The ideas expressed in City club forums are those of the speakers and not of the City Club of Cleveland Ideastream Public Media or their sponsors.

The production and distribution of City club forums and Ideastream Public Media are made possible by PNC and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland, Inc.. Hello and welcome to the City Club of Cleveland, where we are devoted to creating conversations of consequence that help democracy thrive.

It's Friday, March 7th.

And I'm Hugh Mackay.

City Club board member and a partner at Porter Wright.

It is my privilege to introduce today's forum on the first 50 days of the second Trump administration.

60 years ago, Bob Dylan sang The Times They Are A-Changin, and he also sang.

Even the President of the United States sometimes must have to stand naked.

So that provides an overall soundtrack for today's program.

These early days of the second Trump administration have brought a dizzying number of executive orders and changes to the federal government.

Unprecedented in U.S. history.

Much of the debate now centers on whether all of this change is making America great again or if it's destabilizing already stressed government institutions, the economy and relations with allies.

For over 112 years, the City Club has been guided by ACRI that called on each of us to harbor and hear persons of every belief and party.

From my perspective, as a former city club board president, the City Club has a unique responsibility to help inform our members on important topics and perspectives, even when they may be unpopular.

Given the unprecedented speed and scope of change in the first 50 days of the Trump term, today's forum is an important conversation of consequence.

And today's forum is just one of a number of conversations that will cover the new administration from all perspectives.

Today, we will hear from three Republican leaders from here in northeast Ohio who will provide their insight and analysis on President Trump's second term so far.

David Arredondo is the former executive chairman of Orange County Republican Party, where he served until 2024.

He also served as the committee person for the Senate District 13 in Columbus.

From 1988 to 2000.

He worked in the Oberlin College admissions office in various leadership roles.

Gordon Short is the ward for councilman and president of Strongsville City Council, where he also serves as the vice chair of the Finance Committee and chair of the Economic Development Committee.

Lisa Stickan is chairman of the Republican Party of Cuyahoga County, where she made history in 2020, becoming the first woman to hold the position.

She has served as an assistant prosecutor for the Cuyahoga and Chicago County prosecutor's offices, and before that as a judicial staff attorney for the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.

Moderating the conversation today is Nick Castiel, a government reporter at Signal Cleveland.

The inaugural NEWSROOM In the Signal, Ohio network of independent community led nonprofit newsrooms.

Nick is covered politics and government in northeast Ohio since 2012.

If you have a question for our speakers today, you can text it to 3305415794.

And City Club staff will try to work it into the Q&A portion of the program.

Members and friends of the City Club of Cleveland please join me in welcoming David Arredondo, Gordon Short and Lisa Stickin.

Nick floor is yours.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Hugh.

Well, thank you all for being here.

Thank you to our panelists for joining us for this conversation.

I want to take some time for us to talk about what you are seeing and hearing on the ground as people are processing these first 50 days.

You know what you're hearing from your constituent answer from your party members about what they like, what they don't like and what they want to see next.

And I wanted to start with the issue of immigration, which has really been a cornerstone of the Trump phenomenon.

I was I was looking back at some history last night preparing for this.

You know, it was 12 years ago that the Senate passed an immigration reform bill that had support from Republicans like Marco Rubio.

It had border security and a pathway to citizenship.

The House didn't take it up.

Then Eric Cantor lost his seat in the GOP primary.

And in 2015, Donald Trump went down the the escalator at Trump Tower.

And here we are ten years later.

You know, David, I want to start with you.

Why do you think it is that immigration as an issue has so caught hold with the Republican base?

Why is that such a motivating issue for Republicans?

It is because of the fact that currently and it's been since 1986 when there was an immigration bill passed under the Reagan administration.

Since then, there has been nothing to to redirect or to reform that immigration bill.

So Congress has tried for several years, you know, over that period of time to make some changes, as you suggest to that and or you mentioned, and in 2013, something was done.

The problem that comes up are to me, there are two ways to deal with the issue.

One has to first do with border security.

The other one has to do with the actual immigration process.

So therefore, they should be two bills that are done separately.

And there is the problem in trying to get it passed, because both the House and the Senate combined them.

And when you combine them, it makes it difficult to to agree on what should be done.

You know, you may like what is said for border security, but you don't like what is being done for immigration.

So as someone who worked in college admissions, recruiting international students, I understand what the what the visa process is, what the immigration process says and what we really need to do to try to solve this problem right now with the illegals has to be that unlike 1986, where they granted an amnesty to those who were illegal and they could stay here and they could just proceed and become, you know, permanent resident, etc., they need to require these individuals who are here illegally to return to their country and to enter the United States again in the same process that legal immigrants do.

And so that, to me, has to be one of the ways to reform what is currently happening.

And what I'm interested in, too and Lisa, I can ask I'll ask you this is, you know, after 2012, there is discussion among Republicans of what do we have to do to win a presidential election again?

And some people said the answer is we need to moderate on immigration.

Trump went the other direction and he won.

And he really, you know, struck a chord with voters, with certain voters who really supported him.

I'm interested to hear, what do you think it is about this issue that has really just caught hold with people who are big supporters of the president?

I think it just ties into the America first agenda.

And I know when you say that people who aren't maybe the biggest fans of the president find those America first to be a cringeworthy phrase, but to people who support the movement and do people who are, I would say, even independent voters.

It means taking care of our backyard, our citizens who are not really where they need to be, looking within our own cities, where we are feeling school districts, looking within our communities to see veterans who are struggling.

