In this episode of Washington Watch, host Tony Perkins takes us to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where President Trump addressed the ongoing negotiations over Greenland. The conversation pivots to a deep dive into a major scandal emerging from Minnesota involving $9 billion in taxpayer fraud allegedly linked to the Somali community. Congresswoman Harriet Hageman joins to provide insights into the federal probes tackling this widespread corruption.
SPEAKER 19 :
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 05 :
I’m seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by the United States, just as we have acquired many other territories throughout our history, as many of the European nations have. People thought I would use force. I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.
SPEAKER 11 :
That was President Donald Trump addressing the Greenland issue at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Welcome to this January 21st edition of Washington Watch. I’m your host, Tony Perkins. Thanks for joining us. Well, coming up at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Gaza Board of Peace is also expanding, now including countries that are hostile to Israel. Larry Taunton, who is executive director of Fixpoint Foundation, will join us live from Switzerland with the latest on this and more. Plus, Congresswoman Harriet Hageman, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, will provide the latest on the congressional fraud investigations into the corruption involving billions of federal tax dollars in Minnesota. She’ll also weigh in on Minnesota officials giving a green light to protesters storming churches. President Donald Trump is standing firmly by his demand for control of Greenland, but says he will not use force to take it. He made the remarks today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. His comments came as talk of acquiring the Danish territory has intensified in recent weeks. Joining me now to talk more about this, Washington Stand reporter Casey Harper, who’s been tracking this and other stories today. So Casey, what’s the latest on the president’s push to secure Greenland? Has he gotten a green light yet?
SPEAKER 03 :
There you go, Tony. That’s a good one. So, you know, Greenland, you’re right. Greenland has been the talk of the town this week at the town is Davos, where President Trump spoke to leaders at the World Economic Forum. And it was a very long speech, but He said that no nation or group of nations is in a position to take Greenland, let alone defend it, except the United States. Here’s a clip from that speech.
SPEAKER 05 :
We never asked for anything, and we never got anything. We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won’t do that, okay? Now everyone’s saying, oh, good. That’s probably the biggest statement I made because people thought I would use force. I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.
SPEAKER 03 :
Now, the president’s right that that statement is the one that everyone was waiting to hear. Is he going to use military action to take Greenland? But that’s not all that he said. He went on to say that he wanted immediate negotiations on U.S. acquisition of Greenland. And he keeps talking about Greenland being used as a territory for the Golden Dome missile defense system, something he’s very passionate about. Now, the president had also talked about first 10% and then 25% tariffs on eight EU nations if he doesn’t get what he wants on Greenland. However, later today, after that speech, but later today, he announced that he had come up with a preliminary framework that the EU had agreed to, not just for Greenland, but for the greater Arctic region, which is going to put those tariffs on hold. Now, we don’t know a lot of the details, Tony, on those, but we will be looking closely at them because, as you know, the devil is often in the details.
SPEAKER 11 :
All right. Yes. I don’t think that story is going to go away anytime soon. While he was in Davos, he was also discussing the Gaza Board of Peace. That’s something we’re going to take a look at a little bit later, too, with Larry Taunton, who is in Switzerland. All right. Back to the states here, Minnesota, the site of a growing federal investigation into fraud. What’s the latest we hear coming out of Minnesota?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, Tony, so this all started, I just want to remind us, so this all started with that $9 billion in taxpayer fraud that was carried out in large part by the Somali community that’s now under the microscope. Well, today, the House Judiciary Committee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, they held a hearing digging into the extent of those fraud schemes and how the federal government was exploited so heavily, and some of the testimony was pretty amazing. or alarming rather, but so during the hearing, one witness who was a former police officer and fraud investigator said that working through federal agencies and looking into this, they learned that millions of dollars, get this Tony, millions of dollars in cash was being flown out of the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport by Somali carriers. We’re talking suitcases full of cash. In fact, they found that $70 million had been documented leaving the US in just six months alone. And here’s Congressman Andy Biggs on that fraud investigation.
SPEAKER 16 :
Treasury Secretary Scott Besant has noted that the Department is currently investigating where Minnesota’s taxpayer dollars are being placed. Additional reports show that Somali individuals in the United States send roughly $215 million abroad each year. DOJ has now undertaken extensive investigative action, which includes issuing over 1,750 subpoenas, executing more than 130 search warrants, and conducting more than 1,000 witness interviews.
SPEAKER 03 :
And that crackdown does seem warranted when you hear stories like that. And the DOJ subpoenas, they include the offices of Minnesota’s governor and attorney general, as well as the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul, which are alleging that they are obstructing the immigration crackdown that’s come as a result of this fraud. But Tony, I can’t help but wonder, when you hear about all these testimonies that continue to come out, more and more details, when there’s this much smoke, I think there’s going to be a lot more fire that we find.
