Join Tony Perkins as he engages in discussions that matter. From analyzing Texas’ bold stance on age verification laws in the fight against online pornography to evaluating U.S. national security threats, this episode provides a platform for experts like Attorney General Ken Paxton to share their insights. As always, conversations are anchored in a commitment to faith and freedom, urging listeners to stay informed and vigilant.
SPEAKER 08 :
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 :
This is the ceasefire agreement I introduced last spring. Today, Hamas and Israel have agreed to that ceasefire agreement. and the whole ending the war.
SPEAKER 03 :
That was President Joe Biden earlier today. Welcome to this Wednesday edition of Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us. While Hamas has agreed to the ceasefire negotiated in Qatar, Israel reportedly has not yet approved the deal that would trade Palestinian criminals and terrorists for Israeli hostages at a reported 50 to one ratio. In the first phase, 33 hostages would be released, not immediately, but over six weeks. In addition to releasing terrorists, Israel would withdraw their forces from Gaza. Is this a good deal? We’ll talk with Frank Gaffney, president, Institute for the American Future. What is the greatest threat facing America? Outgoing FBI Director Christopher Wray answered that question on CBS’s 60 Minutes this past Sunday.
SPEAKER 10 :
Well, the greatest long-term threat facing our country, in my view, is represented by the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese government, which I consider to be the defining threat of our generation.
SPEAKER 03 :
On this issue, I agree with him. We’ll talk with Michigan Congressman John Molinar, chairman of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. And the state of Texas was at the Supreme Court today defending the right to defend the innocence of children.
SPEAKER 02 :
If strict scrutiny applies here, Texas would have to satisfy strict scrutiny to keep kids out of strip clubs. This court’s cases do not require that. Neither do history, tradition, or common sense.
SPEAKER 03 :
That was Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielsen in his opening statements this morning. We’ll be joined by the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, a little bit later. Finally, yesterday’s debate over the protection of women and girls in Sports Act illustrated the stranglehold that the trans movement has on the Democratic Party. In arguing against the common-sense piece of legislation, Democrats falsely claimed that the legislation would lead to genital inspections of children. They argued that the number of cases of gender-confused males in female sports is extremely small. Now, we saw a similar argument recently with the release of a study last week claiming that fewer than 1 in 1,000 U.S. teens under the age of 18 received puberty blockers or hormones from 2018 to 2022. So it’s a huge problem when the left is trying to push government restrictions on counseling and force the use of pronouns. But when it comes to laws protecting children from irreversible surgeries and drugs, there’s not that many cases of gender dysphoria. So which is it? Dr. Jennifer Bowens, the director of the Center of Family Studies here at FRC, will join me later for that conversation. And folks, you’re going to find a lot today to pray about, so I invite you to join us in our prayer effort, Prayer Shield. Text the word SHIELD to 67742. That’s SHIELD, S-H-I-E-L-D, to 67742. And join us in praying for our nation and, quite frankly, for the world. It’s on fire. All right, yesterday, the Department of Justice disclosed details on a major international operation conducted by the FBI and French authorities targeting Chinese state-sponsored cyber threats. Now the effort remotely removed malicious software that was implanted in thousands of critical networks worldwide by Beijing-linked hacking groups. And the operation underscores the growing concern over China’s aggressive cyber activities, which U.S. officials warn are positioned to disrupt critical infrastructure at a moment’s notice. So how great of a threat does China pose to America’s future? Join me now to discuss this and more is Congressman John Moulinard. He is the chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. He represents the 2nd Congressional District of the state of Michigan. Chairman Moulinard, welcome back to Washington Watch. Good to see you. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 15 :
Thank you for having me, Tony. Good to be with you.
SPEAKER 03 :
So let’s start with your assessment of the FBI’s and the French authorities’ operation to dismantle these Chinese malware from critical networks. How significant is this and how much more is out there that we don’t know about?
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, that’s a great question. And first of all, it is very serious. We’ve seen the Chinese hacking and monitoring people’s phone conversations at the highest levels of government. We’ve seen their hacking and public infrastructure that You know, it could be water, it could be important vital infrastructure that we need to protect, civilian infrastructure. We’ve seen them, you know, spying on American territory right in our home state of Michigan. We had five Chinese nationals spying at Camp Grayling, watching military exercises. So they are very aggressive, and they have a surveillance state at home that oppresses 1.3 billion Chinese, and they’re wanting to export that around the world.