So I know when I talk to people who are interested in supporting President Trump or want to know more, that's usually where the place they're coming from because they like that does it.

And I think securing a country, securing their own borders is really shouldn't be controversial.

We do have legal immigrants here who go through quite a process to get here.

And it's really not fair to them to have this sort of an end round because they spent years going through the process.

Now, to David's point, yes, we need to look at the process.

It shouldn't be so hard for some of these people to legally come into the country if they're doing everything by the book and take years and and, you know, and those difficulties, but for securing the border.

There's other issues that came about.

Now you're referring to 2012 when Mitt Romney did lose that election.

The Republican Party did an autopsy, if you will, of the election.

We were part of that in Cleveland as well.

Frank Luntz came here at Jones Day.

We met with him in the conference room and had had a big meeting to talk about it.

And I think any party when you lose an election should do that, by the way.

The thing is, things change between 2010 and 20 or 2012 and 2015.

And there was this shift where people were kind of tired of looking at the border and seeing caravans coming through, because this raises other issues that now drugs trafficking at the border.

That's something I think we do need to take seriously and look at women and children in particular, the process, people paying mules to get them through and putting children in danger.

These are real issues, creating issues at the border, towns that really has has sort of bubbled up.

I would like to know, you know, even in this last election that was such a hot issue that you did see Kamala Harris, Vice President Harris start to message on the border as well.

I mean, that should also be a signal, I think, to everyone here that that is an issue where the majority of voters feel passionately, not just Republicans.

I'm curious, when you had that meeting at Jones Day to talk about, you know, the autopsy after the 2012 election, did anybody say, you know, who we got to run next time?

Donald Trump.

No, I mean, but I think that's true of I think that's true of politics as well, because I think there was it was the conference room there at the building.

I want to be clear, it wasn't the firm, but sure.

But yeah, no, to be clear, I think that's one of the primary.

You know, you don't know what candidate is going to emerge.

And I think that was one thing that did happen in this election cycle.

I think with the Democrats not having that really full primary process, I think that did come into into play in this election.

Right.

Yeah, exactly.

Not having a primary, you know, a substantial one.

And then with with President Biden getting out so late in the game, it changed everything.

Well, Gordon, I want to bring you into this conversation and I think going off of what we've heard so far, you know, this issue of people who are who possibly have been living here in the United States for a long time, even if they are not authorized to be here right.

You know, there are people maybe who are new arrivals who have been turned back at the border or have been let in or are waiting for asylum proceedings or what have you.

There's also people who have been here for a long time and have built their lives here despite the fact that they don't have legal status.

I mean, what do you think about the idea of of picking up people who have built lives here and sending them back to a place that they left a long time ago?

Well, I think it's obviously, you know, an issue.

But I think as people look at it, I mean, for those people here, they still haven't been here legally.

And why haven't they gone through that process or have they been here long to now integrate themselves in or go back to that process?

So, you know, maybe there can be some compromise on what we can do with those that have been legally that have not committed crimes or are anything, you know, committed crimes in this country.

But again, you have to look at it overall is that, you know, there has to be a process to respect that process.

I've talked to business people in my community, construction firms, landscaping owners who have people here living here legally on their visas, working.

And they're upset that these people have come in illegally, have taken their jobs, work for less and do the jobs they have be doing.

And they they spent those years they spent that time.

So, again, there is a process.

You should respectfully follow that.

And if you don't and there is a consequence of that, and then you can come back in and be then do it legally through a process.

So, I mean, I think, you know, if they've been here a long time, again, at the end of the day, that is the process and we have to respect the process.

And that's why we have laws.

We're a country of laws and in a country of rules, and we should follow those.

I think, you know, one response to that might be, and maybe I'll put this to Lisa, is that the process itself is is so broken, you've got huge backlogs in immigration court that it's just, you know, this process is a mess as it is and that itself is a problem.

I don't disagree.

And I think that's where people do need to come to the table on those issues.

I think the problem is the public really wants the situation addressed.

If you look at the polling on the issue.

If you look at even how the campaign became so much about that issue, I don't think it should be controversial that we talk about our border.

I don't think it should be controversial that we talk about enforcing the rules of immigration at the border.

And what Gordon's referring to is, you know, again, kind of what I was alluding to, people that do follow the process and get here legally, having sort of them go around just because someone happened to come in here illegally.

Also, you know, there was discussions on, you know, just quality of life for people who are here illegally.

You know, And I think really just making sure we do the reset button so that people can come in here and focus on how we fix our border and secure it.

I think secure is the key word, too.

Mm hmm.

A lot of more immigration issues.

I want to get to one more and then I think we'll move on.

And Lisa, I may stick with you on this one local issue here.

You know, Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb made some news when when he spoke out after the arrests of By ICE of people at a taqueria in Cleveland Heights.

And he said part of his, quote, was arresting immigrants working in a suburban restaurant does not make us safer.

And he went on to say that, you know, he would let Cleveland police be involved in immigration cases in instances of violence, but no further and no other cases.

What is your view?

Do you agree with some of the things he said and what do you think local officials should be doing?

Well, no, I let's be clear.

If you are here illegally, that in and of itself is is a crime.

I mean, you're not supposed to be here illegally.

So, I mean, the rules of any country, I mean, when I travel abroad, you know, I follow the process, the paperwork most people do.

So let's start there.

Secondly, you know, ice and what ice is doing, again, was supported and talked about in this election.

It does of the majority of support from American voters on this issue.