SPEAKER 11 :
We need to start looking at some of those suitcases. All right, Casey, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate the update. All right, I want to go into a little bit more of what is happening in Minnesota and what today’s hearing may have uncovered. I want to bring in Congresswoman Harriet Hageman, who serves on the House Judiciary Committee. She represents Wyoming’s at-large district. Congresswoman Hageman, welcome back to Washington Watch. Always great to see you.
SPEAKER 18 :
Thank you, Tony. It’s great to be here.
SPEAKER 11 :
All right. So yesterday, federal prosecutors served grand jury subpoenas to Minnesota officials as a part of this investigation into whether they obstructed or impeded law enforcement during the ICE operations in Minneapolis, St. Paul area. So you’ve got fraud investigations. You’ve got obstruction of law enforcement. What’s the next shoe that’s going to fall there in Minnesota?
SPEAKER 18 :
I think that it’s probably fairly obvious to most of your viewers that the effort to create this crisis related to ICE is to try to deflect attention from this incredible fraud that is being uncovered in Minnesota. You know, we can say that there were many red flags. These weren’t red flags. These were neon flashing signs. These were fireworks. There were so many signs about the fact that this kind of fraud was going on, especially when you take into consideration what was just reported about the millions of dollars being flown out of Minnesota, out of the Minneapolis airport to Somalia. Over 80% of the Somalia households receive some form of public assistance. Many of them are on welfare. So your first question is, if they’re on welfare, how are they getting millions of dollars to send back to the homeland? Number one. Number two, if they’re on welfare, why do they need childcare? They’re not working outside of the home. Why would there be this number of Somalia childcare centers? I mean, you can go step by step by step as you peel this onion, And you realize that there was layer after layer after layer after layer of fraud. And everybody in the state of Minnesota that was responsible for actually ensuring that this money was appropriately spent basically said, well, I don’t know. It never occurred to me that there could be fraud here. You think about it and you just know that the level of corruption here is probably one of the largest problems. frauds that has ever been perpetrated against the American taxpayer and the state taxpayers in Minnesota. And so then what do they do? You’ve got the deer in the headlight look with Mr. Walts and the attorney general and the mayor of Minneapolis. And they’re thinking, oh my gosh, what do we do? Let’s get a right. We’re going to have to do something that changes the narrative, that changes the dialogue. I don’t think people are falling for it. We can do the ICE enforcement and we can address the fact that they are obstructing the ICE law enforcement officers while at the same time that we can continue to investigate this astronomical fraud that’s being uncovered on a day-to-day basis.
SPEAKER 11 :
Harriet, as you laid out the evidence here, I want to go back to one that I think would be actually the number one issue is immigration. Why are we allowing people into this country that are going on to the government payroll in welfare? I mean, what that this is at the heart of this problem is we’re bringing people in, showing that the government’s got all this kind of money. So we’re just going to give it to you when you come in. So why not take a little bit more?
SPEAKER 18 :
I think that that’s absolutely correct. This goes back to the failed immigration system and the incentive that some people have within our own country to attempt to, I would argue, import our own demise, but import their voters. So then the next question that you have to ask is, if this is a war-torn country and it is so bad that you’re here on temporary protective status because we had to fly you out of that country on an emergency basis, put you in a refugee camp, bring you to Minneapolis and Maine and Ohio and Washington and Oregon. We had to get you out of this country. Why are you going back? What is the incentive for these folks to be going back? That’s the other thing that absolutely strikes me about this. These people are coming here. They’re claiming refugee status. They’re claiming they’re refugees. They’re claiming that they should be protected. in the United States of America under our asylum laws, and they’re going back to the countries of origin for vacation. I guess that I would say that it should be absolutely illegal for you to return to the country that you’re claiming asylum from to go back and visit your family on vacation. I mean, all of these things, as you say, it goes back to immigration, but it also goes back to the incentive structure that the Democrats have set up to bring in these folks uh to undermine our system to destroy our welfare system you know it was william f buckley he said you can either have an open border or you can have a welfare system and you can’t have both well i think that’s writ large throughout this entire story
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, and you add to that government getting outside of its lane of responsibility and funding these programs like, you know, these daycare systems and all this stuff that, you know, as you pointed out, they’re not working. They’re on welfare. Why aren’t they caring for their own kids?
SPEAKER 18 :
That’s exactly right.
SPEAKER 11 :
I know this is controversial in some because there are many who think the government ought to do these things. I don’t think it should. I think when the government gets out of its role and into the role of the family and of the community, that’s where it starts funding things that just invites corruption. And this is an exhibit of that.
SPEAKER 18 :
So what I always say is that a government that does things that it shouldn’t be doing becomes incapable of doing the things that it should.
SPEAKER 11 :
Absolutely.