SPEAKER 03 :
So let me ask you about that going a little bit deeper. When we look at all of the products now that are created or manufactured in China, is there concern that some of those devices could be utilized for spying?
SPEAKER 15 :
Absolutely. And one of the goals of our committee, which is very bipartisan, is to make sure we aren’t funding our own demise. We’re not funding businesses that work with the People’s Liberation Army. We’re not funding technologies and we’re controlling technologies that could be used against our people. American men and women in the armed forces. And so this is an all-hands-on-deck effort to restrict an aggressive power. When you think of the Soviet Union in the Cold War, we never would have partnered with them on the kinds of things we partner with China on. And I think Ronald Reagan had it right, peace through strength, and let’s make sure we don’t help our adversaries succeed.
SPEAKER 03 :
Let me explore that a little bit more, Mr. Chairman, because it’s not just the government. We’re talking about consumers in this country that are attracted to cheaper Chinese products that in the end are actually fueling our adversary that they’re turning those profits into what we saw here, dispatching these hackers to break into U.S. databases and other infrastructures. just the government it’s a kind of all hands on deck to defend America’s well-being and that includes our economic well-being
SPEAKER 15 :
It really is. And there’s two things that people should know about China. First, that it’s governed by the Chinese Communist Party and that right at the head is Xi Jinping. They are committing a genocide against peoples in China. So we love the Chinese people, but this authoritarian regime is more and more oppressive. They have laws on the book, what they consider to be national security laws that require anyone, any Chinese person, any person, in fact, even in doing business in China, to be accountable to the Chinese Communist Party. And if they require information, there’s no such thing as a private sector. They have a military civil fusion that gives priority to the military or the Chinese Communist Party. So it’s a very different framework than we’re used to dealing with. And so that’s what makes it so serious when we trade or when we invest in Chinese entities that can all be used against us and our allies.
SPEAKER 03 :
So bottom line is that any interaction with a Chinese company, we just have to basically count on it going to the Chinese Communist Party.
SPEAKER 15 :
That’s right. And they’ve been stealing technology, intellectual property for years. And more nefarious, they’re using dollars, in fact, even research dollars from the Department of Defense for military applications that could be used against our men and women in the armed forces.
SPEAKER 03 :
That almost sounds insane, that we would be funding that, that we would be giving our adversaries the money to build technology to use against us.
SPEAKER 15 :
You know, one of the things our committee found is that there were over 30 partnerships in universities in the United States that were partnering with Chinese universities and funded often by Department of Defense dollars. And they were collaborating on research in the highest technologies of physics, even weapons, all sorts of things. So we raised this issue. And fortunately, Berkeley Georgia Tech and most recently the University of Michigan have discontinued those and we’re going to take it one by one and make sure we are not allowing and that these universities make partnerships that can be used against us.
SPEAKER 03 :
Mr. Chairman, I believe you also had some success in getting the Department of Defense to back away and blacklist certain Chinese companies that have those same connections.
SPEAKER 15 :
You know, we’ve been advocating for whether it’s the use of slave labor or partnering with the Chinese military. We don’t want to advance those kinds of business in China. At the same time, we also have done a report that showed the Chinese complicity with the fentanyl crisis in the United States. And what we found is that the Chinese government was actually offering rebates, a financial incentive, for Chinese companies to manufacture the chemical precursors that go into the fentanyl that’s poisoning hundreds of thousands of Americans. So it’s a dangerous regime. Ronald Reagan had it right. Peace through strength. We love the Chinese people, but we have to be shrewd as a serpent, innocent and a dove when it comes to this.
SPEAKER 03 :
Absolutely. Chairman Moulinard, you’ve raised the concern like we just saw with this malware targeting certain infrastructures. Are you concerned about infrastructures like water treatment plants, energy grids? Are those vulnerable and how vulnerable are they?