I think the fact that they are now doing what they campaigned on is part of the reason why so many people do support President Trump.

He was very transparent on this is an issue and this is what we're going to do.

So I do think local law enforcement should be involved, I think to make sure that we are, one, policing and protecting our own community.

But to I think also so that we can be part of that.

If he's concerned about the execution of that, he should have his officers involved in that, then to be part of it, to see what's going on.

Additionally to I would note, I think if you were to talk to people in Cleveland, this is something they are generally supportive of.

We talked sort of briefly backstage.

I mean, we saw incredible movement within the city of Cleveland voters toward President Trump, who at a 3 to 5 point improvement in this election from every time he runs in within the city of Cleveland.

I mean, his numbers probably were some of the best since Richard Nixon, candidly, in the city in the city of Cleveland.

Yes.

Well, it is true.

I mean, Cleveland, if you look at within the city of Cleveland, obviously, Kamala Harris won substantially, but Trump gained steadily from 2016, 20, 20, 2024.

As a matter of percentage, you have seen small Republican gains and a lot of sliding.

A Democratic.

That's right.

Evidently have stopped voting.

Right.

And I think that's an important discussion, too, to the residents in Cleveland.

So I would say, look, it shouldn't wholly be a political issue.

I think we do need to make sure our communities are safe.

Well, I want to talk a little bit about the election and some of the changes that we've seen.

And, David, you were the chair of the Lorain County Republican Party, and the party has seen enormous success in Lorain County, once a very strongly Democratic place.

Republicans have flipped the county commission.

President Trump has won the county.

I think Sherrod Brown won it last time, but barely.

But yeah, but not by much.

And that's a place that he used to represent in Congress.

That's correct.

What what is it?

Why do you think voters have begun changing their minds about Republicans in Lorain County?

I believe it's because of what we're seeing nationwide as to this divide of voters who are non-college educated voters, who are essentially common sense voters.

They see a broken border and it makes no sense to them.

They see d-ii and that makes no sense to them.

They see being told what you can drive because of climate change, and that makes no sense to them.

So the polling shows that non-college educated voters, those without let's just say, those without a bachelor's or master's degree, that's usually the.

Sure.

You you could go to college.

You could still be a community college graduate or so.

But in in any event, that to me is the answer because Lorain County is profoundly blue collar working class.

And so these are the voters that have decided to vote Republican.

So you've talked about a few of the things that you mentioned.

You know, D-I, electric vehicle rules, things that I think Democrats have aligned themselves with.

And you're saying Republicans are rejecting those things or voters are rejecting those things.

What is it that Republicans offer that you think non-college voters have?

We have found some sort of common ground with.

They want to have economic security.

They want inflation to be taken care of.

They want they want fairness.

They want people to be treated based on their abilities and their merits and not the color of their skin.

And and they are they are profoundly American.

They are proud of being American.

They're proud of the flag.

They support law enforcement.

And so these are the qualities that they that they retain plain and which they want to see the rest of our country move forward on.

I'm going to move ahead a little bit for the sake of time left.

Lisa, did you want to jump in any more on election results because we've seen changes in Cuyahoga County.

Right.

I did want to highlight just briefly the largest city in Ohio that Donald Trump did win was in Cuyahoga was Parma, Ohio.

So there is that change in the footprint that David's referring to.

We are seeing that in our county as well.

I think the Mahoning Valley specifically, too.

It's interesting.

So thank you.

Well, and as a part of why Trump has improved his margins in Ohio substantially even over eight years, I would agree.

You know, we saw for folks in our listening audience who who could not see this protest outside, there's a lot of Ukrainian flags.

And Gordon, I want to direct this question at you.

I think there is some disagreement even within the Republican Party over what the United States stance should be with respect to Ukraine are.

You know, do you support Ukraine's war effort or do you try to force an end to it, even if it means giving up some territory to Vladimir Putin?

You know, the CEO of the George Bush Presidential Center and former Senator Rob Portman have weighed in on this in ways that I think were interpreted as pushing back against the White House.

What do you think?

I mean, what do you think the American stance should be on Ukraine?

And is that what you're seeing from the Trump administration?

Well, a couple things.

I grew up in the eighties under Ronald Reagan.

So to me, the Russian empire, they also mean is still the evil empire.

Vladimir Putin is part of that.

You know, when when the wall fell, when the Soviet Union collapsed, there was opportunity there.

And there is some leadership, I think, that seized upon the West that has changed under Putin.

I still believe he believes in a totalitarian regime and wants, you know, Russia to have that huge, dominant place in the world.

I also served under George Voinovich here, and Rob Portman followed in his footsteps in securing and working for Eastern European peoples and those that were behind the Iron Curtain, you know, 30, 40 years ago.

So we come full circle now.

And while I will say the dynamics of Europe have changed, I mean, the post-Cold War does.

Does it?

You know, the United States and NATO's to have the same fulfilled mission that it did to fight the Warsaw Pact.

No.

On the flipside, though, you are looking at it again in history.

You know, those who failed to study history are doomed to repeat it.

You look at, you know, the appeasement to Nazi Germany, you know, with Chamberlain, and we had that dominos fall.

So I do look, this is this is a line that I think the West has to hold in Ukraine.

We can not let the Ukraine fall.

The Trump and the Trump.

There you go.

You got some lucky blocks.

Thank you, folks.

Appreciate the applause, if you wouldn't mind holding it so we can have a conversation.

Not expecting that any of that today.

But, you know, I'm not a foreign policy expert.