SPEAKER 18 :
And I think again, and again, another saying that I often have is government is always trying to fix its last solution. But that’s because the very nature of government is a form of corruption. You’re taking from the producers and attempting to find a way to distribute that. And politicians throughout the ages have figured out how to use the public coffers for their own advantage. One of the things that I think is apparent about this is that we are such a highly successful country in terms of our work ethic, in terms of what we manufacture, in terms of what we produce. But we’re also an incredibly compassionate, compassionate people. And we all say we want to help people. We want to make sure that we do not have people Starving in the streets. We want to make sure that people have shelter and food. That’s our natural, compassionate way that we approach things. But the question becomes, should it be government? Should it be the churches? Should it be the local communities? And I think that we’re demonstrating that government fails at.
SPEAKER 11 :
You are absolutely right. We just have a minute left. I want to touch on this very quickly. You have government officials in Minnesota giving a green light to what happened on Sunday where protesters stormed a church, interrupted a church service, violating the FACE Act that has provisions that protect religious establishments. I mean, how can they get away with that?
SPEAKER 18 :
They can’t. They all need to be prosecuted. All you need to remember is that under the Biden administration, they were dragging good Christian men out of their homes at gunpoint in front of their children because they had prayed in front of an abortion clinic. The FACE Act protects religious services in our religious facilities. Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota, I’m going to be very I’m going to say something that is not very nice. The guy is a moron. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about in terms of what the law says. The FACE Act protects those parishioners from the kind of attack that we saw on Sunday. And not only does federal law apply, he should be making sure in the state of Minnesota that those people can freely exercise their religion.
SPEAKER 11 :
Thank you, Harriet. We have state leaders that want to keep the deadly drugs out of their states. Maybe if these abortion pills were coming by boat, the administration would change its tactics. It’s time to respect the rights of the states, and it’s time to end death by mail.
SPEAKER 02 :
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, alongside Senator Lindsey Graham, led a press conference on Capitol Hill urging the Trump administration to end the Biden-era policies that have allowed dangerous abortion drugs to be shipped across state lines. They were joined by state attorneys general, pro-life advocates, and multiple Republican congressmen.
SPEAKER 07 :
There are more abortions today in the United States than when Roe versus Wade was the law of the land. And why is that? It’s because of the chemical abortion drug Mifeprestone. Nearly 70% of the abortions that are committed in the United States today are committed because of Mifeprestone.
SPEAKER 15 :
The federal government is allowing a chemical abortion pill to be sent through the mail that wipes out every state unborn protection law in the land.
SPEAKER 09 :
It’s harder to ship alcohol in this country than it is to ship the abortion pill.
SPEAKER 06 :
And that should never be the case. This is a drug that takes the life of every child. So there is always a death that’s involved in this drug, but is also incredibly dangerous for the mom as well. We think that we should require a doctor to be able to get access to this drug.
SPEAKER 04 :
As a doctor, I think it’s essential that there be human contact before the pill is prescribed.
SPEAKER 12 :
It’s not about a national abortion ban. It’s about validating Dobbs and preventing other states from nullifying the legislative policy choices that have been made by our states and facilitating the illegal, unethical, and dangerous drug trafficking of abortion pills into our states without any medical oversight whatsoever.
SPEAKER 15 :
We can simply fix this if we have the courage to do it. So what are all of us telling the administration? You’ve been a great pro-life president, Mr. President. It’s now time to deal with this issue.
SPEAKER 07 :
We want to protect life, and we want to give voice to the American people and their right to protect life state by state, city by city, and yes, here in the United States Congress. That’s what this fight is about.
SPEAKER 02 :
Let your voice be heard. Text LIFE to 67742. Sign the petition. Tell the Trump administration to act.
SPEAKER 17 :
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 11 :
This is Washington Watch. I’m Tony Perkins. Thanks for tuning in. All right. President Trump, as we mentioned at the top of the program, is in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum, where earlier this afternoon he announced that the framework for a future deal on Greenland has been formed. Now, in a post on Truth Social, the president wrote, quote, This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America and all NATO nations. Join me now to discuss this is author and columnist Larry Taunton, who is in Davos right now. He is the host of the Ideas Have Consequences podcast. Larry, welcome back to Washington Watch. Good to see you. Happy New Year.
SPEAKER 08 :
It’s good to see you, Tony. I like the beard.
SPEAKER 11 :
Oh, well, thank you. It’s keeping me warm. It’s probably a little cold where you are, huh?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes, it is, at least for my southern blood. It’s probably about 30 out right now.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, for me, that’s cold. All right. Let’s let’s start with the big announcement. This comes the president says said earlier today that he won’t use force to acquire Greenland. What what was the response to that?