SPEAKER 15 :
Absolutely, and I liken it like a sleeper cell on the grid or in the water system where they have malware that can be flipped on and off. They’ve actually put mobile, you know, areas of ways to monitor what’s going in and out of our ports. All of this creates danger for America, and we need to be vigilant in protecting this. So we need to push back on this. I think this idea of dialogue with the Chinese Communist Party, all they respect is strength, and I’m pleased that President Trump, I think, is going to be a strong negotiator in pushing back on this.
SPEAKER 03 :
Are there any proactive measures being taken? I know we just talked about the top of the program, what the FBI and the French did, but are there more proactive measures to defend the power grid, the treatment plants and such?
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, we’re getting Huawei as a Chinese company. We’re requiring that to be taken out of our systems. We’re requiring different companies that partner with the military not to be used in our supply chains for our defense industrial base. So we’re doing things, but we’ve got to do it in a much more aggressive, focused way. Even though it’s going to cost more, it’s beneficial for the United States security.
SPEAKER 03 :
Final question for you, Mr. Chairman. We just have about 45 seconds left. But the outgoing FBI Director Christopher Wray, as I played that clip at the top of the program, said China and its cyber program, that’s the defining threat of our generation. And he emphasized the urgency of countering these escalating threats. Do you agree with his assessment?
SPEAKER 15 :
I do agree, and I think this needs to be a major focus. Cyber is now one of the major domains for warfare. You know, you think land, water, sea, space, cyber, all of those are key. And we need to be strong in this area, and we need to make sure that we’re aware that China is trying to hack us every day and trying to pre-position malware on our devices that would threaten our way of living. So absolutely, he’s right on that.
SPEAKER 03 :
Chairman Molinar, I want to thank you for joining us. And I want to thank you for your work on this, because I agree with your assessment as well as the outgoing FBI director. I think China is in the long term our biggest threat, and we have to deal with it. And it is all hands on deck. Thanks so much for being with us today.
SPEAKER 15 :
Thank you, Tony. Good to be with you.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right. Chairman John Molinar of Michigan. It really is. And this is another item we need to be praying about. All right, coming up, big news out of the Middle East. A hostage ceasefire deal has reportedly been reached. We’re going to talk about it. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 09 :
During these challenging times for our nation, Family Research Council continues to serve as a watchman on the wall for faith, family and freedom. And together, thanks to your support, we’re making an eternal impact. 2024 was a year of shining the light for biblical truth in Washington, D.C. Last fall, over 1,000 spiritually active, governance-engaged conservatives gathered for the Pray, Vote, Stand Summit to pray for our nation and ensure that the issues impacting sage cons were understood and advanced. Washington Watch with Tony Perkins marked a major milestone this year, its 900th episode, and added the Washington Watch News Desk, a new production that presents the top news each day from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand published 2,000 articles of news, commentary, and podcasts in 2024, garnering over 5 million views. FRC’s outlet for news and commentary continues to pursue the truth on the issues that matter most to you and your family. And with the launch of the Stand Firm app, you can listen to, watch, and read our content in one simple place. Pray for current issues, stay rooted in the scriptures, and engage the political sphere with the community of believers on our new platform. In 2024, FRC shaped public policy and culture, organizing the National Gathering for Prayer and Repentance where members of Congress and Christian leaders came together to seek God’s intervention in America. In May, FRC called upon believers to pray for and stand with Israel by dedicating a portion of their worship services to pray for Israel’s peace, prosperity, and protection. With Pray, Vote, Stand Decision 2024, FRC and Real Life Network led a powerful evening of election night coverage to analyze the election results and pray that our nation would turn back to God. We also filmed a transformative educational course, God and Government. Launching early this year in January 2025, this series will explore the biblical and historical foundations of our government, empowering you to stand confidently in your role as a citizen of heaven and earth. Family Research Council thanks you for partnering with us, and we look forward to 2025 and standing for faith, family, and freedom.
SPEAKER 12 :
Looking to grow closer to God in the new year? FRC’s Stand on the Word spiral-bound journal is here to help. Dive deeper into Scripture with thought-provoking questions, note-taking space, and context for each book and author. This second edition, covering Isaiah 2 Revelation, will guide you in tracking your journey through God’s Word while deepening your faith in Christ. Order now at frc.org slash store or text journal to 67742. Perfect for you and your loved ones.