But again, from what I'm seeing in the trenches, there are a lot of my constituents that there are some that just say, you know, we shouldn't support any of this with foreign aid and we have done a lot to Ukraine.

You know, I will say the Trump administration is trying to negotiate peace.

There's nothing wrong with that.

But at what cost?

And I will say, I do like, you know, the the narrow agreement without giving the Ukraine a security agreement that gives it that that has kind of fallen apart.

You know, today Trump came out, President Trump, and said, well, now we might sanction Russia.

So he is a negotiator.

But I didn't the day my my position is that, you know, we cannot let Ukraine succeed much of its land and its territory.

It's already given up, returned to its original borders and try to keep the Russian bear contained in Russia.

At the same time, you know, President Trump said to President Zelensky in that Oval Office meeting, your gambling with World War three, what do you think about something like that?

Well, I mean, listen, I told my my kids, you know, four years ago when that happened, I said we have this could be World War three here.

So it is a scary point.

And we want to we want to stay away from that.

And, you know, if Trump goal is to avoid World War three, that is an admirable goal.

But again, you cannot give up at the end of the day.

There still is that old containment of Russia.

And so I think we have to be really we can't let Beijing.

My line is you can't let the Ukraine go.

It has to stand tall.

Lisa, you're nodding here.

Speaking of Parma, home to many Ukrainians, we have a very vibrant Ukrainian community in Cuyahoga County.

We're very proud of the relationships the Republican Party has there.

Congressman Max Miller has great relationships within that community as well, too.

I myself agree with my colleagues comments on supporting Ukraine in that in the war, I think the as I look at what President Trump the administration's messaging and doing to, I think one thing that's important to know is transparency with where our money is going to according said, is you don't want it to be just this endless supply of resources that, quite frankly, we're at a stalemate there in the conflict.

And I think concern for peace is important.

And I also think, you know, getting Europe engaged is not a bad thing because, you know, you mentioned getting our allies fired up.

Well, I think that's good.

I actually have learned in some of my research is, you know, Europe has given a lot of resources, more resources to Russia than to Ukraine in terms of the fact that they have to buy energy from Russia or.

Yeah, that's right.

That's right.

So that does matter because that's money in the pocket of Russia.

So I do think we need to look at all of that.

And I think a peaceful solution is in everyone's best interests.

But one where I have I share similar views on on Russia and Putin that Gordon does.

So and that's where I come in on this.

David, were you you were I totally agree with my my colleagues here.

But we have to understand that this war has to come to an end.

And the United States has given a substantial amount of aid to Ukraine.

So all of this nonsense and lies that, you know, Trump's a puppet of Putin and all this other good stuff is just just that.

Exactly that.

We've given so much to Ukraine, but we don't have an endless spigot to keep doing that.

And for the sake of peace in the world, President Trump is making attempts that his predecessor never made.

And so he's trying to bring together both the Russians and the Ukrainians so that we can have this war put to an end.

Let's have peace.

Let's stop the killing.

I imagine the concern, at least from people who are supportive of Ukraine, would be if peace means giving up territory or giving up something to Russia.

Has has that does that give Russia a victory?

I don't believe I don't believe it does.

I don't believe it does.

You know, you you have to have agreements.

You have to have compromise.

And if that's what it's going to take, because the converse of that is, well, we're going to keep fighting until we make sure that they are out of those territories.

And that's we don't want to do that.

We don't want to keep this war going on.

And so if some compromises regarding territory have to be made, but if the Ukrainians are unwilling to do that, well, I'm afraid that this war will continue.

I want to turn now to Doge, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which is the essentially, you know, Elon Musk led Enterprise to cut the federal government, although officially, I think he's not the titular head of the organization.

In any event, there are more than 16,000 federal workers here in the Cleveland area.

The federal government is the sixth largest employer in the city in this, you know, municipal area.

Lisa, I want to go to you.

Do you think that the federal workforce should be reduced?

Well, I think the concept of doge isn't just let's cut jobs for job sake.

I mean, I think the the mission is to reduce waste in government and to spend money efficiently.

And there's a lot of expenditures outside of employees within government things we're spending money on.

I think shining a light on that and having transparency on that is is a good thing.

Let's start there.

In terms of our federal workforce, I don't I will you know, I'm the the daughter of two federal employees myself.

Very proud of that.

And who have who really dedicated themselves to public service.

And I know we have amazing workforce here in Cuyahoga County as well and throughout the state.

No, but it is important we are in deficit.

And the concept of dodge is to look at what we're spending, not just who is employed and what they're doing, but making sure we have an efficient workforce.

And I think that's the concept I will note this is another popular concept that came out of the election.

And, you know, there was recent polling as of yesterday, I was watching CNN and they indicated 54% of Americans support the concept, what Doge is doing and what Elon Musk specifically and 51% specifically want want to see see more and I think additionally, there was some some congressional leader I believe Lisa Lisa murkowski in know in the in the House that the I forgot her last time one of the congresswomen she came forward and said if we are making mistakes, we're doing this in a transparent fashion and we will correct those cuts as they come out.

And this is an unprecedented action, you know, to have government inspect itself.

I mean, you know, to to do an audit, self audit there and to really make sure we're spending money effectively and efficiently.

This resonates with voters.

All right.

Thank you.

Folks will be able to get the questions in just a second, which is where you may be able to put some of these questions to our panel.

That said, you know, any organization, your biggest expense is going to be personnel.