SPEAKER 08 :
You know, I think it’s actually quite interesting, Tony. The president’s plan is quite nuanced, and he began with a history. He was laying out the history of NATO, how the United States has sent trillions of dollars In support of NATO, he discussed the United States’ role in winning World War II. He laid out how Denmark fell to the Nazis in six hours in World War II, and it was necessary for the United States to occupy Greenland during the war to prevent the Germans from occupying it. And then he started talking about NATO and that the United States— It cannot just be assumed that the United States will always be there and that we want something in return. And that’s NATO. Excuse me. And that’s Greenland.
SPEAKER 11 :
Was there like a sense of relief when he said we’re not going to use force to get it?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes, I think so. I think almost everyone knew that Trump had no such plans, and there’s been an awful lot of drama in media that’s just fake news regarding that. But the president’s plan here is actually clever. He’s playing it very strategically, and he’s using – leverage that, you know, his words exactly were this. You can give it to us and we’ll be very grateful or you can say no and we’ll remember that. And what he was getting at was that, you know, you’re wanting us to fund your defense. You’re wanting our involvement in your war in Ukraine against Russia. Well, you can’t count on that unless we’re getting something out of it.
SPEAKER 11 :
The president had been threatening tariffs. If the NATO countries did not go along with it, he backed off of that today. Is that another negotiating gambit?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, I think it’s a big part of his negotiating gambit, Tony. I mean, the President of the United States, often people forget this about him. He is fundamentally, you know, he’s a businessman. He’s a negotiator. He believes in making deals. And part of that is having leverage in deals. And he’s using NATO as a very big part of that leverage.
SPEAKER 11 :
Do you think that the stock market responding to that with a downturn, you know, fear of more tariff wars had something to do with him backing off of that?
SPEAKER 08 :
You know, Tony, I don’t really feel qualified probably to to to respond to that as I’m not much of an economist. I will say this. The president himself seemed to think that that was a that was a factor.
SPEAKER 11 :
So let’s talk about the Board of Peace. I mean, the president kind of rolling all of his stuff in there as all these international leaders get together. He’s talking about expanding that Board of Peace. What do we know about those discussions?
SPEAKER 08 :
You know, that’s all right now seems to be taking place behind closed doors. What we do know is that Putin himself has pledged that should the war end, that he would give a billion dollars towards this board of peace. What that actually is going to play out and look like isn’t clear to me. But I do want to say this, Tony, about the president’s address that I think is really relevant for your audience. For all Americans who are concerned, the World Economic Forum is a fundamentally anti-human organization. Now, they would never describe themselves that way, and they don’t think of themselves like that. But when they speak in terms of making the world a better place, it rarely involves human beings. It’s almost always about climate or artificial intelligence or something like that. What it seems to me that everyone’s missing about the president’s address today was it was permeated with a desire that he expressed repeatedly to make life better for American citizens. Given the conversation you were just having about illegal aliens in our own country who have gamed the system, I found that so refreshing because we don’t hear politicians talking like that now. And here was the president saying, we are going to make the standard of living for Americans better than it’s ever been in our history. And he went into specifics about the housing market and what he plans to do to try to make housing more affordable without crushing existing homeowners. I mean, he was really getting into the nuts and bolts of that. And there’s something that to me, I mean, this is my fourth year in a row to be at the World Economic Forum. There’s something to me that that stood in sharp contrast with what the World Economic Forum is. I mean, this is largely a billionaire boys club, and they pretend to be representative of the world, and they’re representative of 1% of 1%. And yet here was Donald Trump saying, I care about the little guy. And most of all, I care about American citizens.
SPEAKER 11 :
You know, I did, as I read through what he had to say, I did find it a little interesting that he was talking domestic policy and economics for Americans there on that world stage at the World Forum. It was like everybody else you say talking about the world. We’re going to make the world a better place. He was talking about the American people. And I was I was curious about that, using that platform to bring forth that message.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, you’re dead on there, Tony, because they love, listen, leftists love talking in terms of faceless masses, in terms of millions and billions of people. Trump was being very specific in talking about the citizens of the United States. And then he said to them, listen, Europeans, you would be wise to follow us to improve the conditions in your own country because you’re destroying your countries. And he spoke of how Europe has become unrecognizable. I’m all over Europe frequently, and I can tell you that’s factually true.