SPEAKER 03 :
Welcome back to this Wednesday edition of Washington Watch. Here’s another topic to be praying about as we pray about the fires in California, we pray about the incoming administration, and we’ve been praying for the hostage situation in Israel. Well, a hostage ceasefire deal has been reached, according to the president, reports between Israel and Hamas, the negotiators in Qatar, although reports out of Israel is that the Prime Minister and his War Cabinet have not yet approved this deal. Now, the Israeli government is expected to meet at 11 a.m. local time on Thursday to approve this three-phase deal that the Israeli Defense Ministry and Israeli Defense Forces are already preparing to implement. So what’s in the deal and what are the issues with it? Joining me now to discuss this is Frank Gaffney, president of the Institute for American Future and the host of Securing America program on the Real America’s Voice Network under President Ronald Reagan. He acted as the assistant secretary of defense for international security policy. Frank, thanks for joining us. It’s my privilege, Tony.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER 03 :
So let’s, before we get into the, give us the overview of this. I’m getting some signals out of Israel that this is not the best deal for Israel, and there’s a lot yet to be uncovered.
SPEAKER 04 :
I’m afraid I’m going to say it’s a terrible deal for Israel, actually, Tony. I fear that it amounts to… a victory for Hamas, if you could believe it, effectively surrendering the entirety of Gaza to the people who perpetrated this horrific attack on October 7th and has been at war with Israel prior to that, you know, from the inception of this terrorist organization and will be until it is put out of business, which has been the purpose of Benjamin Netanyahu. Unfortunately, what we’re told is that Bibi basically had his knees broken on the Sabbath, no less, by a man who has been given the role of a special Middle East envoy, I’m sorry to say, by President Trump, by the name of Stephen Witkoff. He’s a well-to-do billionaire, financial guy, real estate guy out of New York. I’d be a little surprised if President Trump knew when he put him in this position, that he had actually done a $600 million hotel deal with the nation of Qatar. It might have had something to do with the fact that Steve Whitaker said the other day that Qatar is doing God’s work. In these negotiations, I think he might have meant Allah’s work, because what has been done, I think, is not in the service of Israel. Yes, there will be presumably a few hostages released in exchange for something on the order of a thousand to thirteen hundred pedigreed.
SPEAKER 03 :
jihadists who were being let out of Israeli jails. I’m told the ratio is 50 to 1 for every hostage. There’s 33 in the first phase of this deal, taking six weeks. And I’m a little puzzled by that because I know when we had the Iranian hostage deal, it didn’t take weeks to release the hostages. And President Biden said, this is my plan that I put forward last year. So whose plan is this? He claims it’s his plan. And we know what the Biden administration has been doing all along. Yeah, incredibly.
SPEAKER 04 :
I think it’s in some ways worse than the plan that he put together back in, I think, May of last year, if I’m not mistaken. It’s not Joe Biden put it together, but the apparat around him, obviously. But what it does, Tony, is it essentially says that all of the progress that Israel has made to root out Hamas, to deprive it of resources, to close its infrastructure, notably those tunnels and so on, will essentially be undone because they will be allowed to have the run of Gaza again. And they will, in fact, I think, have all kinds of resources pouring in to help them rebuild those tunnels, among other things.
SPEAKER 03 :
Joe Biden said this ends the war. This would mean that this, you know, after this first phase, again, I don’t know why it takes six weeks to release 33 hostages. So once those are released. Well, some of them are dead, Tony.
SPEAKER 04 :
So it might be required, you know, some logistics. But still, six weeks is ridiculous. You’re right.
SPEAKER 03 :
And so they’re going to have to, IDF forces will have to, you know, through a scheduled withdrawal from Gaza. In the meantime, Hamas is able to rearm, re-equip, and you’re right, all that has been gained will have been lost. Yes.