And we are seeing thousands of people fired, laid off, particularly probationary employees, which are people who have started relatively recently.

And they're basically new employees of the federal government.

I mean, you know, Gordon, what do you think about this?

If we're looking at, you know, 15% cuts to the staff at the VA, a 12% cut planned to staff at Social Security, are these cuts too heavy handed or do you think this is this is something you could get behind?

Well, I mean, again, in the day, I think that for years, both sides have talked about the waste of federal government, the bloating this of the federal bureaucracy.

And Trump is doing what he said he was going to do.

So this should come as no surprise.

And they got started quickly and they may cut a little too deep.

But you seen in business as well, sometimes you have to get through those tough times and cut and then you come back what you really need.

But there is a lot of waste in government, whether you're spending $10,000 for a toilet seat or there's too many personnel.

And I know for a fact I've heard stories out of out of DC where, you know, especially when the government was working from from home and people were still getting their DC pay when they were based in West Virginia, in Virginia, where the cost of living was drastically different and they were still collecting how to pay that stealing.

I'm sorry.

And so I think at the end of the day here, the government has not for 40 years we've been talking about the waste in government and the bloated ness of the federal government.

And now it's time that we actually look at that and see like the city is strong.

For now, we're different.

We're set on a budget, right?

We have to have a balanced budget before we buy it by law.

By law, Strongsville has to have a balanced budget.

Federal government doesn't.

But, you know, if we have to you know, if we have to make cuts because we have to balance and it's personal, we have to do it, the federal govt doesn't have that.

But this is a good, I think, gut check and see what do we really need to run these agencies efficiently and to get the work done that needs get done without overspending for.

And these are taxpayer dollars and we are at $37 trillion deficit.

We can't go on like this.

We can't.

Eventually we're going to collapse upon ourselves.

So the economics just aren't there and it's not going to save all 37 trillion.

But we're at least we're doing something now and starting the process to really look at how our federal government is spending money.

David, I mean, what do you think?

Is this is there a risk of cutting too deep or cutting so hastily that that you end up laying off people who really are essential workers, for instance, doing veterans care?

Actually, what just transpired within the last day or two is President Trump saying in regards to this that instead of taking a sledgehammer, we need a scalpel to look at it?

And so this makes all the sense in the world that rather than Elon saying these people from VA or these people from the national park should be cut, it has to go to the to the department cabinet member who will who is overseeing those agencies to look at those agencies and say, yeah, this is where I think we can no, we can't cut these people.

Let it to the cabinet member to decide his own his or her own department and work cuts should be made.

I will say one last thing.

Sure.

And that is not just the federal government, but all of our governmental entities should be taking a lesson from what's going on at the federal level.

That means our states, our cities, our boards of education, they all need to go in and examine what their budgets are being spent on and start reducing the costs because.

It's coming back to the voters time and time again to spend more money or to to spend more tax dollars has to stop.

So very shortly, if I could just really quickly, then we'll go to you very shortly here.

We're going to move to questions.

So if you've got something that you want to ask our panelists that you would like our panelists to address or engage, think about that now will be coming to you shortly.

And City Club staff will be there to assist you getting to the microphone.

But yes, Gordon, I want to add to that.

He made a good point.

You know, President Trump yesterday said we know when to take the scalpel, you know, on the tariffs.

He's kind of paused that now for three days.

So he doesn't like he may say, oh, he's a king or he's bringing a dictatorship.

No, he is listening.

He is changing some tunes to some policies.

He's still keeping with his focus and what his mission is.

But he is listening and taking note of what is happening and how quickly is it the best thing for the country.

And he has pivoted on some things.

And I think you may continue to see that as we roll through this agenda, although, I mean, on that issue, I mean, threatening to impose steep tariffs on our trading partners, you know, Canada and Mexico, then pulling it back, delaying it, you know, that uncertainty can rattle investors and lead to, you know, uncertainty in the economy.

Do you think, you know, markets do not like uncertainty, so you're going to have to redouble you do it back to what that is.

And that's why I think you think the Dow and the markets have gone up, up and down.

On the flipside, though, you know, again, I'm more from a business tax side.

The you know, we already have the revised NAFTA now.

So let's look at this.

You know, I think he's trying to achieve some things in his first rounds of, you know, potential tariffs, you know, standards the federal trade agreed Mexico to work with against the cartel.

So he is using these are the cards he's playing are negotiating chips.

Yet remember, Trump is a businessman and a master negotiator.

He's using this to get these countries to agree to what he wants the United States and these countries to work with us on these issues.

So I think we'll see some pivot to that.

But I but I do markets like uncertainty, but that's we are where we are right now that but Canada is worried that he's going to blow up their entire alliance.

Something I was reading this morning.

In any event, I'd like to turn to questions now.

So we are about to begin the audience Q&A.

So for our listening audience either live streamed or on the radio, I'm Nick Castell, government reporter with Signal Cleveland on the moderator.

For today's conversation, we are joined by three Republican leaders in northeast Ohio.

They're providing their insight and analysis on President Trump's second term.

So far here on stage, we have David Arradondo, former executive chairman of the Lorain County Republican Party.

Lisa Stickin, chairman of the Republican Party of Cuyahoga County, and Gordon Short, who is the Ward four councilman and president of Strongsville City Council.

And now it is your turn to join this conversation.

So again, if you've got a question, get ready to come to the microph Hello.

First, I really want to thank you for being here.

It's very important and we are so lucky in the city of Cleveland to have a place like the City Club where we can have a civil discourse on important questions of the day.

