The episode also turns its focus to international religious freedom, highlighting the perilous situation faced by Christians in Nigeria. Despite a significant drop in U.S. designation, advocates like Tony Perkins push for stronger action against the systemic religious violence. Additionally, the program reviews a major U.S. Supreme Court case that could redefine states’ authority to withhold Medicaid funds from organizations like Planned Parenthood. Chris Chandeville of Alliance Defending Freedom offers an in-depth analysis from inside the courtroom.
SPEAKER 15 :
from the heart of our nation’s capital in Washington, D.C., bringing compelling interviews, insightful analysis, taking you beyond the headlines and soundbites into conversations with our nation’s leaders and newsmakers, all from a biblical worldview. Washington Watch with Tony Perkins starts now.
SPEAKER 07 :
This is one of the most important days, in my opinion, in American history. It’s our declaration of economic independence. For years, hardworking American citizens were forced to sit on the sidelines as other nations got rich and powerful, much of it at our expense. But now it’s our turn to prosper, and in so doing, use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt, and it’ll all happen very quickly.
SPEAKER 04 :
That was President Donald Trump just a little over an hour ago announcing new tariffs on a list of foreign countries on what has been dubbed Liberation Day. Welcome to this April 2nd, 2025 edition of Washington Watch. I’m Tony Perkins, your host. Thanks for tuning in. Well, not everyone is celebrating Liberation Day.
SPEAKER 14 :
Prices will rise on virtually every kind of product. Produce, medicines, cars, homes, appliances, metals, paper products, beer, lumber, fertilizer and more. But is Donald Trump worried? Not even a little bit. In fact, he said the other day he couldn’t care less if prices go up. You hear that, America? Life is about to become far more expensive.
SPEAKER 04 :
That was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer earlier today making his objections clear. We’ll explore what today’s announcement means for the economy and for the American family with North Carolina Congressman Dr. Greg Murphy, who serves on the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning in a major case out of South Carolina.
SPEAKER 01 :
Taxpayers should not be compelled to fund an organization that profits from abortion and pushes experimental treatments on vulnerable children. And low-income women are entitled to better treatment than Planned Parenthood provides.
SPEAKER 04 :
That was John Bursch. He is a senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom who represented the state of South Carolina at the court today. The outcome could affect whether states can direct Medicaid funds to legitimate health care providers of their choice. We’ll get analysis from Chris Shandell, a member of the ADF appellate team who was inside the courtroom this morning. Also this week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that all physical fitness requirements for combat roles will be sex neutral going forward. As you might imagine, the left is not passive on this one. They’re pushing back. We’re going to talk with Congressman Pat Harrigan, a combat decorated Green Beret, about the implications for our military and national defense. And finally, the World Health Organization, the WHO, is facing financial troubles. I know many of you are probably reaching for the Kleenexes right now. Well, in a memo to staff last week, WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus warned of looming budget cuts because of the Trump administration’s plan to reduce U.S. funding. We’re going to discuss that with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, who will also give us the latest on the budget resolution standoff in the Senate between Republicans and Democrats. That’s all ahead on today’s edition of Washington Watch, so stay with us. By the way, the seventh episode of God and Government is now available on the StandFirm app. This week, we answered the question of how Christians can engage in public policy debates in an environment where right and wrong have become subjective. You can find out how to do it by getting access to the God and Government course on the StandFirm app. To find out more, text the word COURSE to 67742. That’s the word COURSE to 67742. Well, I hope this first Liberation Day, as coined by President Trump, finds you well. Just in the last hour, the president unveiled his new reciprocal tariffs at the White House. The theme for the day, make America wealthy again. What will this mean for the U.S. consumer and for the U.S. economy? We’ll hear today. Now to share more is Congressman and Dr. Greg Murphy, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, the House Veterans Affairs Committee, as well as the House Administration Committee. He represents the third congressional district of North Carolina. Congressman Murphy, welcome back to the program. Great to see you. Nice to see you. Thank you, Tony. So I want to get your thoughts on the president’s new reciprocal tariffs on this first Liberation Day.
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah, Tony, I think we have to step back and kind of say, why? Why is this all occurring? Because I think, truth be told, I don’t know that that message has gone out very well. So if you look at what’s happened with trade in the United States, the Biden administration did absolutely nothing over the last four years in American trade. And what President Trump has realized Sadly enough, we haven’t had any action upon this, is that we’ve been treated very, very poorly by a lot of our trade partners, such that we have such a massive trade deficit. And so look at some of these countries, India, some of the other Southeast Asia countries that also put huge tariffs on American goods. He’s literally trying to level the playing field. And if you look at what China’s doing to us also, so much tariff, we’re not allowed to put American products in their markets. So why are they allowed to really flood our markets? It’s trying to rebuild what’s happened in America, the fact of the fall of manufacturing and so many other industries in the United States. This is what the aim is. The methods are difficult. Sometimes I’ll be ready to admit, but this is what the president is aiming to do, also to try to onshore, nearshore, really, so much of our pharmaceutical industry that really is critical for the nation’s medicines.
SPEAKER 04 :
But Dr. Murphy, if I could use an analogy here, sometimes when you take that medicine, it doesn’t necessarily taste well at first. But if you want to get better, you got to take it.
