public official in America, I have been critical of this of that type of media coverage. Nothing new there. That's what it's about. People get offended about what's writing, they disagree with what's on the paper, so why? But Trump's critique of mainstream media is something very, very different and in fact, very dangerous. During his campaign, Trump riled up crowds who came to his rallies, riled them up against the press, calling the press scum, horrible, and lying, disgusting people. When Trump claims that all of mainstream media is fake news, not to be believed, what does that say to the average American? If you're just the ordinary person, you're working your 50 or 60 hours a day, you're not paying attention to all the great debates going on in Washington, and you got the president of the United States, hey, do not believe anything that's in the New York Times, don't believe anything, the Washington Post, most of the globe, L.A. Times, the other newspapers throughout this country, your local newspaper, don't believe anything you see on TV, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, other TV networks, it's all a lie. They're all out to disparage me, Donald Trump president of the United States. Don't believe the thing you read. Where does that take us as a nation? What is the average American to believe? Now back in January, when Trump was being criticized for offering alternative facts about the size of his inauguration crowd, Republican Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas put it this way, and I want you to think about this for a moment. This is what Congressman Smith said. He said, quote, better to get your news directly from the president. In fact, it might be the only way to get the unvarnished truth end of quote. In other words, according to a member of the United States Congress, there is one person in this country who can tell us the truth. It's not gonna be in your newspaper, it's not gonna be on TV, it's not gonna be in books. It's one person who can tell you the truth, and that is President Trump. Now what does that tell us about the future of American democracy? Now there is a reason why our founders enthrined the press as the one profession specifically protected in the Bill of Rights. A well-informed citizenry is necessary for democracy to function correctly. The power of knowledge, access to information belonged in the hands of the people, not just the government. There should also be widespread concern not only with President Trump's attacks on the media, but with his disregard for the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution of the United States of America. His outbursts at judges are far from random temper tantrums of a billionaire used to getting his own way. On the campaign trail, he attacked a federal judge's impartiality because of his ethnic background. And as president, he attacked the federal judge who blocked his immigration executive order referring to him as a so-called judge. What is even more alarming was Donald Trump's insistence that the judiciary itself did not have the power to even review his immigration orders. These statements do not simply reveal disagreement with court rulings, which would not be unusual. Probably every president has had disagreements with the rulings of one court or another. But rather an effort to delegitimize, when you keep attacking the judiciary, you are delegitimizing a co-equal branch of government and diminishing its constitutional ability to limit and constrain the power of the presidency. All of these tendencies are even more concerning when understood in the light of Trump's consistent admiration for authoritarian leaders all over the world. Now, many Americans, including myself, find it ravishing that the president of the United States, we are a nation that has led the world in promoting democracy. In fact, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years teaching developing countries how to move to a constitutional democracy. And we should be proud of that. But I find it strange that we have a president who seems to be more comfortable with autocrats and authoritarian leaders than with leaders of democratic nations. How does it happen that we have a president who attacks everyone, Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, beauty queens, journalists, movie stars, yet at the same time has nothing but nice things to say about Russian president Vladimir Putin and other authoritarian leaders? Frankly, I know that many Americans are scratching their heads, really trying to figure out why Trump has such an affinity for President Putin, a man who has severely repressed democracy in his own country, has spent the last number of years trying to destabilize democracy in countries throughout the world and obviously in the United States in the 2016 elections. And it was trying to weaken the transatlantic alliance. When questioned about Vladimir Putin's murders or alleged murders of journalists, after briefly acknowledging the concern President Trump responded, quote, he's running his country and at least he's a leader unlike what we have in this country, end of quote. What does President Trump, why does President Trump have such kind words for President Duterte of the Philippines who is seriously undermining civil rights and civil liberties in his own country? Why does he seem so comfortable with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, a hereditary monarchy which treats women as third-class citizens and which promotes Wahhabism, a radical and extreme version of Islam that has spread throughout the Muslim world? Just yesterday, yesterday, President Trump sent congratulations to Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman, congratulating him on his elevation to crown prince. Really, Mr. President, are we terribly excited that Saudi Arabia will remain an undemocratic monarchy for the foreseeable future? But again, this is a pattern. In April, we saw Trump sent congratulations to Turkish President Erdogan for his victory in a referendum that would vastly expand Erdogan's power and further weaken Turkey's democracy. But Trump had nothing to say in May when just after a meeting in the White House, Erdogan's bodyguards beat up a number of peaceful protesters right here in Washington, DC. Let me also be clear that the drift toward authoritarianism is not just something we are seeing in the United States of America. Around the world, in the Middle East, in Europe and elsewhere, we have seen the resurgence of a politics of resentment and bigotry where legitimate anger about unaccountable and ineffective governance has been exploited by leaders who seek to divide us rather than bring us together. Where understandable fear about personal safety and security has been used to curtail people's rights and to surveil and control them. What has been going on in the global economy and why there is so much distrust and alienation from governments around the world is frankly beyond the theme of our remarks today. But let me just say this, that in the United States over the last 40 years, we have seen a significant shrinkage of our middle class. We have people today working two or three jobs, people scared to death about the future of their children, while almost all new income and wealth is going to the people on top. But this is not just an American phenomenon. All over the world, we are seeing that same tendency. And today in the global economy, if you can believe it, we have a situation where the top 1% now owns more wealth than the bottom 99% and where a handful of billionaires now own more wealth than the bottom half of the world's population, 3.7 billion people. So a lot of this takes place in the reality that people in our own country and around the world are being left behind in terms of the global economy. And all over the world, people are angry and they're feeling that nobody is listening to their pain. Let me conclude my remarks in the way that I begin them. And that is that our country, the international community and in fact our planet face enormous problems. Our job as a people, it seems to me, is to lay these very serious issues out on the table, bring them forward. What are they? Whether it's the economy, whether it's climate change, whether it's education, whatever it may be and to have serious discussions about how we can go forward as a people to address these problems, respecting the points of view of folks who may disagree with us. Our duty is to respect our constitution and to strengthen our democracy, not to undermine it. And in this regard, I would hope that all of us, whether we are Republicans or Democrats or independents, whether we are progressives, conservatives or moderators, that all of us can come together to in fact protect the country that we love to improve the quality of our democracy and to stand up firmly against those who would move us toward authoritarianism. Thank you all very much. Thank you. As you can imagine, I'm gonna take the prerogative here just to start off with a couple of questions. You're making a really clear distinction between disagreements around policy decisions or policy directions and the fundamental architecture of government. How come I could not have said that as well in my remarks as you just said? Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to do and she said it in two sentences, all right. In other words, look, in a democracy in this room, certainly in the Congress, people are gonna have wildly different points of view about the Republican healthcare plan that's coming down, about the environment, about gender equality, all those issues. We have differences of opinion. So what? It's called democracy. We argue it out. I asked people to go for me, Trump asked people about them. That's the way the world is. But you're right. We have, I interrupted you and I didn't mean to do that, but we have done that historically within a certain architecture. That's a good word. A framework that you have your rights and I have my rights. But what makes this president different, very different from another president, conservative Republican, George W. Bush, who played by the rules. He had his point of view. I oppose them virtually every day, but this is something different and I think very, very dangerous and it's something that conservatives and progressives have gotta come together and say, look, we disagree on everything, but we don't disagree that we are democracies and that we're gonna oppose efforts to move towards our terrorism. You've implied this, but you've been in this business for decades. Is this new? I mean, we had the McCarthy era in this country. We had real violence in the 1960s. What about this feels new to you? That's a great question. And I think it is, look, you're right. We have McCarthyism, we've got violence. We've had, this country has had a terrible, terrible problem. The idea that we're facing problems is not new, but when you add it all together, when you see a president, and again, this does not give me any partisan joy. It really does not. But when we have a president who lies all of the time, that is something new. That is something new. When you have the kind of attacks against the media that we have seen, that is unprecedented. When you have this affection for authoritarian leaders, that is different. We have