Join Tony Perkins in this compelling episode of Washington Watch as critical issues take the spotlight. Emerging reports of mystery drones on the East Coast raise security concerns that government officials are yet to clarify. Congressman Grothman joins the debate, criticizing the government’s nonchalance and pushing for transparency. Turning to legislative matters, the show navigates the complex terrain of the National Defense Authorization Act, revealing both strengths and weaknesses from a bipartisan perspective. Insights from political insiders offer a glimpse into the expected shifts with the upcoming congressional leadership and call for revisiting social policies rooted in the Great
SPEAKER 01 :
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 10 :
I’ve been on the Armed Services Committee. I’ve been on the Intelligence Committee now for 10 years. And we haven’t gotten adequate answers from the Biden administration either. I can tell you the answers that you’re not getting in public are the same answers that we’re not getting in private.
SPEAKER 04 :
That was Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton on Fox News seeking answers like so many others about the mystery drones flying over the East Coast. Welcome to Washington Watch. I’m Tony Perkins, your host. Thanks for tuning in. Coming up on this Thursday edition, Wisconsin Congressman Glenn Grothman will join us to provide the latest updates on the mystery drones. And he’ll give us a wrap up of the week as Congress prepares to head home for the weekend. And yesterday, the UK issued an indefinite ban on puberty blockers for teens, citing the significant risk for children and young people. FRC’s Dr. Jennifer Bowens will be here with details on this decision and its potential implications for US policy. Some say he’s handing them out like candy, commutations.
SPEAKER 06 :
More broadly speaking, as we move forward to the next couple of weeks, he obviously is going to review with his team about other clemency decisions, and they’re taking additional steps.
SPEAKER 04 :
That was White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre responding to questions about President Biden’s record-breaking day of commutations and pardons. Meanwhile, some Democrats are calling on the president to issue a blanket pardon for illegal immigrants. Can he do this? Jeff Clark, senior fellow and director of litigation at the Center for Renewing America, will join me to discuss. And we’ve seen how Republican state attorneys general have played an indispensable role in pushing back against the Biden administration’s far reaching leftist agenda from open borders to school bathroom policies to transgender, transgendering our children. But what role will they play in the incoming Trump administration where they have a strong ally? Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrell will join me here in studio. She’s in Washington and she’ll join me. This Christmas season, Family Research Council invites you to join us in shining the light of biblical truth in Washington, DC, across the nation, and literally around the world. During these challenging times, FRC serves as a watchman on the wall, defending faith, family, and freedom. And thanks to a $1.5 million challenge match, every dollar you give between now and December 31st will be doubled, enabling you to have an outsized impact. So here’s an opportunity to stand with FRC as a prophetic voice for biblical truth by texting the word light. It’s L-I-G-H-T to 67742. 67742, the word light. And together, let’s make an eternal impact. Well, the Biden administration continues to insist that the mystery drones that have been spotted over parts of New Jersey, New York and elsewhere are neither a threat to public safety nor national security. While at the same time stating that they still. don’t know where they’re coming from or who’s piloting them. So how can they be so confident that they’re not a threat? Joining me now to discuss this, Congressman Glenn Grothman, who serves on three House committees, including the Oversight and Accountability Committee. He represents the 6th Congressional District of Wisconsin. Congressman Grothman, welcome back to the program. Always good to see you.
SPEAKER 15 :
to be on the program. I wish we were taking a topic that I had more hard answers about, but let’s dive into it and see what we know and don’t know.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, I mean, everybody’s talking about it. I even talked to the House Speaker about it this morning, and he hadn’t gotten any information. So what’s going on here?
SPEAKER 15 :
We have had staff meetings with Homeland Security, the FBI, the FAA, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, any agency you can think. And nobody will give you an answer. All they will say is they don’t think it’s a threat. and they’ll say there’s nothing here that would merit ever shooting one of these things down so you have perhaps hundreds certainly more than a hundred of these drone-like things and they won’t even concede their drones that some of them may have a person in it apparently they say they’re the size of an suv and it’s been going on for three weeks And all the plethora of agencies, of three-letter agencies involved in this, their attitude is it’s no big deal. It’s not a threat. They won’t say they’re American. They won’t say they’re foreign. They won’t say, are they a threat to, well, I assume they believe they’re not a threat to other aircraft in the area. But it’s very frustrating that this many government agencies and the state agencies in New Jersey are to some degree involved in this, and nobody knows anything. I’m getting a little bit ahead of myself here, but I’m afraid it’s just one more thing. We’ve got to wait for President Trump to get in there and clean up. Because we should know.
SPEAKER 04 :
We should. And I’ve said this before as we’ve been covering this throughout the week, is if they don’t know where these are coming from and who’s piloting them, then how do they know they’re not a risk? But if they don’t know this, either they’re incompetent in that all of the technology we have, we cannot find out who and where these things, who’s flying them, where they’re coming from. Or the second option is it’s actually our government doing something and they’re just not wanting to tell us. Or they know something and they’re not telling us. So it’s either deception or they’re just incompetent.