SPEAKER 17 :
I think that’s a very good analogy, Tony. And sadly enough, as with a lot of the other things that the administration is doing as far as hiring freezes, as far as trying to cut things back, the nation really is in a close to being in very close to financial peril where we’re going to face a sovereign debt crisis. We’re trying to do things to prevent problems in the future. And as you noted with the medicine, it’s kind of difficult at times really at the beginning, but we’re really trying to solve a huge problem. I wish we messaged better on that, but hopefully moving forward, America really understands not only the end to what this is or why the methods are being done,
SPEAKER 04 :
I mean, this has been going on for years, this trade imbalance, where we have a – essentially what it means is that we’re giving money to other countries because we’re buying their cheaper products. They’re not buying our products. In fact, many of them shut the door to our products, which means when we don’t produce products, we don’t create jobs, and we don’t have good-paying jobs. So this is about – creating jobs. It’s about bringing more manufacturing back home. In the end, it’s about a stronger, more resilient economy, is it not?
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah, it also is about national security, Tony, and I think we really can’t emphasize that enough. We want to bring a manufacturing sector back to the United States that has been killed in the last quarter century. But we also want to make sure that this nation is secure, that we’re able to produce products at home that are important for our national defense, be they pharmaceuticals, be they agricultural products, be they manufacturing items that are critical for this nation’s survival. So this is also a big picture of what we’re trying to do moving forward with some of these tariffs.
SPEAKER 04 :
And that’s not a hypothetical. Did we not see that as an issue back during COVID?
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah, absolutely. Especially, you know, we look at our medicines. There was a point, really, if China decided they’d cut off our medicines, we had two months of critical medicines. Truth be told, as someone who now, because of some surgery last year, has to take medicines on a daily basis, I think this is critical more than anything. I understand its importance more than anything to make sure that we have survival for patients in the United States.
SPEAKER 04 :
So let’s talk practical implications here. We talk big picture. What does this mean for our country? What does it mean for national defense? What does it mean for our economy going forward? How is this going to impact the average American family?
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah, and I think that’s a critical item to say. How is this going to impact? What’s it going to do to somebody’s daily lives? You know, the whole purpose of these tariffs, you know, people have talked about, well, they’ll be a revenue generator for our debt. I don’t want them to be. I want them to be a zero revenue generator. That means we’re able to actually tell countries that or get countries to act in an interest that is interest to both countries. We get our goods there and they can get our goods here without tariffs. So we’d love to really get to a point where these tariffs are not needed. How does it happen to the average person? There may be a rise, a short-term rise in some prices until manufacturing here in the United States can kick up. Hopefully it’s not. Hopefully these countries understand. We’ve seen pressure. We’ve seen things change in Mexico. We’ve seen things change in India. We’ve seen things change in Vietnam since the president has introduced the whole tariff idea. We want countries really to act well so we don’t have to have any of this so there is no effect on the United States.
SPEAKER 04 :
So I want to talk about China for a moment, Dr. Murphy, because you’re a member of the Taiwan Caucus. You track what’s happening there very closely. Do you think that China is going to adjust their trade relationship with us?
SPEAKER 17 :
I think they will. They’re going to talk a good talk. But if you look at what happened with President Reagan in the Soviet Union, how he was able to literally tear the wall down, how that happened in a bellicose time when the Soviet Union was really trying to be the world power over the United States, is he got at their economy. But the same thing’s happening with China. China has now tried to have a one world policy where they’re taking over the world. But if you look at what China’s economy is, they only have about a 30 percent domestic production or rather domestic consumption. If we’re able to get back at that where we’re not taking in all their goods all the time, it really hinders the ability for China to push force communism across the world. And I think this is all, again, part of national security as we’re trying to beat back the Chinese influence. Mal-influence really is what’s happening worldwide.
SPEAKER 04 :
And should not human rights be a part of that calculation? We look at what they’re doing to religious minorities. And as you said, they’re exporting. They’re exporting a lot of their totalitarian tactics and even their technology that other repressive governments are using.
SPEAKER 17 :
Sure, and to your point, what they’ve done to the Uyghurs, forced organ harvesting, so many of these horrible, horrible things that they’re doing really to their own people. What would the world look like if they ruled the world? So again, this is all part of a big policy to get American manufacturing back up, but it’s also a part of national security and international policy.
SPEAKER 04 :
As you, I want to dwell here for just a moment on China and Taiwan. The State Department sanctioned six Beijing and Hong Kong authorities responsible for abuses in Hong Kong this past week. What are some of the ways you would like to see the Trump administration being more aggressive in countering the Chinese Communist Party’s reach and influence beyond just the trade issue?
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, we have to look at where they are. You know, if you go over to Africa, the Belt and Road Initiative, same thing in Central America and in South America, they’ve gotten in and they’re developing all these pathways and all the infrastructure a lot of these countries need. But what they’re really trying to do is make sure that the Chinese influence is there to stay. We saw what President Trump did with the Panama Canal. You have to carry a big stick. You know, the last administration had not a big stick but a big whimper is what the rest of the world saw from the United States. So, you know, Trump can be very tough at times, and sometimes people don’t like that. But I think that attitude really brings people to stand up and say, okay, we actually have to deal with a strong United States. It’s difficult at times. Sometimes the methods don’t give you all the touchy-feelyness that some countries want and some liberals across the nation want. But this is really firm policy. So many of the countries of the world don’t understand or don’t really respect, rather, policies like and policies were put forth by the Biden administration, the tenor of the Biden administration. We’re seen as too tough, too mean. But this is how the world stands up and understands that we mean business.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, when you look at the Belt and Road Initiative of the Chinese Communist Party, that’s a predatory. They’re not helping these other countries. They want the rare earth minerals. They’re looking to benefit themselves, not these countries.