had, and we'll continue to have, we have alliances with people whose views we don't like. Nothing new about that. For geopolitical reasons, the United States has a life. But I think something more is going on there. There seems to be on the part of Trump an actual affection for a strong man type of government. And that should be of concern to all of us. Democracy is a means, right? In a way, it's a means to an end. No, I don't think so, I don't think so. Okay. I don't think so. Democracy is an end in itself. And it says, and I believe this very strongly, it says that look, what we want is you all to be thinking and participating in the political process. That is an end. And you may end up disagreeing with me. Maybe you're gonna vote me out of office. Maybe you're gonna defeat legislation that I've offered. I gotta accept that. But I have said a million times, and we'll repeat it here today as the U.S. Senator from Vermont. I work very hard in my state to increase voter turnout. And I don't go looking around and say, oh, there's a conservative part of the state. We get those people voting, they may vote against me. How do we lower the voter turnout to certain parts of the state? Never occurred to me for a second. I want a large voter turnout. For 40 years, I've been talking about the embarrassment of us having one of the lowest voter turnout of any major country on earth. We had, in the midterm elections, in 2014, 37% of the people voted. How poor people, overwhelmingly don't vote, young people don't vote. We gotta change that. I want people to vote. So democracy to me is an end in itself. I want a vibrant democracy where people, young people, working people understand what's going on. They regard the importance of these issues. They disagree respectfully with each other. So to me democracy is very much an end, not just a means to the points of view that I happen to believe. Yeah, and I didn't mean a means to a specific policy outcome. What I was driving at was something to do with integrity and fairness. And that's something that really, of government, and it's something that really galvanized voters to adhere this election on both sides of the political divide, where the word corruption became a really major word in an electoral campaign for the first time and it's been galvanizing people all over the world and just, I think, yesterday or the day before, in France, two ministers had to step down. They weren't convicted of anything but there were serious allegations of them having used, put campaign workers into public positions so they could be paid out of public salary. On the other hand, the Supreme Court last year handed down a decision in the corruption case of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonald that narrowed down the definition of corruption to something, it's not just quid pro quo but what kind of quid for what kind of quo. The question I wanna ask is, is there a split at the moment between the way ordinary people in the United States and in other countries around the world understand what type of integrity they ought to expect from their government officials and the way people, government officials understand those? I'm looking a little bit differently as I approach the issue. I would say that the vast majority of the American people, whether they are conservative, Republican, progressive, Democrats, feel that our political system is corrupt in this sense that right now, if we have any billionaires in the room, they know that they can spend unlimited, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to influence election. And I would say that the vast majority of the American people think that that is fundamentally wrong. That is corrupt in the sense that in my state, for hundreds of years, in early March, we have what we call poundings and small pounds of 100 people, 200 people, folks come out and they argue about how much the pound should spend on education or the roads, the municipal services, whatever they do. At the end of the debate, sometimes it gets heated, people raise the moderator says, all right, all those in favor of the resolution, raise the ante, raise the ante, people vote against it. That's called democracy, that's grassroots democracy. It is one person, one vote. But what you have now is today as a result of Citizens United Supreme Court decision, a situation which, to my mind, I use the word corrupt, where billionaires can spend unlimited sums of money and they are, and they are. I would say to me, that is what many people are responding to, that they have one vote, they are powerless, because government listened to them, government will listen to billionaires. I think you can make the case that you can probably trace virtually every major piece of legislation on the floor today to powerful special interests who essentially pay to get that legislation on the floor. So it's beyond just the ballot box, it's what happens between elections. Let me open the floor, we don't have much time, but at least I think we can take one or two questions. Right there, sir, in the, yeah. And if you'd wait for a microphone to arrive, and could you please introduce yourself briefly? Thank you so much, my name is Kanan Srinivas and I've come from Loudoun County in neighboring state of Virginia. Thank you so much for taking my question, Sandra. My question is, we absolutely, I absolutely agree with whatever you said, it's a phenomenal message. What's the way forward, and where do you think the two political parties, I happen to be a Democrat, are the Republicans? How do you think that we are going to come out of this and get better? Well, I think is, and I know, I was in the house for 