SPEAKER 15 :
Right. And if it is our government test flying these things, then why would it be that? Why would you test fly them over populated areas in which they could crash, in which I would assume they could run into a helicopter, an airplane or something or other? And why would you be doing it over what now is up to a three-week period? so it’s very frustrating and um we had a private briefing a while back we’ve now had briefings with staff um representing just about every congressional um committee you can imagine and no matter who goes before them they say i don’t know i don’t know we don’t think it’s a threat but We don’t know what it is. So how can you even tell whether or not it’s a threat? As you mentioned, we don’t know what it is. It just is, I think, a problem with the government. Yeah, it just is so bad. It’s beyond belief. None of these agencies will say, hey, you know, this is it. Here’s a picture of it up close here. We’re going to shoot down one of these things unless something. You know, they bring them down, whatever they could announce that tonight, right? Tomorrow we’re going to be shooting these things down. That’d clear them up quick. It’s like the Keystone Cops. Right. And contempt for the American public. I mean, I would certainly want to know what’s going on there in New Jersey. Total contempt from Congress because so many Congress, including myself, members of Congress, have asked questions of these folks and they refuse to answer questions on this or almost anything else.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, considering how the Biden administration handled the Chinese spy balloon, You know, I’m not surprised by anything. It just seems the doors are open. Of course, the southern border is open for invasion, so why not the east coast to drones? I’m sure if we look, the people in charge of this are diverse. True. Let me ask you this final question on this topic. Is there some expectation that next week when you return, you know, before we get to the Christmas break and Congress adjourns, that we’ll have some answers?
SPEAKER 15 :
I would be surprised. It seems like they’re beyond embarrassment. I mean, if you work for any one of these agencies and you were listening to this and all the news media are asking questions about this and all they can say is, after three weeks of this, I don’t know, I don’t know. I mean, they look like complete fools. On the other hand, the complete fools today, it hasn’t caused them to say anything. I guess it comes down to the degree to which I think the national media keeps this story going, which they should, and see whether there’s any shame in them whatsoever. And they tell us what they are. Because how could you not know what they are right now? Yeah. Biggest NSUV flying all over the place, 100 miles an hour. Wouldn’t you by now know?
SPEAKER 04 :
If we don’t know, we have a serious flaw in our defense system in terms of allowing something this size to fly across our eastern coast border.
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, this is why we don’t like government doing anything except for our defense, where we have no choice but to lean on the government. But it’s just further evidence that the government can’t get anything right. And the utter contempt for all these appointees of the Biden administration for the public, right? They don’t care. We don’t care if we look like fools. We’re not going to tell the people what these SUV-sized things are flying over their house. Yeah.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, you mentioned the national defense. So let’s switch gears for here, switch gears for just a moment. Yesterday, the National Defense Authorization Act passed the House with bipartisan support. There were some good things in it. There were some not so good things in it. There were some bad things in it. But all in all, it had broad support. Your thoughts?
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, I mean, you kind of have to vote for it because we’ve got to keep the defense going. And it’d be worse if we had more Democrats voting for it, because it may. I think we’re doing a bad job right now. I think we’re buying stuff that in this era of missiles, this era of drones… It seems like we’re preparing for the last war. And by the last war, I mean even World War II. I continue to be disappointed. They build these big aircraft carriers. Nobody can tell me in this day and age that against a real… China, Russia, even North Korea, that these big, relatively stationary military platforms are not exceptionally vulnerable. So I plan on voting for it, but I’m very disappointed in the military, somewhat disappointed in the committees that came up with this product. And that we continue to spend huge amounts of money on relatively static platforms. And our country is more vulnerable all the time to things like an attack on our electric grid. I think Congress has done not really as good a job as they should have done. But I know, you know, these… Ships and other things are are made in congressman’s districts. And some people feel that, you know, bringing home the bacon is, I guess. Well, like I said, I would write a different bill if I was writing the bill.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, let’s talk about going into the 119th Congress, as you made reference to President Donald Trump, President-elect Donald Trump. Do you have expectations that we’re going to see significant changes in actually addressing some of these issues with Republicans having a working majority in the Senate, not having the 60 to breach that 60 vote threshold and having very slim margin in the House, but nonetheless having the House, the Senate and the White House? Do you have high expectations?