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah. Look at what’s happened in Ukraine. I mean, the president offered Zelensky a very good option to get out of this war where, you know, millions of individuals are dying and it’s just totally unnecessarily. It’s to say, look, we’ll put American influence there. We want something for it. And maybe that pushes Russia and gives Putin another chance to think about what he’s doing. But this is all a very, very good policy move for international world peace. Agreed.
SPEAKER 04 :
Dr. Greg Murphy, always great to see you. Thanks so much for joining us on Washington Watch today.
SPEAKER 17 :
Great. Have a great day.
SPEAKER 04 :
You too. All right. On the other side of the break, we’re going to go to a story on the U.S. Supreme Court. They heard oral arguments in a big case out of South Carolina today. We talk about it. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 08 :
At Family Research Council, we believe religious freedom is a fundamental human right that all governments must protect. That’s why FRC President Tony Perkins went to Capitol Hill to testify on behalf of persecuted Christians in Nigeria. Islamist terror groups target Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria with brutal violence. Representative Chris Smith, who chaired the hearing, said 55,000 people have been killed and 21,000 abducted in the last five years alone. The congressman also stressed that 89% of Christians in the world who are martyred are from Nigeria.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yet the government of Nigeria has failed to make progress against religiously motivated persecution of Christians despite religious freedom being enshrined as an essential human right in their constitution.
SPEAKER 08 :
Tony Perkins called for the United States to send an unmistakable message.
SPEAKER 04 :
This is systematic religious violence. Nigeria must be redesignated a country of particular concern. The Biden administration’s removal of this designation was a reckless mistake that emboldened the very terrorists who are slaughtering Christians.
SPEAKER 08 :
Redesignating Nigeria will enable the U.S. government to pressure Nigerian leaders to protect vulnerable Christians.
SPEAKER 04 :
These are not just numbers. These are fathers, they’re mothers, they’re children, they’re families.
SPEAKER 08 :
Bishop Wilfred Anagabe risked his life to speak out, sharing firsthand accounts of the danger faced in his church district in central Nigeria.
SPEAKER 11 :
We live in fear because at any point it can be our turn to be killed. But to remain silent is to die twice. So I have chosen to speak.
SPEAKER 08 :
FRC is calling on President Trump to act now to promote religious freedom around the globe and speak up on behalf of Christians in Nigeria.
SPEAKER 09 :
Download the new Stand Firm app for Apple and Android phones today and join a wonderful community of fellow believers. We’ve created a special place for you to access news from a biblical perspective, read and listen to daily devotionals, pray for current events and more. Share the Stand Firm app with your friends, family and church members and stand firm everywhere you go.
SPEAKER 13 :
Looking for a trusted source of news that shares your Christian values? Turn to The Washington Stand, your ultimate destination for informed, faith-centered reporting. Our dedicated team goes beyond the headlines, delivering stories that matter most to believers. From breaking events to cultural insights, we provide clear, compassionate coverage through a biblical lens. Discover news you can trust at The Washington Stand, where faith and facts meet every day.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Good to have you with us. All right. Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard one of the biggest abortion cases since Dobbs. And the case has the potential to decide whether states can withhold Medicaid funds from abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Here to share more about what happened at the Supreme Court today is Chris Chandeville, who is one of the Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsels on their appellate advocacy team. ADF represents the petitioner in this case, which is South Carolina’s Department of Health and Human Services. Chris, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 12 :
Sure. Thanks so much for having me on.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. So let me start with this, your overall take of the oral arguments today before the court.
SPEAKER 12 :
Sure. So we feel very good coming out of oral argument today. My boss, John Bursch, argued the case on behalf of South Carolina’s director of its health and human services, did a fantastic job as we all knew he would. I was privileged to get to sit second chair. So right by his side there in the courtroom had a front row seat to see all the justices interacting with John and asking him questions, asking really hard questions of the other side. And what became very clear very quickly is that the justices whose votes we need to prevail in this case clearly understand how important it is for the court to speak clearly and issue an opinion that makes clear that If Congress is going to impose requirements on states as a condition for them accepting Medicaid funding, that they could be dragged into federal court and have to defend against these really costly federal lawsuits, that Congress needs to speak with a very clear voice and the justice on the court. seem to understand very well how important that is to the states, how important it is to South Carolina, our client in this case. And so we feel very good about the kinds of questions the justices were asking and how well our arguments were received.
SPEAKER 04 :
Chris, just to put this in context for our viewers and listeners to know the scope of this, this is not just about Planned Parenthood. This case is about them, but the implications of a decision could be far-reaching. You’ve got probably 9,000 disqualified Medicaid providers out there in the system. Depending on how this case goes, they could each sue to be or they could have a consumer sue saying they’ve been denied a service from one of these and take a state to court.