60 years, I've been in the Senate now for almost 10 years, so I get to know a lot of Republicans. I know a lot of very decent Republicans, they're friends of all Republicans. They happen to disagree with me on everything, I disagree with them on everything. Doesn't make me a better human being or them a better human being, that's the way it is. And I think what we have, and the reason I'm here today, is just to raise this issue to say, okay, you're gonna be voting for what I think is a disastrous healthcare bill, that's fine. You don't believe the climate change is real, okay, you're wrong, but that's okay, yeah? But what you do believe, and you know we have members, Republicans of the Congress who put their lives on the line, their veterans serving the military, that on this issue, we have got to come together and tell President Trump that too many people have fought and died to defend American democracy, we are not gonna move toward one person rule, we're not gonna move toward authoritarianism. We have a constitution, which is an extraordinary document, and there are ways to change the constitution if it's used to amend it. But that there has to be a coming together to say to an acknowledgement, yeah, we disagree on the issues. That's serious, I've got to argue about that, but we should not disagree about doing everything we can to protect the integrity of American democracy and stop the drift toward authoritarianism. And there are Republicans who in the privacy, in a private conversation can tell you exactly the same thing. Thank you again for coming. I really appreciate, maybe we all appreciate it, the message resonates with a lot of people. My question today is. Could you tell us who you are? Oh yes, sorry, my name is Nazrin, I'm an intern with the Asia Foundation. And I wanted to ask you about the budget proposal. So the budget proposal of the Trump administration brings cuts to the foreign aid budget by over 30%. How will these drastic changes to USAID and the State Department affect America's role in promoting and ensuring democracy around the globe? It will be a disaster. Again, today is not a moment where I want to spend a lot of time on the policy issues, but I would simply say that if you combine Trump's proposed agenda, by the way, I want you to get a little confident here, that budget that Trump, what for, is going to go nowhere in a hurry. It's, trust me, it will not pass. So it will be what ends up, the budget of the Congress will be very different than what the president proposed. But this is a budget which will make cuts. You're talking about foreign aid. That's one small, tiny part of it. The massive cuts in Medicaid, nutrition, education, affordable housing. You think about the needs of the American people, of our children, of our seniors, of our veterans. In every area, there will be massive cuts. And guess what? There will be $3 trillion over a 10-year period in tax breaks going to the top 1%, including by the elimination of the estate tax, the wealthiest families in this country. The wealthiest families, like the Walton family, worth $130 billion, getting up to a $52 billion tax break. Do you think that's one of the great priorities facing America, that we cut programs for children, the elderly, and the sick, in order to give the Walton family, the wealthiest family in America, tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks? It is a pretty crazy and absurd budget. But that's President Trump's view, and that's fine. And I will do everything I can to defeat it. But again, the point that I'm making here this morning is that that's a debate we can and will have. But my concern today is the driftboard of authoritarianism. Nazrin raised the issue of how we affect democracies overseas, which you also raised during your remarks. In other words, there's a foreign aid budget. There's also the example that we said. Could you speak to that a little bit? What's the impact beyond our borders? Well, I mean, in the simplest sense, and I think there will be many conservatives and military people who will tell you this, that if you disengage the United States from what's happening in countries around the world, if you do not recognize the hunger or the lack of educational opportunities or the fact that children all over the world are dying today from diseases that can be prevented with a few cents of medicine, if you don't recognize that and you create a vacuum out there, you create the climate by which terrorism can grow. There was once a time when the United States was so looked up all over the world as an example. A, in terms of our economics, the growth of opportunity, a strong middle class, and also our belief in democracy that we stood for democracy. And we have spent, you probably know more about this than I am, Sarah, but I think it's fair to say that over the years we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars encouraging the growth of democracy, not supporting authoritarian type regimes. So if this country moves toward a more authoritarian society, what are we saying to people in the developing world in Asia, Africa, Latin America, who are struggling to create democratic governments when the leadership of that country is going to say, hey, that doesn't exist in the United States? Look at what you're trying to do. Bad example, terrible example. I think we have to wind this up now, very unfortunately. And I have to ask everyone here, if you wouldn't mind Senator Sanders, as you can imagine, he has a really minute-to-minute schedule. So if you could let him get out, and then you'll be able to move off. Well, Sarah, thank you very much for being here. And thank all of you. Thank you.