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, it’s got to be high expectations because this may be the last time as a country we get all three. And you’re right on a lot of bills because we don’t have 60 votes. We won’t be able to pass them. But through reconciliation, we can do a lot of good things. The question is whether we will. Me, on a personal level, I think the country really has never… recovered fully from the Great Society in the 60s in which the government may be giving $15,000, $20,000, $30,000 to a young mother to make sure she’s not getting married. And we’ve gone from about a 5% rate of Americans born without a mother and father at home to over 40%. So we’ve really devastated the American family by what Lyndon Johnson did. I think it’s time for the Republicans to take a whack at that figure and try to encourage more two-parent families. That’s what I’m going to be looking for over the next few months. I wish more Republicans would make that a priority. I wish our conservative and Christian press would make it more of a priority to get rid of these programs that are basically keeping the men out of the
SPEAKER 04 :
Men out of the family. Right. Well, you get more of what you pay for. And that’s what we’ve been paying for. And guess what? We get more of it. We’ll join you in that effort, Congressman Grothman. Thanks so much for joining us today. Always great to see you. And if I don’t see you before, have a very Merry Christmas.
SPEAKER 14 :
Lovely to see you.
SPEAKER 04 :
And he’s absolutely right. We need to go back and look at these policies. Hopefully the Department of Government Efficiency will look at them because we’ve spent over a trillion dollars on the so-called war on poverty. And guess what we’ve gotten? More poverty. All right, after the break, I’ll discuss some good news coming out of the UK. Stay tuned. Dr. Jennifer Bowens joins me here in studio.
SPEAKER 03 :
The throne of Jesus Christ is unchallenged. His name was never on the ballot to begin with, and it’s never gonna be on the ballot. He’s the King of Kings, and he’s the Lord of Lords, and nothing’s gonna change that. And so our mission stays the same, preach the gospel, make disciples, get ready for heaven. In the meantime, that we’re to advance the concerns of the kingdom of God here on earth.
SPEAKER 04 :
America has entered a critical and vulnerable period from now until January the 20th. Join Family Research Council for Operation Prayer Shield, a 10-week prayer initiative for our nation. From now until January 20th, our country faces global challenges, a transition of leadership, and a lame duck session of Congress. This season calls for heightened spiritual vigilance, discernment, and prayer. Text the word SHIELD to 67742 to join us. You’ll have access to prayer points, scripture, prayer calls. Text SHIELD to 67742. Unite with us and pray for our nation.
SPEAKER 13 :
Let’s not be discouraged. Don’t lose heart. Don’t lose the faith. Stand now strong because the Lord has given us the great privilege of living in a time when our choices matter, when our lives matter, when our courage matters. So let’s stand together and save this great country. God bless the United States of America.
SPEAKER 12 :
The American Republic has a freedom like no other. It has roots in the scriptures far more than any other heritage. And if we as followers of Jesus and conservatives don’t defend it, who will?
SPEAKER 02 :
Neutrality is not an option. There are many Christians who believe that if we just keep our heads down, if we just don’t say the wrong thing, that somehow we will come out of this unscathed. You’re naive if you think that, because what they want from us is not our silence. What they want from us is our submission.
SPEAKER 16 :
Part of the dilemma of Christianity in our generation is that we’ve relied a little too much on human wisdom and human reasoning, human strength, human resource, and we’ve relied too little on the power of God and God’s ability to open doors that we can’t open and do things that we couldn’t even hope to begin to do.
SPEAKER 11 :
This may not be an easy task, But we are living in a moment of challenge, but also a great opportunity. And we know always that we are not alone, that his spirit empowers us and protects us, and that he can do the unimaginable. Dobbs, after all, was never supposed to happen.
SPEAKER 04 :
father we thank you you have entrusted us with this moment in history and i pray that we would be found faithful and that as a result of our faithfulness to you that thousands millions would come into the kingdom as they would experience the forgiveness of sin and the new life that is found only in jesus christ amen Welcome back to Washington Watch. Good to have you with us on this Thursday. The website, tonyperkins.com. But a better place to go is the Stand Firm app. If you’ve not yet downloaded the Stand Firm app, go to the app store and get the Stand Firm app, and you can watch Washington Watch on your smartphone anywhere you go. You can also get the Washington Stand news feed, get news and commentary from a biblical perspective, and you can get Stand on the Word every morning. So go to the app store and get the Stand Firm app. Some good news out of the UK, in fact you can read this on the Washington stand, where the use of puberty blockers for minors under the age of 18 has been indefinitely banned. That’s right, no more. The decision announced yesterday follows a review by medical experts who have consistently highlighted significant safety concerns and noted the insufficient evidence on the drugs long-term effects. Now critics argue that the ban is discriminatory, as puberty blockers remain available for other conditions. However, the British High Court upheld the restriction earlier this year, and the policy is set to be reviewed in 2027. So will this latest news receive the attention it deserves here in the United States, and might it shape policy here in our country going forward? Joining me now to discuss this, Dr. Jennifer Bowens, the Director of the Center for Family Studies here at FRC. Dr. Bowens, thanks for joining me. Good to be with you. So this is some good news.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, it is good news. This is really good news, and it comes on the heels of country after country banning these, what’s broadly referred to as gender-affirming care. There’s nothing really wonderful about it, so we shouldn’t use the word care because it’s nothing about care.