SPEAKER 12 :
That’s right. And that actually came up during the argument today about how it would really be just absurd to think that any of those 9,000 providers that have been disqualified from Medicaid for a whole host of reasons. So providers that are just providing really low-quality poor care, putting their patients at risk, putting their patients… in danger, committing medical malpractice. And Planned Parenthood’s theory is if a state makes that decision that this provider is not qualified and is going to be dangerous to its citizens and disqualifies them as a result of that, that one individual who’s been to that provider one time in the past has a federal right to drag the state into federal court and force it to defend its decision to disqualify that provider. That position just doesn’t make a lot of sense. Even we heard from Justice Barrett. She questioned the attorneys for Planned Parenthood and really ask them, how does it make sense that the system would be set up that way? And Planned Parenthood’s attorneys just didn’t have a good answer to that question.
SPEAKER 04 :
You also have the issue, Planned Parenthood has become, I think, the nation’s second largest trafficker in transgender facilitating drugs, hormones that they’re providing, and in many cases to minors. And you have states like South Carolina that want to protect minors from this. So, I mean, it seems like the state would be forced to do something and support something that’s at cross purposes with the laws that they’ve adopted and passed.
SPEAKER 12 :
That’s right. So we’ve known for years, obviously, that Planned Parenthood performs hundreds of thousands of abortions every year. They’re very proud of that. They’re very bold about proclaiming that, how many innocent lives they’re taking every year. After Dobbs, what we saw from Planned Parenthood is that they doubled down on a radical political agenda. And now they’re expanding, like you said, outside of just doing abortions. Now they’re also providing these dangerous so-called gender transition drugs. They’ve become the second largest provider across the country. They’ve even admitted to providing these drugs to minors, sometimes with parental consent, sometimes finding ways around that. And so we’re very concerned. And South Carolina has said, you know, listen, taxpayers in our state should not be forced to fund a radical multi-billion dollar organization that is so fundamentally at odds with the values and the priorities of our citizens. South Carolina is a pro-life state. South Carolina’s leadership, Governor McMaster, has said, I want to make sure my citizens are protected and cared for and that they receive the best and the highest quality health care that they can, even and especially those citizens in South Carolina who can’t afford to pay for their own medical assistance and who are on Medicaid as a result. And so this case is about whether or not states will be free to redirect limited taxpayer resources away from activist organizations like Planned Parenthood that are advancing an agenda and direct those taxpayer funds to providers offering comprehensive health care services and not performing abortions and not distributing these dangerous drugs to minors.
SPEAKER 04 :
So, Chris, bottom line here is that as we anticipate the Trump administration moving more toward block grants when it comes to programs such as Medicaid, that the states will not be able to discern how to spend those monies in keeping with the values, as you pointed out, like South Carolina has. We’ll ultimately have judges actually determining how these Medicaid dollars are spent.
SPEAKER 12 :
Right, and that’s what we’ve seen for decades in this area of the law, unfortunately, is that Congress in passing the Medicaid Act was very intentional that Congress wanted states to have discretion to decide which providers are qualified and which providers are disqualified. But unfortunately, thanks to some bad precedent and some bad lower court decisions, including the case that we’re appealing, that discretion that Congress gave to the states, federal courts have been stealing that discretion for themselves. And they’ve been telling states like South Carolina, no, you have to fund organizations like Planned Parenthood. And South Carolina hasn’t really had a say. in that decision as a result of what the lower courts have said. So we’re very hopeful and optimistic that the Supreme Court is going to issue a sweeping ruling that will free states across the country to say, no, our taxpayer dollars are not going to fund a radical organization like Planned Parenthood. We’re going to fund providers that are actually offering real, comprehensive health care services to the citizens who live in our state.
SPEAKER 04 :
It’s a far-reaching decision that the court could come up with. We just have about 30 seconds left. Chris, what’s the timeline here? When do we think we’ll have an opinion from the court?
SPEAKER 12 :
So typically the Supreme Court releases its opinions by the end of June. So we’re expecting an opinion in this case by the end of June. We think, you know, in the meantime, ADF is going to continue to, you know, get the word out that Planned Parenthood really isn’t the health care provider that a lot of people out there think it is. It’s not offering comprehensive care. It’s mainly doubling down on this radical agenda of abortion and contraception and these dangerous so-called gender transition drugs. And states like South Carolina should be free to use their resources to best serve their citizens.
SPEAKER 04 :
And we will pray to that end. Chris, thanks for joining us, folks. Stick with us. We’re back after this.