SPEAKER 04 :
And the fact that Biden is taking ownership of it is pretty telling. And the fact that this chap, Steve Witkoff, was an enabler of that. Tony Blinken the other day said Steve Witkoff has been very helpful. Indeed, he has. I think what he did was he took what Donald Trump meant as leverage on the Hamas terrorists putting them on notice that if the hostages were not released, and I think he meant all of the hostages, not a fraction of them, all of the hostages released by the time he came to office, as he put it, forgive the French, all hell would break loose. Now, that was intended to be pressuring Hamas. Instead, Witkoff and the Biden team, of course, turned this into leverage on Bibi Netanyahu. And I am just sick at what I think has been done here. I hope that the president, Donald Trump, will think better of this as he learns more about what’s been done with his help inadvertently, I think.
SPEAKER 03 :
Frank, we’re up against a break here. Just one final question. This, given what the fragile coalition that Bibi Netanyahu has been able to put together there and the strong right wing, if you will, of the Knesset in his coalition, this could cause his governing coalition to implode. I think it could.
SPEAKER 04 :
The left has, of course, wanted his head on a pike for a long time. But I think there are a lot of people now on the right who feel that all of this is for naught, all of the war efforts, if this is allowed to go forward. And I just say, if people want to learn more about this at VictoryCo.org, we have some information put together in a point paper. A briefing paper. It will help inform all of your listeners about why we need, I think, among other things, to have Steve Witkoff removed from this role as mediator or the inter-Mideast special envoy. This is a man who may work for Qatar, but I don’t honestly think he’s worked effectively for Donald Trump or the interests of the United States, to say nothing of Israel.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right, Frank Gaffney, we’re going to have to leave it there. Thanks so much for joining us today.
SPEAKER 04 :
God bless you.
SPEAKER 03 :
And folks, again, this is something really to be praying over the next 24 hours as Israel will have to comb through this, the details of this deal and whether or not they accept it. The pressure obviously is on them. And the United States, unfortunately, is playing a key role in putting that pressure on. So pray, pray for the peace of Israel, the peace of Jerusalem and the way forward. Don’t go away. We’re coming back with more. Ken Paxton of Texas joins us next.
SPEAKER 13 :
So if you like to think and you like to pray, FRC is the place for you. I think it is the best program out there.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, I’ve absolutely loved my experience interning at FRC.
SPEAKER 13 :
They really are making waves out in the political world and doing it from the light of the Lord. It’s really humbling for me as a college student who has been involved in the life movement for only a couple of years to be able to witness it alongside of some of the people who have spent their entire lives fighting. A huge thing that sets FRC’s internship apart from others is they’re looking for what they can pour into you instead of what they can get out of you. I have talked to so many of my friends who have interned other places and they’re responding to emails or taking phone calls and doing things like that, but here we get real hands-on experience and get to talk to important people and do important things that we get to see the impact of.
SPEAKER 14 :
The throne of Jesus Christ is unchallenged. His name was never on the ballot to begin with, and it’s never going to be on the ballot. He’s the King of Kings, and He’s the Lord of Lords, and nothing’s going to 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 03 :
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, 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. Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us. The website, TonyBurkins.com. Earlier this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case on whether age verification laws, which restrict children’s access to pornography, violates the First Amendment. Now, the state of Texas was defending its common-sense restrictions on pornography by making users verify, just verify that they were old enough to access sexually explicit materials. But of course, these days, common sense, not so common. So what was the outcome of day? Well, here in studio to share about the case and how arguments went is the Attorney General of the state of Texas, Ken Paxton. General Paxton, welcome to Washington Watch. Good to see you back. It’s great to be back. A little chilly here, though. It is a little chilly outside. This is the long underwear season. All right. So give us your take on it. First off, let’s go back. I did talk about this last week and the fact that your case was coming up today. But for the sake of our viewers and listeners, what was this case about?
SPEAKER 11 :
So last session, a year and a half ago, the legislature, actually Senator Paxton, my wife, passed a bill that required age verification for pornography websites. And we started, and it gave my office the ability to enforce that. And we realized that these sites were not doing age verification. They were ignoring the law, so we started suing them. Well, they started suing us back, and they picked a federal court, friendly federal court, and they actually got an injunction stopping us from enforcing this law, which merely required, as you said, age verification so you had to be at least 18 years or older and they claimed they formed what was called a free speech coalition sounds good right uh to argue that we were violating their free speech rights so we actually got an injunction against us we went to the fifth circuit we got a stay of the injunction which meant we could now enforce it right and then they they appealed to the u.s supreme court to get their injunction back
SPEAKER 03 :
All right, so we don’t restrict anything else that people under 18 do, right?