SPEAKER 04 :
So lay out exactly what was announced yesterday.
SPEAKER 07 :
So yesterday, their version of, like, NIH or Health and Human Services said we are banning puberty blockers specifically. And earlier I mentioned gender-affirming care. So this is one aspect of gender-affirming care. It’s what you would give to a child who has what’s called precocious puberty in a – in a sense where they actually need these drugs. We’re talking about banning drugs that are not needed by children because they’re normal. There’s nothing unhealthy about these kids. And so we’re intervening where there’s no health problem.
SPEAKER 04 :
And we’re doing so in such a way that puts the children at risk, according to what these health experts have said in the UK.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yes. So the health experts, they determined that basically the risks are not worth the benefits. And what they outlined for us is that, one, what I just said, that the risks are not worth the benefits. But they also said something interesting in that they really have not given attention or care to those who want to stop puberty blockers and what that effect has on a child or those who want to reverse the effect of these puberty blockers. And that’s also a very interesting thing because we’re told in our country that these drugs have no negative effect and that puberty is completely reversible. And all is well if you just decide that you want to stop this. And here, the UK’s… scientific review is showing, no, that’s not the case. And you haven’t even paid attention to this. You’re allowing children to go on these puberty blockers and very harmful drugs without attention to these basic things.
SPEAKER 04 :
So, Dr. Bowles, it appears as we look at what is coming out of the UK and other countries, actually, as well, compared to the United States, they’re citing a lack of evidence to support these… Interventions, experimental interventions. And the United States is just that the movement here is just kind of ignoring the evidence.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah. And I think one thing that’s very interesting just in this whole conversation, and I haven’t heard a lot of people talk about this. But, you know, as a researcher, it’s pretty mind-blowing the fact that we have something that’s a psychological intervention that’s aimed at treating dysphoria. And here, you know, with puberty blockers, we don’t have any idea how that affects the psychology of a child who is suddenly halted from having a normal puberty. Right. Puberty is a time when you’re supposed to not only understand more about your body, but how that interacts with the world around you. So sociologically, relationally, you’re supposed to kind of grapple with that as your body is changing. So now we have this external intervention through a drug that’s given to a child and it’s unnecessary. So we don’t have any research that shows what’s the impact of that. And that’s a primary question that should be asked.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s one of the points related to that that they brought up in the UK was that they want to reform their gender services and center around offering holistic support for patients and their families. So when I look at that holistic, that’s body, mind, and soul. That’s dealing with the emotions. That’s dealing with the psychological implications of what may have led to this change. But here in the United States, preceding what we have now with 26 states that have banned this or have restricted the use of these experimental drugs, we had some states that have banned counseling. So you lock these kids in and you don’t allow the parents to get the help that the child needs, the child to get the help they need in dealing with the underlying psychosis that’s driving this.
SPEAKER 07 :
Right. And so there’s just in that we know that there’s a real ideological push to get these kids to go down the path of of transgender ism. Yeah. And we know some of the cases that are coming out that these kids were coming into some of the gender clinics with all kinds of preexisting issues and traumas. And they weren’t offered a single session or a proper evaluation. They were just told, you know, this is a good path for you.
SPEAKER 04 :
So do you see this study, we’ve only got about a minute left, do you see this study having implications for policy here in the United States?
SPEAKER 07 :
I am hopeful that it will have implications for the U.S. because, you know, as as the evidence grows, as people continue to do more and more systematic reviews and they look at the literature and they see the evidence is lacking and then the countries are in their policies are pulling away from these, quote unquote, gender affirming care. I think we’re going to see pressure put on the U.S. to to follow suit.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, let’s hope that is the case. Dr. Jennifer Bowen, it’s always great to see you.
SPEAKER 07 :
Good to be with you, Tony.
SPEAKER 04 :
Merry Christmas.
SPEAKER 07 :
Merry Christmas to you, too.
SPEAKER 04 :
I couldn’t tell it was Christmas, just the other red and green. All right. All right. After the break, I’ll discuss some ideas that President Biden might be considering to preemptively just go ahead and give a blanket pardon to illegal immigrants prior to Donald Trump taking office. How realistic is this? Stay tuned to find out. It begins here and here and here every day. Before you stand, you need solid ground. Standing in a culture that wants you to surrender the truth won’t work unless you have a firm foundation. At Family Research Council, we have that firm foundation and you can find us standing. We stand for the value of all human life. We stand for the right of families to flourish. And every day we stand for your freedom to believe and to live out those beliefs both at home and abroad. We work with government officials, educating them on the issues from a biblical worldview. And when necessary, we hold them accountable. We equip Christians across America to be informed and to take action in their communities. With our daily radio program, television appearances, and vast online presence, we reach people where they are. We envision an America where all human life is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives. And that won’t be realized if we’re not standing. Stand for faith. Stand for family. Stand for freedom. Stand with us at FRC.