SPEAKER 06 :
Everything we do begins as an idea. Before there can be acts of courage, there must be the belief that some things are worth sacrificing for. Before there can be marriage, there is the idea that man should not be alone. Before there was freedom, there was the idea that individuals are created equal. It’s true that all ideas have consequences, but we’re less aware that all consequences are the fruit of ideas. Before there was murder, there was hate. Before there was a Holocaust, there was the belief by some people that other people are undesirable. Our beliefs determine our behavior, and our beliefs about life’s biggest questions determine our worldview. Where did I come from? Who decides what is right and wrong? What happens when I die? Our answers to these questions explain why people see the world so differently. Debates about abortion are really disagreements about where life gets its value. Debates over sexuality and gender and marriage are really disagreements about whether the rules are made by us or for us. What we think of as political debates are often much more than that. They’re disagreements about the purpose of our lives and the source of truth. As Christians, our goal must be to think biblically about everything. Our goal is to help you see beyond red and blue, left and right, to see the battle of ideas at the root of it all. Our goal is to equip Christians with a biblical worldview and help them advance and defend the faith in their families, communities, and the public square. Cultural renewal doesn’t begin with campaigns and elections. It begins with individuals turning from lies to truth. but that won’t happen if people can’t recognize a lie and don’t believe truth exists. We want to help you see the spiritual war behind the political war, the truth claims behind the press release, and the forest and the trees.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch, the website TonyPerkins.com. Better yet, get the Stand Firm app where you can have Washington Watch wherever you go. You also will have access to our news and commentary that comes to you from a biblical worldview, the Washington Stand, as well as our daily devotional, Stand on the Word. All that can be found on the Stand Firm app. Go to the App Store and download the Stand Firm app. Earlier this week, the Pentagon announced an order from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mandating that all physical fitness requirements for combat arms positions, that is units who are most likely to see significant fighting in wartime, be sex neutral. All right. It means the Pentagon has effectively eliminated the Biden era’s lower physical fitness standards for women in combat roles, returning the military to its intended goal of being prepared to fight and win wars. So what does this mean for our military? What would be the implications upon the fighting force? Well, joining me now to talk about this is Congressman Pat Harrigan from North Carolina’s 10th Congressional District. He’s a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He’s a graduate of West Point and a decorated member of the Green Beret Special Forces in the United States Army. Congressman Harrigan is uniquely qualified, I believe, to discuss this topic with me. Congressman, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hey, Tony, it’s great to be here. Thanks for having me back again.
SPEAKER 04 :
Let me ask you this question. What do you think?
SPEAKER 03 :
Look, I would tell all viewers combat is completely and totally unforgiving. It’s something that demands physical strength, endurance, mental toughness. The enemy simply does not adjust based on who you are or where you came from. It pushes everybody to their limits. And it simply punishes weakness without hesitation. And so I think that the Pentagon made exactly the right decision this week by ending gender-based physical fitness standards for all combat roles. And I think from now on, every single soldier in a combat unit will be held to the same expectations regardless of sex. And that’s exactly how it should be.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, and even female soldiers who have been a part of combat operations have said, this is a good thing because we want to meet the same standards so that we get the same amount of respect.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s exactly right. I mean, Major Kristen Greist, who was the second woman ever to have graduated from Ranger School, has said very clearly that lower standards for women simply reinforce the belief that women can’t perform the same job as men. And I think what we’ve got to understand is this makes it more difficult for women to earn the trust and confidence of their teammates. I think that the Pentagon’s new policy simply puts everybody on the same playing field. We know that you’re going to hit a certain standard, you’re going to have a certain capability, and you’re not going to fall below that. We’re not going to get substandard performance out of you. That’s how you build trust in a military unit.
SPEAKER 04 :
Pat, I have to ask this. Those that are responding, oh, this is horrible. This is such discriminatory tactics and policies. But look what’s been happening over the last year and a half, two years, especially in this fall’s election when it comes to women’s sports. There’s a recognition that there is a physical difference between men and women. And if it matters on the basketball court, it certainly should matter on the field of battle.
SPEAKER 03 :
Without a doubt, I mean, a long time ago, West Point, we studied the quote, upon the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds that upon other fields on other days will bear the fruits of victory. And we’ve got to understand that sports is simply a testing ground for future abilities in combat and we’ve got to understand that once you get to combat you can’t lose there’s no restarting there’s no moving on to the next game you have to win and you’ve got to have everybody on the team up to standards and and up to snuff carrying their own weight you you’ve gotta uh you gotta understand that if we’ve got you know 115 120 pound women on a special forces team, they gotta be able to carry and pick up that 220 pound guy if he gets hit and vice versa, right? Everybody on the team’s got to pull their weight and the weight of those to their left and to their right, creating even keel level fitness standards is exactly how you prepare our military to be ready to fight and actually win in combat.
SPEAKER 04 :
Congressman, I know there’s a new policy just announced this week, but I know there’s been some briefings that have taken place. So let me just ask you this question. What do we know about those women that under the previous policy were already in combat positions? What happens if they don’t meet these new uniform standards?
SPEAKER 03 :
You know, I don’t know exactly what will happen to them. I have not been briefed on what the Pentagon’s policy is, but I’ll tell you, if you don’t meet the standard, from my opinion and my perspective and my experience, you shouldn’t be in the military. You certainly should not be in those combat roles. There is a certain element of respect that comes from being able to meet the standard. And when we waver on our standards, when we lower our standards to accommodate folks that can’t meet the standard we have fundamentally changed the standard and we’ve changed the readiness we’ve changed the capability of that unit wherever those decisions are made and so look if you want to be in combat arms you now have to meet one standard if you are above that threshold you’re in the game if you’re below that threshold you shouldn’t be
SPEAKER 04 :
And that applies to both men and women. And it doesn’t matter if you can’t meet it because of your age. I mean, it’s unforgiving. You either meet the standard or you don’t.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s exactly right. And if you don’t meet the standard, not only do you put yourself at risk, you also put those to your left and your right that you’re fighting with at risk. Because like I said, if that 220-pound guy goes down and you can’t get him to safety, not only… Are you putting his life at risk? You’re also putting your own life at risk because you can’t fundamentally accomplish the basic task that is expected of you. I think that Pete Hegseth has said that that ends today.