SPEAKER 11 :
Larry, we’ve got to leave it there. Always great to see you, my friend. Stay warm, and we’ll hope to see you again soon. All right, on the other side of the break, we’re going to be discussing this invasion of a church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Don’t go away. We’re back with more. We’ll be right back. For over 4,000 years, the Jewish people have had legal, historical, and biblical ties to the land of Israel, especially the heartland of Israel, Judea and Samaria, which much of the world still calls the West Bank. To Israelis, Judea and Samaria is far more than a name. It’s the center of their ancestral homeland where nearly 80% of the Bible’s events took place. Abraham purchased property in Hebron, Jacob in Shechem, Joshua made an altar on Mount Ebal and led the Israelites into a covenant before God. On Mount Gerizim, overlooking Shechem, Jesus talked to the Samaritan woman at the well about worshiping neither on Mount Gerizim nor in Jerusalem, but in spirit and in truth. Judea and Samaria is nearly a quarter of Israel’s current land mass, not a small strip of land on the Jordan River, but a vital and strategic part of the nation’s identity. The October 7th massacre, launched from Gaza, shattered the illusion that giving away territory brings peace. Gaza, which was once seen as the cornerstone of a two-state solution, became a launch pad for terror. Today, only 21 percent of Israelis support a Palestinian state. Trust in a two-state solution has all but collapsed. The Middle East is changing. Iran’s grip is weakening. New alliances are forming. But Western countries and some U.S. officials still chase the mirage of a two-state solution. History speaks clearly. The 2005 Gaza withdrawal, backed by the U.S., led not to peace, but to a terrorist regime. Judea and Samaria are 24 times larger than Gaza, deeply woven into Israel’s geographic and spiritual fabric. To surrender them would not bring peace. It would invite conflict and existential danger. Family Research Council stands with Israel’s rightful claim to sovereignty. It’s time for America to do the same for history, for justice, and for lasting security in the Middle East. All right, yesterday, Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, posted a statement regarding the highly politicized invasion of their Sunday worship service by a group of anti-ICE agitators. In the statement, the church noted how the protesters, quote, accosted members of our congregation, frightened children, and created a scene marked by intimidation and threat, end quote. Now, while the incident at Cities Church may seem exceptional, quote, It’s not. In today’s environment, it should be something that all churches should be prepared to encounter. In fact, when we do events, we’ve been doing this for a number of years now, like a lot of things we’ve done at Calvary Chapel and Chino Hills with Pastor Jack, just like we had a demonstration for our Prevotestand Summit. We make very clear at the beginning, this is a worship service, so that it falls under the parameters of the FACE Act, so that legal action can be taken. If we… Find those that come into the building, storm, try to block access to it, interrupt or whatever it might be. But there are certain things you need to put in place to be prepared for these. So joining me now to talk about this former Secret Service special agent, Tim Miller, a 30-year officer. law enforcement veteran, military professional whose extensive background includes leadership roles in Homeland Security and the United States Marine Corps, where he retired as Lieutenant Colonel. He is now the founder and president of Lionheart International Services Group. Tim, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us.
SPEAKER 10 :
It’s an honor to be with you, Tony. Thanks for having me.
SPEAKER 11 :
We would hope that this would be an anomaly, but I think in this environment, I’ve talked about this the other morning on Fox, that the hostility toward the church was latent for decades. Now it’s become blatant when we see individuals storming into a church like this and declaring the right to interrupt a worship service. So I think we need to be prepared. What can churches do to be prepared for these types of things?
SPEAKER 10 :
Well, Tony, you’re spot on. And, you know, we all believe in the Word of God. The Word of God is clear. Paul talks about it in 2 Timothy chapter 3, that in the last days there will be terrible, difficult times. The Greek word is kalepos, meaning dangerous, threatening times. fierce and savage. And as we watch what’s happening in Minneapolis, but it’s been going on for a number of years, we have to understand that boundaries are being crossed every day. Churches used to be off of the focus of violence. Now they’re full speed as we’ve seen. And I think wisdom tells us that we must be ready as the body of Christ. We believe that the church is the hope of the world and the nation, and we need it to be safe because we believe God’s word. And that takes actions, Tony, to your point.
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, there’s some very simple things you can do. I think… Almost every church has a security service, a security system. We put cameras in our sanctuary so that we are constantly recording what happens in a sanctuary. If someone were to come and interrupt, therefore we have a record. We have footage of that.
SPEAKER 10 :
Exactly right. And to your point, Tony, as a Secret Service agent, we recognize that security is proactive. It’s identifying threats before they can strike and stopping them. And for that to be the case, churches have to recognize that the old model, our grandparents’ model of maybe a person that’s carrying and there are security, that’s gone. Three things must occur at every church immediately if we believe what God’s word says. That’s first, we need to pray like we’ve never prayed. We need to ask God for protection. The second is we need to plan. There needs to be a carefully written out plan plan that identifies everything from, hey, what do we do in a fire? What do we do, you know, for the things that are going to happen? And then the third P is practice. Every church in America, and I deal with churches all over the country, it’s very basic. And I would encourage every pastor listening to me because, you know, sometimes security is, you know, viewed through the pastors. I don’t want to inhibit people. That’s not the point. A ministry-based security program is skilled to help the hurting people that come to the hospital of the church. But that takes a lot of planning, a lot of practicing and training. And most all important is the prayer. Every week, because when you look at Minnesota, I got frustrated. If you were able to identify them outside, if you were able to identify their intentions, had a lockdown plan, then you might have been able to stop them from entering the sanctuary. I think you know this, Tony. I led one of the largest churches in America’s security effort. We had this very thing happen, protesters outside. But because we had a plan, we had practice and trained teams, we stopped it. And we cannot let evil come into the sanctuary. It’s got to stop.