SPEAKER 05 :
Did you know there are many faithful Christians on Capitol Hill fighting alongside Family Research Council for Faith and Family and Freedom? Download the StandFirm app today to view the latest video series from FRC, Defending the Faith, Profiles in Leadership. The series features exclusive sit-down interviews with our nation’s leaders that go beyond the policies and politics to the events that brought them to Washington, D.C. Download the StandFirm app today.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Good to have you with us. Well, earlier today, President Biden announced that he is commuting the sentences of close to 1,500 individuals who were placed on home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic. And he is also pardoning 39 individuals who were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Now, together, these actions represent the largest single-day grant of clemency in modern history. And he’s not done. There’s more to come. And one of the questions being asked is whether he will give ear to Democrats who are encouraging him to issue a blanket pardon for illegal immigrants before he leaves office or perhaps take another action to preempt President-elect Trump’s mass deportation plan. Joining me now to discuss this, Jeff Clark, former Acting Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ Civil Division, and now Senior Fellow and Director of Litigation at the Center for Renewing America. Jeff, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 14 :
Thanks for having me, Tony. Good to be here.
SPEAKER 04 :
So let me start with this. How serious is this idea of a blanket pardon for illegal immigrants? Don’t you at least have to name them?
SPEAKER 14 :
I think that Biden is putting this out as a trial balloon to see how it goes. And I don’t think it’s going so well, but he might do it anyway. I mean, I fully expect that he’s going to be pardoning more questionable individuals like the the sex criminal and a Chinese suspicious individual like he did today, I think he’s going to be pardoning large swaths of his own family before he’s done and leaves office, just like he pardoned Hunter Biden. But on this one, I do have to say, look, as much of a conservative legal scholar and practitioner as I am, I think that the President has to be shown plenary pardon power, and that’s what the Supreme Court has said. The only case I really know of where the Supreme Court has ever limited the pardon power is in a way that’s actually not really a limitation. It’s the idea that the President can’t actually force someone to take a pardon, and that has consequences in terms of whether they’re a Fifth Amendment privileges that continue to attack. So if someone says, look, I don’t want the pardon, I’m going to stay and I’m going to stay silent. You can’t force me to testify. Maybe somebody does that because they don’t want to implicate a relative or a friend or business associate or something, then that can’t be jammed down on them. But that’s not really a limitation. It’s more like just what is the consequence of how one accepts a pardon. But we’ve in the past had pardons that applied to classes of people. So after the Civil War, we had a class of people who were pardoned. We had pardons for folks who had participated in rebellions under George Washington that were in broad terms. I do think that this one feels very different, and it feels very different because it’s It really is just a finger in the eye of Congress and prior presidents who passed immigration laws. It’s just saying, we don’t care about that. We don’t like these laws. And therefore, we’re going to just lift the consequences of them. It’s very much like the DACA program for dreamers where Obama just created a program that Congress never authorized to let them stay here. But look, what I think we can do is we can vehemently criticize pardons like this. And if that pardon for illegal aliens takes place, there should be screaming to the high heaven as against the Biden administration and the Democrats, Tony.
SPEAKER 04 :
So, Jeff, you made reference to the pardons that were issued after the Civil War that were given to former Confederate soldiers and others that laid down their arms, no longer combatants. These are folks that, you know, we don’t even know how many are here. We don’t know how many, we don’t know who they are. We don’t know their name. They’re not here legally. They’re not American citizens. This would be unique. What would this look like if President Biden were to do this?
SPEAKER 14 :
It would create an administrative mess, which is, I think, what you’re getting at, Tony, right? You’d have to be someone who was here at the time of the pardon. It wouldn’t have prospective effect or continuing effect. And so if someone got apprehended and they said, hey, look, I got pardoned. You can’t bring criminal charges against me under U.S. law. that person would have to show they were here illegally at the time Biden pardoned them, right? And maybe they can’t show that. That I don’t think would invade a presidential pardon power, but it would create a logistical nightmare for the immigration courts and then the federal courts that sit in judicial review of those administrative courts.
SPEAKER 04 :
But, okay, so they were pardoned for the crime that they committed by coming into the country illegally, right? But if they’re still here and they don’t have a green card, they don’t have any, they’re not taking any action to become a legal citizen. I mean, can they stay in that status forever?
SPEAKER 14 :
That’s a very good point. I mean, certainly if you get a pardon for a crime, but it is a continuing crime, then at the point you continue it after the time that you’ve gotten a pardon, you’re engaged in new unlawful conduct. And that would be itself a very unique legal issue to see litigated. If you were smart, you would self-deport right before President Trump took the oath of office, saying, well, they can’t come after me later. And if I try to come in through a legal port of entry and apply for citizenship, they can’t hold against me that I had previously been here illegally. But I suspect a lot of people will just try to go on as they were before. And if they keep engaging in criminal conduct, I don’t think the pardon like that, if it happens, is going to protect them.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. We’ve just got a minute left, Jeff. But if Biden were to do some of these things, are Trump’s hands then tied, his administration unable to undo any of this?