SPEAKER 04 :
Congressman, always great to see you. Thanks so much for taking time to join us today.
SPEAKER 03 :
Good to see you, Tony. Thanks for having me.
SPEAKER 04 :
Absolutely. All right, after the break, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin will join us to discuss how America’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization, well, has them scrambling. So don’t go away, we’ll be right back.
SPEAKER 05 :
What is God’s role in government? What does the separation of church and state really mean? And how does morality shape a nation? President John Adams said our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Join Family Research Council for God and Government, a powerful 13-part series that equips you with biblical truth to engage in today’s most pressing debates, from the Ten Commandments in classrooms to the immigration crisis of America. We’ll uncover the foundations of our nation’s history and why it’s relevant for today. Defend God’s plan for government because faith and freedom were never meant to be separate. New episodes available each Monday. To view the series on the Stand Firm app, text COURSE to 67742.
SPEAKER 06 :
The world is hurting, streets are filled with crime, families are broken, sin is celebrated, and God is mocked. Everywhere we look, the wages of our sin are on full display. As Christians, we know that surrender to God’s will is the solution to our biggest problems, but not everyone agrees. Even in church, we hear people say the most important thing is to be tolerant, that we shouldn’t impose a morality on other people, and that loving our neighbor means celebrating what they do. But you can’t do that. It’s not that you don’t love your neighbor. You do. But you care about God’s opinion more than your neighbor’s opinion, and this makes you different. In fact, sometimes it makes you feel alone, like you’re the only one. But there is good news. You are not alone, not even close. Research has found that there are 59 million American adults who are a lot like you. There are millions of people around the country who are born again, deeply committed to practicing their faith, and believe the Bible is the reliable Word of God. But that’s not all. They’re also engaged in our government. They’re voters. They’re more likely to be involved in their community, and they’re making a difference in elections. The problem is that a lot of them feel alone, too. We want to change that. FRC wants to connect these 59 million Americans to speak the truth together, no matter the cost. If you want to learn more about this group and what it means to be a spiritually active, governance-engaged conservative, or if you want to find out if you are one of these sage cons yourself, go to frc.org slash sagecon and take the quiz to find out. The world is hurting, and we have the solution. We can’t do it alone, but we can do it if we work together. That’s what we’re working toward every day. Join us. Go to FRC.org slash S-A-G-E-C-O-N, SageCon, to learn more. That’s S-A-G-E-C-O-N, SageCon, to learn more.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us. Check out the website, TonyPerkins.com, or go to the Stand Firm app. Lots of resources there for you to help you be an engaged citizen, informed and engaged. Our republic was not made for spectators. It was made for participants. We help you do that. Get the Stand Firm app. Well, our word for today comes from Ezekiel 20. And I gave them statutes and showed them my judgments, which if a man does them, he shall live. Did you catch that? Let me read it again. And I gave them my statutes and showed them my judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them. As with much of Scripture, it has a spiritual, eternal, as well as temporal application. As Paul wrote, we’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The law of God can’t save us. It convicts us, though, of our sin. Our salvation is through the redemptive work of Jesus on the cross. However, the moral law of God established at creation is the quote-unquote secret to successful living. Recently, the Tennessee legislature advanced legislation that would require schools to teach that the keys to a successful life include following a proper sequence of events. Graduate from high school, get a job, or go on to higher education, get married, and then have children. Wow, where did that idea come from? Well, we find life in acknowledging and living by God’s truth. To find out more about our journey through the Bible, text BIBLE to 67742. Well, the United States Senate is gearing up for a key vote on President Trump’s America First budget resolution. For the past several weeks, Senate Republicans have been laser focused on unlocking the process that will help them pass the Trump budget blueprint. If they succeed, one of their biggest priorities is making President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent. But to get there, the GOP leaders have some strategic decisions to make. So what are the obstacles to the path forward? And when will there be a chamber-wide vote on the budget resolution? Well, here to discuss these questions is Senator Ron Johnson, a member of the Senate Budget and Finance Committees. Senator Johnson, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for having me, Tony. Hope you’re doing well. I am doing well. Thank you. Before we get into the budget issue, I want to talk about another issue that’s near and dear to your heart. It’s something we’ve talked about a lot, the World Health Organization. I want to play a clip from Tedros talking about, well, actually, let me play it and I’ll get your response.
SPEAKER 10 :
The US withdrawal from WHO is just one part of a much bigger and much bleaker picture as we witness the demolition of parts of the global health architecture. We have been working hard to assess the impact of US withdrawal from WHO and to consider how we adapt in response.
SPEAKER 04 :
Now, I see, Senator, you’re reaching for the tissues there, lamenting along with him the fact that the United States is going to be cutting off funding to the World Health Organization. I mean, this is long overdue, is it not?
SPEAKER 16 :
I think so. I think WHO proved itself to be a corrupt organization really run by Chinese Communist Party and global leftists. It would be nice if we could have some You know, an international organization that literally could manage health crises effectively. The WHO is not it.