Please know I am here because I have a sincere interest in your response to a question that has bothered me for quite some.

In the United States, we've grown to believe in the importance of truth, justice and democracy.

The current president is well-known in his campaigns and while in office of stating falsehoods.

Very quick examples.

The 2020 election was stolen.

Despite the fact that these claims have been consistently debunked by courts and election officials.

Since he has retaken office, he stated without any evidence that the mid air crash over the Potomac that killed 67 people was caused by a DEA hire.

And of course, his recent one.

Regarding if I may, thank you for the question.

My question.

My question.

Sure.

If I may, the question.

So here's my question.

Do you believe it's important for the president of the United States to tell the truth?

And what in your opinion and the Republican Party, are the consequences of the president of the United States not telling the truth?

Lisa.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the question.

And let's hear an answer.

Lisa, what do you think?

Well, I would say look at the last four years prior to this.

And I think the consequence for Joe Biden and perhaps concealing his I have got you know, folks, let's let let's let her answer the question.

You've asked it.

The floor is yours.

So here's the thing.

You're not going to like my answer because we're not going to agree.

So let's start there.

One, I think you're you're sort of selecting certain lines where I could provide you counter points within Republican circles that we view these things.

One, we're in Ohio and we're blessed with very safe and secure elections.

So let's start there.

I think.

You know, we as a community come together, both Republicans and Democrats, to, I think, deliver.

So let's start there.

Within other states, they don't have the apparatus and set ups that we have.

There were some issues within the last election cycle.

I think what you saw the Republican Party do was address those ahead of the gate sort of ahead and just really go into those states and embrace those particular voter laws.

I mean, they're not what Ohio has was a gold standard.

I just want to start there.

So when we talk about election integrity, I could point to specific issues in Pennsylvania, in Georgia, consent decrees that changed the rules on, you know, mail in ballots.

We could talk about this in Pennsylvania.

You know, how they changed the rules on the absentee mail ballots.

And now they ended up coming in with a decision that undid that decision which led to many ballots being counted.

But why?

This is kind of rehashing issues that really kind of didn't resonate in the 2024 election is because that is what the voters were looking at in this election.

Let's start there, number one.

Number two, you know, I think the last four years with President Biden, I don't think the public had confidence.

They didn't feel that he was president and as alert as he needed to be.

And they felt there was a concealment of that.

So talking about honesty, I think there is an impact there.

And I believe the voters spoke on that issue.

I thank you very much.

Thank you for the question.

I would just note, I mean, yes, the Pennsylvania issue was a real legal issue that was litigated over the timing of I think it was the provisional and absentee ballots.

There are other wackier claims out there, too, like, you know, satellites changing votes.

You know, if satellites from Italy and, you know, even President Trump's own attorney general at the time, William Barr, said that some of those claims were.

Yes.

But I do take your point that there was real litigation over that particular issue.

I don't know if it would have changed the results, but it was it was something that was litigated.

Yes, sir.

Your question.

All right.

I appreciate David mentioning how the cabinet members are going to go through things as opposed to what was happening before that.

But I want to ask a question either or.

Like if you had to choose in the late 1990s, who had John Kasich, who was the head of the Budget Committee in the House of Representatives, he's elected official yet hearings to see what they could trim out of the budget.

He did it in an open process.

Democratic government kind of a way.

He's a Republican.

Did you like that process and would you prefer that process which balanced the budget and had us paying the debt?

Would you prefer that process to Elon Musk?

That's my question.

David, we'll go to you.

I think both both process fees are acceptable.

So I don't think there's any doubt in as you said, we balance the federal budget was was balanced in the 1990s and we've we've strayed from we've strayed from that.

So we have to find ways to bring down the deficit, to bring down inflation, because that is what the president has promised us to do.

And so therefore, if that means we have to reduce the costs in each of these departments by the federal government, do you want to do the Kasich way?

Do you want to do the.

Elon Musk, thank you very much.

We'll go to you.

I mean, yeah, I think the question is, too, is like an open process by a congressional committee versus.

Right.

You know, Elon Musk and his staff going in there and cutting as they will.

I think both can be be be done.

And Congress does have that responsibility to create the budget.

What what Musk is doing and as I had said before, each of the cabinet ministers has to take a look at their respective departments.

They have to do their job.

They can't depend upon Elon Musk to do it.

Elon can come to them and say, I think you should look at this and look at that and they can say, fine, we don't with that or yes, we're going to proceed with it.

So I think it's it's a team effort that can be done in order to to balance the budget.

Congress has their role.

They have to do their job.

But Elon and each of the respective departments have to do their job, too.

Can I jump in on that?

Sure.

I also did see Speaker Johnson recently come on different interviews.

Various stations say we welcome Democrats to be part of the process.

I think getting everyone in the room could start start some discussions.

Yes.

Your question, please.

Hi, my name is Kyle Williams.

I am 16 and I go to this custom high school.

And with the future of the U.S. coming, what I'm going to be, at least for me, I'm going to be working age when, you know, Trump's first term.

I mean, the second term ends.

I want to know, do you think that if we keep cutting federal jobs, do you think that's going to persuade people from working federal jobs, such as how, oh, there's many engineers who don't want to work at places like NASCAR and are choosing other alternatives because they think they're going to get cut off.

I mean, get cut at one point.

It sounds like the worry is, you know, is that going to turn away talent who could be of service to the federal government?

Gordon, what do you think about that?

I think this initial rounds may be tough.