SPEAKER 14 :
Well, I don’t think that stops the president from using civil remedies and the physical remedy of taking them out of the country, ejecting them. So that remedy Biden can’t take off the table. It would just be the criminal consequences of their violations of federal immigration law.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. Jeff Clark, thanks for joining us. Great to see you. Appreciate your insights on this. Thanks a lot, Tony. And folks, another reminder why we need to be praying for what is transpiring right now in our nation during this time of transition from the Biden administration into the Trump administration and globally, as we’re seeing almost every day. So if you’d like to join the prayer effort, text the word SHIELD to be a part of Operation Prayer Shield. Text SHIELD to 67742, 67742. The Attorney General of Louisiana, Liz Merle, joins me next. Don’t go away. Hello, I’m Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council here in Washington, D.C. Behind me is one of the most recognizable buildings in all the world, the U.S. Capitol. What does it stand for? Well, most people say government. But you know, the Bible talks about four institutions of government. You know what they are? And do we have a republic or a democracy? Well, what do you say? Also, what about this thing, separation of church and state? Does that mean Christians shouldn’t be involved in government? Guess what? We address those issues and more in our new God and Government course. I invite you to join us to see what the historical record and the Bible has to say about government. Join us for God and Government.
SPEAKER 09 :
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 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. Good to have you with us. If you’ve not yet downloaded the Stand Firm app, I encourage you to go to the App Store and get the Stand Firm app. That way you can have Washington Watch wherever you go. You can also have the news feed from the Family Research Council, our Washington Stand, and our daily devotionals. Stand on the word. Speaking of that, our word for today comes from Isaiah chapter 32. Rise up, you women who are at ease. Hear my voice, you complacent daughters. Give ear to my speech. In a year and some days you will be troubled, you complacent women. For the vintage will fail, the gathering will not come. What does this mean? Does it have implications for us? Well, the principles that we control from this are as follows. We live in a time of great prosperity. Most middle-class Americans live better than royalty of ages past. And I’m grateful for the abundance we enjoy as a society, but we must guard against becoming intoxicated with the blessings of our nation’s past obedience. We need to be sober-minded about the future and follow the Lord and His teachings. We should be content with our needs being met and not perpetually pursuing our wants. This is one of the greatest challenges that individuals and nations face, persevering through the blessings that come from following God. We must be intentional and disciplined in our pursuit of the face and not just the hand of God. To find out more about our journey through the Bible, text BIBLE to 67742. That’s BIBLE to 67742. Well, since President-elect Donald Trump’s decisive victory last month, there has been a lot of discussion about what a second Trump administration will mean for the Department of Justice, what it will mean for states across the nation as we’ll see maybe the federal government kind of pull back and let states conduct business for themselves. Now, one of the things we saw during the Biden administration is that we saw state attorneys general across the country, Republicans, There’s about half the states. They spent a significant time and lots of resources challenging the Biden administration and their leftist policies. And they were quite successful in keeping them contained. Now, how will that change come January with an ally in the White House? Joining me now in studio to discuss this is the Attorney General of the state of Louisiana, Liz Murrell. Liz, welcome to Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 08 :
Thank you. It is great to be here in the studio with you, Tony.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, it’s good to have you here in Washington, D.C. In fact, we were on the commute up here this week. We’re on the same plane, and you enjoyed all of the normal commuting problems we have coming up here where we got stuck in Charlotte. So let’s talk—I want to get into some of the cases in Louisiana that are very interesting, and even President Trump has weighed in on those. But first— You and your Republican colleagues played a key role in containing the Biden administration and their reach. I mean, it was a constant, nonstop. How does that change now?
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, certainly we’re not going to have to sue the federal government quite as much. I don’t think it means that we don’t have to sue them at all because a lot of these rules have gone into effect and we still want to block some of the rules that did go into effect that lawsuits may not be pending on yet. So it doesn’t mean that that part goes away, but it does mean that we have an ally in the White House who sees the kind of regulatory power and regulatory overreach the way that we do. And so that we can kind of take advantage of that, go in and talk to them about some of the pending lawsuits that we still have that are open and see about how we can settle those and close those out and what that looks like. You know, it may be settling cases. It may be repealing rules that are in place. It might be, you know, slowing down compliance deadlines and then engaging in a withdraw, repeal and replace process through rulemaking. We don’t anticipate that the need to litigate and defend those actions is going to be any less great than the need for us to sue on the rules that we challenged in the first place.