SPEAKER 04 :
What’s the timeline of the withdrawal of the U.S. in terms of the funding from WHO?
SPEAKER 16 :
I think President Trump has cut it off, so I’m not exactly sure of the exact timing. But in so many other areas, President Trump is acting boldly, swiftly, decisively, and really focusing on the waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer money and the borrowed money that is Morgan & Children’s future. So I’m very, very pleased with his swift action here.
SPEAKER 04 :
And it appears that other countries are going to follow suit.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, that I’m not aware of. Again, the first thing we needed to do was cut off the amendments that was really going to threaten our own individual sovereignty. We nipped that in the bud. And again, we don’t want to be governed by an international institution. We want our national sovereignty. And who is just part of the one world order group of institutions that would threaten that sovereignty?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I mean, the United States has been paying a large portion of the freight. I mean, we’re 18% of their budget is coming from the United States. So they are having to cut their budget from $5.3 billion to $4.2 billion. That’s still $4.2 billion too much, I think, for that group. Let’s turn our attention now to Congress. Let’s talk about the Senate. They’ve been busy trying to figure out what to do and how to move forward with President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. This week, I think we’re still – are we still poised for a voterama coming up as this bill makes its way to the floor?
SPEAKER 16 :
I believe so. Listen, to me, the – The extension of what we did in 2017 should be the easiest part. I mean, I’m not aware of a Republican that wants to see an automatic tax increase. I mean, that was one of the problems with that tax bill is parts of it automatically expired. So let’s not make the same mistake. Now, we’ve had to… you know, go through some internal discussions in terms of using current policy versus current law and those kind of budget wonkiness. But, you know, we’ve come to an agreement on that between not only the senators, but also with the House. So that should be the easiest component of this. I’ve always thought it’d be easier to go in, you know, several steps, but… Decisions have been made to go with one big beautiful bill, so that’s what we’re dealing with. My big sticking point has always been spending, spending, spending. I put together a pretty good video of President Trump saying he wanted a balanced budget, and all of our leaders and members of the administration saying that we don’t have a revenue problem, We have a spending problem, so are we willing to fix it? And so I’ve been focusing on spending. We went from $4.4 trillion in 2019 to probably about $7.3 trillion this year. That’s a 63% increase. There’s no justification for that. A reasonable pre-pandemic baseline would be no more than $6.5 trillion. And I think we pretty well have… I don’t want to put words in President Trump’s mouth. Let me put it this way. I think President Trump has committed to working with us to achieve a pre-pandemic level of spending and, I think even more importantly, working with us to develop a detailed and rigorous process to actually achieve it. We’ve never had a process to control spending. You may be interested to know the appropriation committees were established to control the big spending authorizing committees. Well, that didn’t work. The Budget Act didn’t work. Simpson-Bowles didn’t work. The Budget Control Act didn’t work. So I proposed a process very similar to… A private sector budget review process where you literally go line by line. I would recommend involving senators, House members and the administration and bring administration officials with their budget gurus and CFOs and literally go line by line. There’s about 2400. individual expenditure lines in the 2025 proposed budget, we have to do that work. Nobody ever wants to do that. 76% of the budget is completely off budget. That’s mandatory spending. And by the way, there’s $1.3 trillion of other mandatory spending, not Social Security, Medicare, or even Medicaid, that we can take a look at and you see what Doge is uncovering in terms of all the waste, fraud and abuse. So if we actually scrutinize what we spend, I think it’ll be easy to get back to a reasonable pre-pandemic level spending.
SPEAKER 04 :
Has the president agreed to that process?
SPEAKER 16 :
Yes, I think that’s what we discussed today in the White House with the members of the Budget Committee.
SPEAKER 04 :
And so where does Doge fit into that?
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, those can be very useful. Under reconciliation, we can only address mandatory spending, which is bizarre just in and of itself. So that leaves discretionary spending that has to be passed with Senate Democrats’ help. They won’t. So what we can do with discretionary spending is we can reduce that level of spending through rescissions. So we really did request the president. I think they’re going to move forward on this as well. My recommendation was at least one rescission package a month. where Elon and his doge group basically bundles up billions of dollars worth of spending rescissions, headlined by the most egregious examples of wasteful and abusive spending.
SPEAKER 04 :
So rescissions, just for the benefit of our viewers and listeners, this is kind of, if you will, clawing back money that’s already been allocated that’s out there, correct?
SPEAKER 16 :
Right. And the law allows us to do that without Democrat votes. I mean, we can do that. We can pass this in the Senate’s privilege. Just need a majority. Do this without Democrat help. And by the way, it’ll just be fun watching Democrats. What are they going to vote to continue some of this grotesquely wasteful spending?
SPEAKER 04 :
And some of this money has been allocated but not spent. So it’s out there. It can be brought back. This can be real cuts going forward as well. So you are optimistic that we can get back to this pre-pandemic level of federal spending. Is that shared among your colleagues?