SPEAKER 11 :
It’s designed to intimidate people from coming to church and to worship. And, you know, you were the Secret Service. The security needs to be behind the scenes. I mean, people need to be comfortable, safe when they’re there. This is not about creating armed fortresses. We want people to come in who are hurting, who need to hear about the Lord. But we’ve got to protect the people who come and worship. They need to feel safe. And as you said, prayer, planning, and practice, those three things can get us to where we need to be. Don’t need to be afraid, but we need to be prepared. Last word. We’ve got about a minute left.
SPEAKER 10 :
Tony, you’re spot on and let me just encourage, when I ran large security teams, we started with how do you pray with people? How do you recognize mental illness? What do you do if there’s a domestic issue? Everybody wants to focus on the violence and we should have a plan for that. But first and foremost, a security ministry in the church is what enables you to support the mission. And now we’re all on one team. We train staff and everyone how to respond in a crisis. Because when it happens, you know this well from your background, you have seconds to respond.
SPEAKER 11 :
It’s about ministry. You got to keep the ministry and the prayer comes first. That’s how we stay focused on the ministry. Tim, always great to see you, my friend. Thanks so much for joining us.
SPEAKER 10 :
God bless you, Tony, for all the work you’re doing. Thank you.
SPEAKER 11 :
And pastors, I would encourage you to seek out counsel, expertise from folks like Tim. Put something in place. We need to be prepared. All right, don’t go away. More Washington Watch straight ahead.
SPEAKER 09 :
Should a Christian support Israel? That question has become one of the most emotionally charged issues of our time, both in the world and within the church. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins offers a clear biblical and prophetic answer. In his latest book, he examines Israel’s past, present, and future through the lens of scripture, revealing why support for Israel is not rooted in politics, partisanship, or cultural sentiment, but in the unchanging promises of God. Drawing from Genesis to Revelation, Tony Perkins demonstrates that the ultimate rationale for a Christian’s support for Israel is spiritual. Should a Christian Support Israel invites believers to see beyond headlines and ideologies, returning to the foundation of God’s Word to understand His heart for His chosen people and the blessings that flow when we stand with what He has established forever. Text the word Israel to 67742 for more information.
SPEAKER 13 :
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 series that explores the connection between biblical principles and the American government, equipping you with truth to engage in today’s most pressing debates. We’ll uncover the foundations of our nation’s history and why it’s relevant for today. Join us to defend God’s plan for government because faith and freedom were never meant to be separate. You can view the course at prayvotestand.org slash godandgovernment or on the Stand Firm app.
SPEAKER 09 :
The book of Hebrews says that the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Stand on the Word is Family Research Council’s journey through the living and active Word of God. Follow the plan with us. Spend 10 to 15 minutes a day reading God’s Word, and over the course of two years, discover that the Bible is one big story, a story of many words, pointing to the Word, the One who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. because the Word is alive and His name is Jesus. Find our Bible reading plan and daily devotionals from Tony Perkins at frc.org slash Bible. Join us as we stand on the Word.
SPEAKER 11 :
All right, thanks for tuning in to Washington Watch. The website is TonyPerkins.com. Also, resources available for you on the Stand Firm app. You can go to the App Store and get the Stand Firm app. Our word for today comes from Genesis chapter 48, as the patriarch Jacob was about to die, and he called Joseph to his bedside along with his sons and blessed him. Verse 15, and he blessed Joseph and said, God, before whom my father… Abraham and Isaac walk, the God who has fed me all my life long to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil. Bless the lads. Let my name be upon them in the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.” Now, this blessing is actually referenced or pointed out by Paul in Hebrews chapter 11, where it says, Speaking blessings over our children isn’t just for Old Testament patriarchs. Jesus blessed the children who came to him. Paul frequently spoke a blessing over his spiritual children. Fathers, grandfathers, if you’ve not spoken a blessing over your children, I encourage you to do so. And you don’t have to wait until you’re on your deathbed. Speak life by speaking words of blessing. To find out more about our journey through the Bible, text BIBLE to 67742. That’s BIBLE to 67742. All right. So breaking news within the past hour, the Department of Health and Human Services Civil Rights Office released information, made some statements based upon regarding the life issue. And so we’re going to bring that to you right now. Here to discuss this announcement is Paula Stannard. She is the director of HHS’s Civil Rights Office. Director Stannard, welcome to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us.
SPEAKER 14 :
Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER 11 :
So this, as I understand, and I’m just reading this as this came out, there are three items that were announced today. Let’s start with the first one regarding the state of Illinois.