SPEAKER 04 :
So you will actually play a role in helping the Trump White House deal with some of the cleanup that’s necessary for the agencies that are still operating under the rules left behind.
SPEAKER 08 :
We will. A hundred percent we will. And, you know, I think I’ve spent some time already working with my team to identify, go back and look at all of the open cases that we have. We had a lot of lawsuits on energy policy. We have one of the largest, one of the large coalitions that sued on the Title IX rules.
SPEAKER 07 :
Right.
SPEAKER 08 :
So there are a lot of things that we want to sit down and talk to them about and see, you know, what can we do, how fast, how quickly can we do it. Some of those actions are going to be more complicated and take a longer time than others, but we want to do everything we can to help them be as successful as possible.
SPEAKER 04 :
The positive steps that the Trump administration takes to advance good policy is now going to be challenged probably by some of the Democratic attorneys general across the country. But the Republicans will play a role in that as well, will they not?
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, we will, and we’ve kind of been through this drill once before. The Democrat attorney generals will do the same thing that we did when President Trump was president before, and they will generally file the lawsuits, and then we will come in as interveners in a lot of those cases and help defend the rules and explain why why the new action is necessary and appropriate.
SPEAKER 04 :
So it’s not going to slow down?
SPEAKER 08 :
No, it’s not going to slow down at all.
SPEAKER 04 :
But we may see more victories in playing a little more offense than defense.
SPEAKER 08 :
Look, there’s no, I mean, there is no doubt that we are much better off now with having a friend in the White House, that there’s someone that we can talk to. I believe that the policies of this administration are going to, by nature, they’re going to revert to being more friendly and respectful of state sovereignty. The Biden administration absolutely was not. I mean, they wanted to remove power from the states, concentrate power. Even in the oil and gas sort of zone, they would like to concentrate more power in bigger oil companies and take it away from small businesses. All of that is destructive to democracy. So I think that, you know, we’ve got an administration that believes that democracy will survive in part by preserving the structure of our Constitution that respects 50 states that all have the ability to make different policy for their own people.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. I didn’t tell you I was going to ask this question, but you’re good. You can think on your feet. Before becoming attorney general, you’re solicitor general, and you argued many cases in Louisiana. And you took one of the cases all the way to the Supreme Court. Five.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, the one that I want to— Actually, about nine.
SPEAKER 04 :
One I want to focus on because I did the initial legislation that was built upon over the years, and that was the Abortion Clinic Regulation Act. Yes. You took that all the way to the Supreme Court prior to Dobbs. We didn’t prevail in that case, but I think that played a role in setting the stage for Dobbs.
SPEAKER 08 :
Oh, yeah, I agree with you. I mean, you know, I explain it often as, you know, we loaded the bases and Mississippi was able to kind of make the home run. But it takes time in Supreme Court. In the world of Supreme Court litigation, you kind of have, some layups before you actually get the ball in. And so I think that is by nature. It’s by design that they move slowly and incrementally. And when they’re reversing precedent like that, it’s… It’s stepping stones.
SPEAKER 04 :
It is. To get to there. My point, and you have… Louisiana is a pro-life state.
SPEAKER 06 :
Right.
SPEAKER 04 :
Our laws are pro-life. You’re pro-life. We’ve worked together on a number of things. There’s an issue with the current FDA and mithoprestone, the abortion pill, because Louisiana is a pro-life state. We have laws that say that we’re going to protect the unborn, but that’s being violated by the FDA.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, there’s a lot of problems with the way this administration has handled it. It started in COVID. It started when, you know, they took advantage of the, and I would say, you know, the, the pro-abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood took advantage of the opportunity to go in and remove some of the protections that existed, like the REMS protocol that had previously been in place for mifepristone. And, you know, that had a lot of advantages where they recognized that there is an inherent danger in inducing an abortion by the use of these medications. that more than half of them require additional procedures to complete it and that women can become septic, they can hemorrhage and die. And so this movement that has been so aggressive to pretend like those risks don’t exist. And then to push those pills out into our states and make them accessible by mail without any relationship with a doctor, you know, it’s just, it’s very dangerous.
SPEAKER 04 :
And now almost 70% of abortions are being done through the abortion pill. So the FDA is the one that issued that order. What if that order is not reversed and we see that same policy under the Trump administration?
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, it’s still illegal in Louisiana to prescribe those pills. I mean, you can prescribe them for other purposes, but not for the purposes of inducing an abortion. So the FDA can’t change that. Our state laws still prevail when it comes to whether or not you can use those and have chemical abortions.
SPEAKER 04 :
But if they’re coming across state lines by mail.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, it’s a different problem that we have to deal with.
SPEAKER 04 :
That is a federal problem.
SPEAKER 08 :
It is, well, it’s a crime. I mean, it’s a crime in the state of Louisiana.