SPEAKER 11 :
No, as you all know, tobacco, firearms, you can’t contract until you’re 18, you can’t get married. I mean, there’s all kinds of things that we protect. We protect the military, we protect kids because their brains aren’t fully developed and they just need time to grow up.
SPEAKER 03 :
So we prevent them from making decisions that would have long-term implications. That’s exactly right. And if I’m not mistaken, and I haven’t looked at the number lately, but it was about 17, 18 states that declared pornography as a public health crisis because of the longevity of the issues involved here.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, and that’s another reason I think the legislature made the decision. It wasn’t controversial to pass this bill. Even, I think, most of the Democrats voted for it. It’s a bipartisan bill. I think they want their kids protected, too. And even the other side, this so-called, you know, free speech coalition, acknowledged in the arguments that the state has a compelling interest to protect kids and that they should protect kids from pornography. However, they argue out of the other side of their mouth, well, this isn’t a good way to do it. The reason it’s not a good way to do it is because it’s effective. It works. So they… I THINK EVEN THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THE PUBLIC IS BEHIND THIS IDEA OF PROTECTING CHILDREN, SO THEY CAN’T ARGUE THAT IT’S NOT A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST, BUT THEY’RE TRYING TO GET OUT OF IT IN ANOTHER WAY BY SAYING, WELL, YOU JUST CAN’T DO IT THAT WAY.
SPEAKER 03 :
I KNOW THAT A COURT SETTING IS MUCH DIFFERENT. YOU STAY FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE AT HAND. THE ISSUE AT HAND WAS THE FIRST AMENDMENT. DID THIS VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT? In this process, anywhere along the line, did it come up in terms of how profitable the pornography industry is and how much money they make?
SPEAKER 11 :
It only came up actually in the case today. One of the justices, I think it was Alito, that brought up the fact that this argument they were making Didn’t make a lot of sense, except it clearly was motivated by profit. And look, I’m a free market, I’m good with profit, but not at the expense of children and the consequences that you’re talking about for the rest of their lives. So yes, it came up, and I’m sure in the debate on the Texas Senate and House, I’m sure that came up, but it did actually come up in the arguments today.
SPEAKER 03 :
Your sense on how the arguments went today? I thought it was fantastic.
SPEAKER 11 :
I mean, you know, getting into the legal details of whether we apply strict scrutiny or rational basis, no one really cares. I don’t even care. I just care that they find a way to allow us to enforce our law and whether they were talking about If it falls in the category of strict scrutiny, maybe there’s a place for this anyway. Or if we do rational basis, there’s definitely a place. Or we might be able to create another category. But either way, as I think it was Justice Kavanaugh said, I don’t care what you call it. We just need to find a way to do this. And I think that’s where they’re going to go.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, that’s encouraging because there are a lot of other states waiting to see what happens with your case.
SPEAKER 11 :
That’s right. And they mentioned it. I mean, some of these even some of the more liberal justice mentioned like Keegan was like, well, asking the free speech. What would be acceptable? We got all these states and they said, well, I don’t want to, you know. guess on what I think she said no you know what’s out there I mean these states are pretty similar with her is any of this okay and he kind of bypassed it and said well it’s not for me to decide what they should do but he obviously is deciding by trying to stop us from implementing what the people wanted
SPEAKER 03 :
Once again, Texas kind of leading the way on this. Last week I was talking to the Attorney General of Tennessee, who I think they may have filed an amicus in your case, but they are clearly waiting to see how this goes because they have a similar law. What’s the timeline here? Is this going to be June, July before we hear something?