SPEAKER 14 :
Certainly. So today we issued a notice of violation to the state of Illinois that finds that the referral requirements of the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act violates two federal health care conscience protection statutes. the Weldon and Co. Snow amendments when health care professionals object to providing abortion because the statute requires that they provide referrals for abortion in order to obtain the protection of that state statute.
SPEAKER 11 :
So this is protecting the rights of health care workers, their conscience rights, so they’re not forced to do something that they find morally reprehensible.
SPEAKER 14 :
Correct. And It’s very ironic that the state of Illinois statute says that in order to have a protection under the statute for one’s objections on religious or conscience, they have to, in fact, refer for the very health service that they object to.
SPEAKER 11 :
I think this is really important when you consider… The type of people you want to come into health care that have a conscience that might be doing this for faith reasons, they want to help other people, but they have to choose. If they’re forced to do something that violates their faith, they’re going to be driven out of that field of service.
SPEAKER 14 :
Absolutely. And that’s one of the reasons why my office, the Office for Civil Rights, is so focused on enforcing the federal health care conscience statutes because of our concern that if people, if health care professionals and health care organizations are not permitted to follow their conscience, we will have less access to health care. Not only will people not enter the profession, but health care professionals who are faithful Christians or Muslims or members of other faiths that have religious or conscious objections to certain health care services, such as abortion or sterilization, will be driven from the profession. And when that happens, There’s less health care all around. And so this is very much, as we see it, an issue not only of conscience and protection of conscience and religious freedom, but also a matter of access to health care.
SPEAKER 11 :
Absolutely, because you have a number of faith based institutions that are out there. I mean, most of our hospitals in this country were founded by faith based organizations to begin with. All right. Another announcement regarding a Biden era interpretation of some of these things. So the law is sometimes open to interpretation. You’ve rescinded some guidance that the Biden administration had put out. Explain that to us.
SPEAKER 14 :
Sure. So we looked at all of the guidances that the Biden administration’s Office for Civil Rights had issued and have announced that we’re rescinding a number of guidance documents dealing with health care conscience issues, especially in the area of abortion and protection of human life. So we’re rescinding several of these guidance documents. So one was a September 2021 guidance on non-discrimination protections under the church amendments. So the church amendments protect the exercise of conscience in healthcare with respect specifically to abortion and sterilization, but also more broadly, other healthcare services and biomedical research. But several of the provisions protect both people who object to the provision of abortion sterilization, but also those who would perform those services. And this Biden era guidance focused on only the protections for those who would provide abortion or sterilization. And that’s inconsistent with both the statute as well as this administration’s focus on life and on ensuring that the Hyde Amendment is followed. So we’ve announced the decision of that guidance document. There’s also a guidance from December 2021 on equitable administration of vaccines issued during the COVID pandemic. It relies on executive orders that are no longer in effect. And so we’re rescinding that. And then we’re also rescinding a 2023 guidance to the nation’s retail pharmacy on obligations under federal civil rights laws to ensure nondiscriminatory access to health care at pharmacies. And this was really focused, while broadly on health care, it really focused on a number of drugs that can be used to induce abortion, but also might have other in other uses. And so because it’s inconsistent with our understanding of the statute and also inconsistent with the administration’s views on Biological Truth and other executive orders are very rescinding that guidance document.
SPEAKER 11 :
Sounds like you’ve been pretty busy. Should we anticipate some other announcements coming in the days ahead?
SPEAKER 14 :
Yes. So we rounded out our announcements today with a conscience, dear colleague letter that outlines all of the health care conscience protection statutes that are specific to HHS and its programs. to educate both the regulated entities, which are states and local governments, as well as healthcare institutions, about the statutes that protect the exercise of conscience in healthcare, as well as educating healthcare professionals about their rights under federal healthcare conscience laws. But this is part of our effort to make sure that people understand their rights and obligations, and to encourage voluntary compliance with these statutes. But if we receive complaints about potential violations of the statutes or reports that indicate that a regulated entity may not be complying with them, We will launch investigations or compliance reviews.
SPEAKER 11 :
So how can folks, if they encounter that, how can they contact you?
SPEAKER 14 :
Sure. On our website, we have access to a portal by which people can file complaints with us. and otherwise get in touch with us. And there is, we issued a press release on these activities. That press release also has information and a link to our complaint portal for conscience and religious freedom.