I think as we get through this, we see what staffing levels are needed.

This would be great opportunity Right here in Killeen, we have NASA's.

Glenn right.

We have we have federal research facilities here.

Defense is here.

There's so many people that do those jobs and good people.

I think, if anything, I might argue the benefits and the pay might be better because there's less waste and they need to attract that talent just like, I mean, you know, in the private sector.

Right.

If you need to attract talent.

Yeah.

Wages, benefits and the quality of the job.

And so I think that I'll still be there and there's still going to be good positions and good research funded by the United States government once they get through this initial round of where is the waste and we can get rid of the waste in the government.

And that's I think what they're doing now is finally looking at all of that and going to take it and then from there, rebuild the government back up from a more efficient standpoint.

Yes.

Your question, please.

All right.

My name is Joe McCourt.

I work at Metro Health.

So obviously it is the safe haven for our city.

I do want to say thank you to Gordon and Lisa.

I work in Parma, strong Ukrainian population, and I'm very grateful for your support for them.

Max Miller is not supporting them.

Processes Facebook page.

Though my concerns are the current budget cuts that are coming up that may be affecting our Medicaid and Medicare.

I'm sure you're aware 12% of the population in Cuyahoga County has Medicaid.

92% of them are working.

And many of our Medicaid patients are also senior citizens who rely on that for their assisted living, long term care and everything out.

How if they're going to cut our health care funding, how do you expect those senior citizens to continue living in the nursing homes?

Where should they go?

And then what about the other people in our community that rely on us for their health care coverage?

Because we all know health care is not cheap?

Lisa, can I put that question to you?

It was Republican Governor.

Thank you, folks.

Thank you, folks.

Republican Governor John Kasich, who expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

What do you think about the possibility of cuts?

Well, first of all, I have seen Republican leaders specifically address that there wouldn't be cuts to these particular areas.

And they said that these are kind of alarm bells, that people are trying to to send to shut down discussion on cuts that should happen.

So I do think this is a process.

I think there will be suggestions a budget passed.

I think if you have questions and concerns, contact your representatives.

Be engaged in that discussion.

But but I would say let's not put the cart before the horse.

I mean, I think when we're talking about cutting the bloated government in terms of what we can do with our taxpayer dollars, I think it's been very clear with many Republican leaders that they're not looking to harm, particularly our senior citizens.

Gordon.

No, I would I would agree with that and say, you know, looking at, again, the waste, you know, a lot of it was overpaid.

But I think the biggest thing that I think the GAO was the biggest waste was in the Medicaid medic Medicare program.

So there is some waste there.

But should we say just, you know, for senior citizen not to have Medicaid?

No, I think there will be a negotiation.

Congress, Congress sets the budget for that, how they're going to allocate it from there.

But I do think there will be some discussion around that because those are programs that Americans need and rely upon that we built net for them that we need to be continued on.

And I don't think, you know, this administration wants to completely cut that out and throw those people on the street.

So we will see how things turn out.

Obviously, things are still in action.

Yes.

Your question, please.

Yes, please address how cutting the IRS, which generates considerably more revenue than it costs, cuts, waste, fraud and abuse, and in particular the team which developed and maintained the self filing app.

David or Gordon.

You look like I went, Oh, you want to take this cutting the IRS, please do.

So that agency is probably one of the most that needs reform in the entire United States government that age.

The fact they audit.

Now, listen, they have a job to do.

They are to enforce and to administer the tax revenue laws of the United States of America.

They have taken upon themselves over the years for many programs to become the congressional legislative branch to interpret the way they see fit.

That agency, while they need to audit their aggressive you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

It is an agency run amok.

And I am happy and excited that this administration and DOJ's going in there to finally set the tone and reset the IRS.

It's not meant to be the Internal Revenue police of the United States.

It's meant to enforce and collect tax revenue, but it's not meant to disgrace, to punish and to have taxpayers be guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

So that agency, we need to have full reform to act in the capacity it was meant to be, not to become the police state that it is today, where a lot of a lot of times, too, with agents, they don't even think the law applies to them.

So I am happy to see the IRS reformed and look forward to a new and better IRS in this country in the coming years.

Well, let me ask I mean, you tell a passionate about that first hand experience as a tax accountant and tax IRS.

There you go.

And I saw I mean, most recently there's been discussion cutting as much as 50% of the staff.

I mean, do you get to a point, though, where the IRS cannot even enforce the tax code?

The IRS, too?

Well, the IRS, too, needs to improve on its technology efficiencies tax.

We do the tax itself filing, but the technologies are so bad, rather than spending 80 billion on new people to go after and chase people down, technology, more efficiencies in the filing systems and the programs, that's where they need to spend their money, not on more personnel to chase down the average American that's just trying to pay their bills and maybe made an error on their return.

I mean, their pursuit of people and is is ridiculous.

Well, and I think the question that we just heard there room for four questions at the microphone.

But is there was a self filing app.

It seems like it's not active any more.

This was an opportunity for people to file without having to go through a tax preparer that might charge them, you know, additional fees on top of that.

Yeah, I mean, maybe it's something going to pause.

I mean, I'm not exactly sure, but but bring that back and itself filing online for sure.

But again, they have a lot of brilliant security technology and how they process for the IRS definitely needs reformed.

All right.

Next question, please.

Thank you.

Hi, This is Atlanta.

I'm a Cuyahoga County.