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, I think some things could be more difficult. But President Trump, as a business person, as I’m presenting this plan, he thinks it’s pretty easy, too. Tony, what we’re talking about is take 2019 spending, total outlays. I don’t think we were spending too little. We’re still probably spending too much. Increase that by inflation and population growth. You leave Social Security and Medicare. You can even leave Medicaid completely off this. Spend what we’re going to spend in 2025. Pulse those things up, you’d be spending $6.5 trillion. So that’s a $700 billion difference between what we’re spending, and that $700 billion is just spending above and beyond 2019 spending fully inflated for population inflation. Again, in business, and this is the way I’d describe it to the president, if you had your manager say, hey, listen, I’ll let you grow your budget by the number of customers you’re serving and inflation, and you come back six years later and their budget’s 10% higher than that, you’d go, what are you doing? Knock it down back to what constraints I told you. That’d be a one-minute conversation, and it would be done. This would be easy. Now, within the $700 billion, there are a few interesting issues. But if you’re going line by line, my guess is there will be plenty of expenditures, things like the Doja aren’t covering. You go, we’re not going to spend that at all. Not just claw back the excess over 2019 spending fully inflated, but, I mean, literally just eliminate that.
SPEAKER 04 :
Mm-hmm. Okay, two issues that have to be addressed. You’ve got the debt, but in order to get to the $36 trillion plus debt, you’ve got to begin eliminating the deficit. How soon on this path that you’re laying out can we eliminate what’s become an annual deficit of somewhere over a trillion dollars?
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, President Trump is very confident that he’ll be raising a lot more revenue through tariffs, through his gold card, plus economic growth. I mean, if we get our act together and we return certainty to the economy by saying you’re not going to have a massive automatic tax increase. That’s why I would have done that three-step process, given border funding. Step two would have just been extend the current tax code, take that massive automatic tax increase off the table, then start working on the big, beautiful bill. We should be at that point right now, but that’s not the decision they made, so now we’ve got to bundle it all together.
SPEAKER 04 :
I mean, when you look at the indecisiveness or the lack of ability of businesses to make decisions based upon the fluctuation or the unknown of the tax structure, that could itself be what’s causing the economy to kind of sputter right now, could it not?
SPEAKER 16 :
No, absolutely. I come from the private sector. You want certainty. You want stability. You don’t want volatility. And not knowing what our tax structure is going to be, again, that was a big problem with what we did in 2017. We didn’t make it permanent. We’re not going to make that mistake again. And, of course, the tariffs… Again, I’ll give President Trump the benefit of the doubt. I mean, it’s pretty convincing as he goes through the list of what countries are charging us versus what we charge them. And, you know, the people with extremely high tariffs, I mean, he’s only bringing up our tariffs to half of that rate, trying to entice them to come down. So, again, I think he’s trying to use this tariff threat to move toward a tariff-free world. But, again, this is complex.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right. But the tax is not. I mean, you’ve got uncertainty created by it’s not just a small tax increase. This could be a huge tax increase. And so people are kind of sitting on their cash because they don’t know what’s going to come. You know, is this going to happen or not? When you look at what would take place in Washington, D.C., you never know if we can even agree on a good idea.
SPEAKER 16 :
Again, that’s why, as Republicans, we should have just given President Trump the certainty that we’re not going to increase taxes. We should have done this, taken up literally just a one-sentence bill, extend the current tax code. And again, if we could have done it in 2017, we would have. So we should just do it now, but… Members of the House, and I understand this, I’m sympathetic with it, they want to reduce federal spending. They figure they had to hold the tax permanency hostage for that, which is why they initially went with current law and a big old tax score. There should be no score for this. If we have a spending program that expires and we decide to extend it, there’s no score because that’s scored based on current policy. That’s what we’re switching now. Revenue the same way as we treat spending.
SPEAKER 04 :
And that’s that’s actually an issue right now that you’re working with in the Senate. The Democrats are going to be opposed to that.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, but again, all we need is 50 votes plus Vice President Vance. I’m sure we’ll have it.
SPEAKER 04 :
And the Senate is going to move forward with these tax cuts being permanent, correct?
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah. And again, by doing that, you just make automatically make them permanent.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right.
SPEAKER 16 :
Because there’s no score. We just it’s easy to do that. And that’s what we’ll do.
SPEAKER 04 :
And it provides stability and certainty. And hopefully we’ll get our economy roaring going forward. Senator Ron Johnson, always great to see you. Thanks so much for taking time to join us today.
SPEAKER 16 :
Have a great day. Stay well.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right, folks, a lot will still be happening this week. We didn’t get into it, but a part of this process is what’s called a Voterama that will be taking place, I think, tomorrow night or somewhere into the weekend. It got set back a little bit by the. I wouldn’t say, it wasn’t a filibuster, but where the Democrats held the Senate floor for 24 hours. So we’ll be watching that very closely. All right, we’re out of time. I want to thank you for joining us. I do want to encourage you to get the Stand Firm app because you can get notifications of when you need to weigh in on issues like this with your senators and members of Congress. All right, until next time, I leave you with the encouraging words of the Apostle Paul. When you’ve prayed, when you’ve prepared, and when you’ve taken your stand, by all means, keep standing.
SPEAKER 15 :
Washington Watch with Tony Perkins is brought to you by Family Research Council and is entirely listener supported. Portions of the show discussing candidates are brought to you by Family Research Council Action. For more information on anything you heard today or to find out how you can partner with us in our ongoing efforts to promote faith, family and freedom, visit TonyPerkins.com.