SPEAKER 11 :
All right. We’re going to post that on our Web site. Director Standard, I want to thank you for joining us. Appreciate you sharing this information with you. Appreciate the work that you’re doing to protect the rights of conscience and the unborn. All right. Some good news. So you can check out that on the Web site. Tony Perkins, I will have a link there to. their portal. All right, very quickly, yesterday, as Jody was filling in for me, I was down at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. They heard the oral arguments over state laws out of Texas and Louisiana pertaining to the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. Louisiana was the first state to pass such a law back in 2024. Now, what was interesting is I sit there in the courtroom listening to is that the opponents of this, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, ACLU, their whole argument was saying that this is religious coercion, that children were being forced to, coerced, into looking at these Ten Commandments, which was a violation of the Establishment Clause. Well, it just so happened that the Family Research Council filed a brief in this case, and it was focused on the issue of coercion. In fact, the Solicitor General, who argued on behalf of Louisiana’s law, brought up our brief in his oral presentation and referred the justices to that. Well, joining me now to discuss this is the lawyer who wrote our brief, who has been working with the Family Research Council on a number of briefs, Christopher Mills. He previously served as a law clerk at the Supreme Court for Justice Clarence Thomas. He is the founder of Spiro Law LLC, and he joins us now. Chris, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for having me. So your brief got a shout out yesterday in the court. I don’t know if you saw that. But before we get into we’ve got about four minutes here, so we’ve got to move quickly. But before we get into the heart of your your brief, the brief that you put together for us dealing with this issue of coercion, why are these briefs that are filed important to the court?
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, so these briefs are important because the parties, Louisiana, Texas, the challengers, have a limited amount of words that they can present to the court. And in a case like this, there’s a lot of issues. This case involves issues about standing, whether someone has standing just because he might see something on the wall. whether the cases are ripe, whether these displays haven’t actually been used yet, and then all of these deep historical questions about what was the history of the Establishment Clause of the founding, what types of issues were going on in schools then. And so there’s all these subsidiary important issues that the parties just don’t have room for, and that’s where briefs like ours come in.
SPEAKER 11 :
So the opponents of this basically made their whole case surrounding this issue of religious coercion, that it was, you know, the Establishment Clause prohibits religious coercion. But that means and the justices, you know, pointed this out. This means that you’re forced to engage in some type of religious exercise at risk of penalty or reward. The argument was made the posting the Ten Commandments, a passive posting of the Ten Commandments on a classroom wall is not a religious exercise or service. I mean, the students aren’t being forced to recite it. They’re not being forced to read it. It’s just hanging there.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, so what the challengers are really trying to do is go back to a test that the Supreme Court has finally gotten rid of, the infamous Lemon Test, under which any government endorsement of religion could implicate the Establishment Clause. In the Coach Kennedy case, the Supreme Court said, no, that’s not the test anymore. The question is whether there’s an actual establishment of religion, and an establishment meant religion a formal coercion by force of law or threat of penalty to participate in a religious exercise. And that that means like real coercion, in other words. And that was the issue before the court yesterday. You know, are we going to go with what coercion actually meant in the context of an establishment of religion at the founding? Or are we going to basically sneak in this old lemon test by defining coercion so that it means a poster that many students may not even see as they walk by?
SPEAKER 11 :
And that was a point that many of the conservative justices were making. This lemon test is no longer there. The Kennedy case, Joe Kennedy, the football coach, that case erased this issue with lemon. But the attorney for the ACLU, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, he claimed, and he said this in the court, that posting the Ten Commandments on a schoolroom wall turns that school into a church. That was his argument. And I was sitting there looking at the wall, and I saw one of these signs, a fire code occupancy sign. So I guess if a church has a fire code occupancy sign hanging on the wall, it’s now a government auditorium. I mean, if you follow their logic.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, I mean, it’s absurd. That logic would mean the Supreme Court of the United States is a church because the Ten Commandments are up there, you know, displayed in one of the freezes showing different historical lawgivers. That’s just not a plausible argument. You know, what they need to show is both coercion, formal coercion, and also coercion to participate in what? In some sort of formal religious ceremony. And that’s just not, neither aspect is found here. There’s no coercion and there’s no formal religious ceremony. It’s the state displaying the Ten Commandments in the same historical context that Ten Commandments have been displayed in for a long, long time.
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, again, I want to commend you, Chris. Great job on the brief. And I appreciate you working with Family Research Council to bring these arguments to the forefront. Of course. Happy to help. All right. Thanks for joining us. All right. We’ll be watching that case very closely, probably maybe summer. Could be the fall, but probably the summer. We may get a decision in that case, something to be praying about. All right. We’re out of time for today. Thanks so much for joining us. Check out the website, TonyPerkins.com. Until next time, I leave you with the encouraging words of the Apostle Paul, where he says, you’ve done everything you can do when you’ve prayed, prepared, and taken your stand. By all means, keep standing.
SPEAKER 19 :
Washington Watch with Tony Perkins is brought to you by Family Research Council. To support our efforts to advance faith, family, and freedom, please text GIVE to 67742. That’s GIVE to 67742. Portions of the show discussing candidates are brought to you by Family Research Council Action. For more information, please visit TonyPerkins.com.