I have a question about oh, since it seems like you're pleased with President Trump and what he's doing, I'd like to know what your thoughts are on the worldview of Trump, because this is a world society and the world and all of our allies are quite honestly embarrassed by him.

I'm embarrassed by the way he treats our allies.

The way he treated Zelensky was appalling.

And I'd like to know, is that how you think he should be a great negotiator?

Thank you for the question, people.

I think.

Thank you, folks.

We'll get to the answer to that question when I say some time so we can get maybe a couple more questions in.

But David, to you, the question about if allies, allies are worried that you know about their connections with the United States, do you think President Trump should be more soothing to them?

First of all, what we have to see with President Trump is he is the most transparent president we've had in our history.

Right, folks, Thank you.

You don't have you had no access.

You had no capability of our previous president.

Who wasn't the president.

There was somebody else who was performing on his part.

Well, so therefore, let me just say this.

That President Trump on a daily basis is able to take questions from anyone at almost any time.

So his transparency translates to the rest of the world.

And that is to say that the United States is not the caretaker of the world.

The United States is an ally.

And so that everybody going forth has to contribute to their security, to their welfare, and cannot depend upon the United States to carry them.

And that is his answer.

And that is what he is saying to these allies who are are suddenly now saying, oh, my goodness, now we have to take care of ourselves.

Now we have to worry about our own security.

Keep in mind that over the four years that President Trump was the president, there were no war started.

Israel was not invaded, Ukraine was not invaded.

The Chinese kept their place.

And that is the transparency of President Trump to the rest of the world that you you know, we're going to have America first and you in turn have to be able to carry your own weight.

And so if they are worried, then they better start carrying their own weight, because now those days are over where we are, the baby sitter of the world.

Well, if I can just very briefly as a follow up there, I mean, the issue of of transparency, I think there's another element to this relationship with allies where people aren't certain if what he's saying is what he really means, like making Canada the 51st state.

Canada is thinking, do you really mean that?

Is that a threat?

I mean, there's there's an element of uncertainty there, too.

I mean, what do you think about that?

Because like markets and tariffs, I think allies want certainty from the biggest economy in the world.

And what we see is that those leaders do have access to him.

So within a matter of minutes, a president sign bomb of Mexico can get on the phone and have a conversation without having to come to Washington or or have that kind of a discussion and be able to litigate what those tariffs are supposed to do.

So just transparency is Trump has an openness to the world.

You want to talk to me?

Let's talk.

Okay.

I'll agree with what you want to do.

Let's pause the tariffs or you know, we're going to help you with the border or whatever it might be.

So there is there is a benefit to a proactive president that we sure did not have over the last four years.

We'll move on to another question.

Your question, please, sir.

Sure.

So in the last election, we saw a very significant shift of voters towards towards Trump in the sense that we had he won both the Electoral College convincingly and the popular vote, which hasn't happened for Republicans in a long time.

Big shift of minorities towards towards Trump, big shift in even deep blue states such as New York and New Jersey.

He didn't win those but big shifts towards Trump.

And it during the the joint address to Congress he had there was a the those who viewed it 70% approved of him and of his.

The question and the question is will this translate into gains in the midterms?

Do you think, in any midterm, you always expected to be some backlash to the party in power?

But Lisa, what do you think?

I think those are good points In the last election cycle, we did see some unprecedented gains where we were even talking before this panel.

You know, this is an election where the candidate, Kamala Harris, vice president Harris, did not improve in any precinct in the entire country over.

How about President Biden performance by Precinct zero?

Yeah, I got that from CNN.

Henry And he did the analysis as good guy.

And that was surprising to me.

But that was kind of the theme of this of this election.

I think.

And I think there was unprecedented gains in the groups.

The question asker highlighted.

I think we're we're seeing that a lot of that is holding the support.

But I think it's up to the party and the administration to continue to grow those relationships.

And look, I think the president campaigned on a platform.

He's enacting that platform.

So I think voters that supported him are not surprised by what's happening.

Well, thank you very much.

Many more things I'd love to talk about, but we are out of time.

I'll turn it back over to our emcee.

Thank you very much to David Arredondo, Gordon Short, Lisa stickman and Nick Castillo for joining us today at the City Club.

Forums like this one are made possible.

Thanks to generous support from individuals like you, you can learn more about how to become guardian of free speech at Club dot org.

The City Club would like to welcome students joining us today from Cleveland Early College High School and M.C.

Squared STEM High school.

Welcome.

And the City Club would also like to welcome guests at the table hosted by McAuley and Company.

Thanks to you as well.

Coming up next week at the City Club on Friday, March 14th, the City Club will once again host the 2025 High School Debate Championship.

The finalists will debate the topic resolved.

The development of artificial general intelligence is immoral.

It should be interesting.

And then on Friday, March 21st, we will talk about the future of diverse diversity, equity and inclusion with Kevin Clayton from the Cleveland Cavaliers.

Go Cavs.

Erica merritt at Equifax Group and Mark Swain Fox with the diversity center of northeast Ohio.

You can get tickets and learn more about these and other forums at City Club dot org.

And that brings us to the end of today's forum.

Thank you once again to David Gordon, Lisa and Nick.

I'm Hugh Mackay and this forum is now adjourned for information on upcoming speakers or for podcasts of the City Club.

Go to City Club Dawg.

The ideas expressed in City Club forums are those of the speakers and not of the City Club of Cleveland Ideastream Public Media or their sponsors.

Production and distribution of City club forums and ideastream Public media are made possible by PNC and the United Black Fond of Greater Cleveland, Inc..