SPEAKER 04 :
It’s a crime, but it’s being allowed because of federal policy.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, and I would expect that new, you know, a new set of U.S. attorneys and a, A new set of people in charge both at the FDA and HHS, but more importantly in the Department of Justice, is going to help us, allow us, and help us in enforcing our laws.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, that goes back to the Comstock law at the federal level where these cannot be mailed.
SPEAKER 08 :
It’s illegal under federal law too.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right. But they’re doing it anyway. And the Biden administration has basically said you get a pass. Right. Okay. I want to go to a particular law in Louisiana that you’ve been, your office has been spearheading to defend. The Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. It’s been at the district court. It’s now at the Fifth Circuit. You had arguments, I guess, last month at the district level.
SPEAKER 08 :
District court level, that’s right, on a preliminary injunction. So still an earlier stage. I mean, for non-lawyers, preliminary injunctions are still an early stage of the litigation, not supposed to be a final judgment on the case. But this judgment looks a lot like a final judgment. I think the judge intended it to be viewed that way. He also intended, I think, to chill any school board from complying with the law, even though only five school boards were actually defendants and therefore only five school boards are subject to the jurisdiction of the court and to his order. But we are on appeal at the Fifth Circuit. We were able to get the case expedited for oral argument, which means that we are going to be arguing it in the Fifth Circuit on January 20th. We’ve asked the Fifth Circuit to go en banc, so that means we would have the whole complement of active judges on the court ruling on the case instead of just the panel of three because there’s some Fifth Circuit precedent that we think only the en banc court can sort out. So if they do that, we’ll get a pretty good hearing, I think, from the Fifth Circuit and and the case will be teed up pretty well for the United States Supreme Court.
SPEAKER 04 :
So you believe it’ll go all the way to the Supreme Court?
SPEAKER 08 :
I do. I do. One way or the other, it will. I mean, if we win in the Fifth Circuit, then our law goes, I mean, then those, you know, no other school boards are enjoined. All the five that were sued can go, can implement the law as well. And that’s not really going to be an outcome that I think the people who sued us can accept. So They will go to the Supreme Court if that happens.
SPEAKER 04 :
And so just so our folks, our viewers and listeners know, this would just, what this requires is a posting of the Ten Commandments. It lays out the size. It’s going to be read, readable. There’s no government money that’s expended in that these are given. So, you know, people are publishing these Ten Commandments to post them in the classroom. And the argument against them is what?
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, I mean, I don’t obviously I don’t agree with the argument against it, but the argument against them is that it violates the establishment clause. That the you know, how they get there is where a lot of our fight is, because we think that you can comply with this law and apply this law in a way that that. is constitutional. And that kind of brings us to two cases that the Supreme Court has decided involving posting of the Ten Commandments. And in one, they said it was a violation of the Establishment Clause. And in the other one, they said it wasn’t. And the one in which they said it wasn’t was a case where it was presented in a historical context, which means that we illustrate the Ten Commandments and how they played a role in the founding of our country.
SPEAKER 04 :
It’s pretty hard to deny. that they played a role.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, certainly our legislature overwhelmingly agrees with that, as I do, and I think that, you know, this is an opportunity for us to be able to put it in, you know, in a poster, a small poster that creates a point for talking, for discussion, for teaching. And so I had a whole press conference with about 15 posters that my staff thought of and we created and we posted them so that we could illustrate to the press and in our briefs, we used them in our briefs to show that there are a lot of ways that you can apply this law and it still be constitutional, which means we should win in a case that’s challenging it, saying that there’s no possible way to apply it constitutionally.
SPEAKER 04 :
It should be pointed out that The Ten Commandments were in public schools until 1980. And that’s when there was a court decision that struck down the posting of the Ten Commandments. So this is not like new. It’s just returning to that, which maybe given all of the problems we have in our country, maybe exposing the kids to thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal might not be a bad idea.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, and those, you know, commandments are, For us as Christians, they’re meaningful to us in a lot of ways. But they also are built into the law of virtually every country, not just ours, but every state, every country.
SPEAKER 04 :
The very Supreme Court in which you are arguing the case.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes, the federal law. Well, the Supreme Court has in nine different places. Moses and the tablets are there. And so there’s a lot of teaching there. I think, points that are opportunities that arise with this. But, you know, to the question of whether we can just post the Ten Commandments, I mean, we’re going to test that precedent.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, we are glad that you’re there, Liz. You’re doing a great job, and we look forward to tracking this.
SPEAKER 08 :
Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thanks for being with us, and Merry Christmas.
SPEAKER 08 :
You too.
SPEAKER 04 :
Folks, thanks for joining us today. We’re out of time, but I want to encourage you to, once again, look to the encouraging words of the apostle Paul in Ephesians 6, where he says, when you’ve done everything that you can do, when you’ve prayed, when you’ve prepared, and when you’ve taken your stand, by all means, keep standing.
SPEAKER 01 :
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.