SPEAKER 11 :
You know, they did not disclose that to us, the Supreme Court. It seems to me like it’s a case that seemed like they had… They were all pretty close. Even some of the more liberal justices accepted that something should be allowed by the state. So it’s just going to be a matter of these little legal nuances and how they think that affects future cases. So I think I’m going to be surprised if it’s one of the cases that they get over with sooner rather than later.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, that’s good. I mean, that’s one of the areas that— Well, I got to be careful in how I say this, because yesterday we had a woman’s girl sports bill on the House floor. And I was going to say that’s where people come together. But that’s not was not the case yesterday. Hopefully it’ll be the case here with the case that you argued today on restrictions on access to pornography. General Paxson, always great to see you. Thanks for coming by the studio today. Glad to be here. Thanks for having me on. And folks, another reason to pray. We just need to be praying that we would have justices that would do justice and do what is right, and that we would continue to have men and women who would fight for what is right at the state level and the federal level. All right, don’t go away. We’re going to have more conversations about children when we return here on Washington Lodge. 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 01 :
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 are the only one. But there is good news. You are not alone, not even close. Research has found that there are 59 million American adults who are a lot like you. There are millions of people around the country who are born again, deeply committed to practicing their faith, and believe the Bible is the reliable Word of God. But that’s not all. They’re also engaged in our government. They’re voters. They’re more likely to be involved in their community, and they’re making a difference in elections. The problem is that a lot of them feel alone too. We want to change that. FRC wants to connect these 59 million Americans to speak the truth together, no matter the cost. If you want to learn more about this group and what it means to be a spiritually active, governance engaged conservative, or if you want to find out if you are one of these sage cons yourself, go to frc.org slash sage con 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 03 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Good to have you with us on this Wednesday afternoon. Check out the website, tonyperkins.com. Better yet, download the Stand Firm app and you can have Washington Watch in your pocket anywhere you go. Also, you’ll get the Washington Stand, that news feed that comes from the Family Research Council, as well as Stand on the Word, our daily Bible study. And speaking of that, our word for today comes from Isaiah 64. Oh, that you would rend the heavens, that you would come down, that the mountains might shake at your presence as fire burns brushwood, as fire causes water to boil to make your name known to your adversaries, that the nations may tremble at your presence. The children of Israel were pleading for the power of God, his justice and goodness to be witnessed by the world in an extraordinary way. Now, this certainly applies to the second coming of Christ when the Lord shall descend from heaven. No one will be able to miss it. But notice the stated purpose for this request to make his name known to their adversaries. When we make the issue about God, his name, and his reputation, our concerns are taken care of. And where did their confidence come that he would act? Well, look at verse 3. When you did awesome things for which we did not look, you came down, the mountain shook at your presence. You see, God’s character is unchanging. He’s consistent. What he did before, he will do again. To join us in our journey through the Bible, text BIBLE to 67742. Yesterday’s debate on the House floor over the protection of women and girls in Sports Act illustrated the stranglehold that the trans movement has on the Democratic Party. In arguing against it, Democrats claimed that this legislation would lead to genital inspection by coaches and others. They argued that the number of cases of gender-confused males in female sports is extremely small. Now, we saw a similar argument recently with the release of a study last week claiming that fewer than one in 1,000 U.S. teens under the age of 18 with commercial insurance received puberty blockers or hormones from 2018 to 2022. It’s a huge problem when they’re pushing for government restrictions on counseling or forcing the use of certain pronouns. But when it comes to laws protecting children from irreversible surgeries and drugs, well, it’s really not a problem. There’s not that many cases of gender dysphoria. So which is it? Joining me now to discuss this, Dr. Jennifer Bowens, the director of the Center of Family Studies here at FRC. Dr. Bowens has worked extensively as a researcher and a clinician providing trauma-focused treatment to children in foster care, in behavioral health settings, and also to adults who experienced interpersonal traumas. Dr. Bowens, thanks for joining us today. Welcome back to Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 06 :
It’s good to be with you, Tony.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, let’s start with this study that I read a story about it in the AP last week. Give us the overview and then unpack it for us.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, if you just read the AP or NPR, you’d think, oh, my goodness, this giving out puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, it’s just not really that big a deal, not that many people are affected. So if you pay attention to that spin, then you might be inclined to ignore the problem. However, if you actually look at the study and Many studies that go along with this issue or address this issue, you see a number of real problems with the methodology. Starting with, for example, the sample. How did they get the sample?
SPEAKER 03 :
That jumped out to me right away because in the first paragraph or second paragraph, it says that this is a study of adolescents with commercial insurance. Right. And not many insurance covers this yet because they’ve not been able to force them to cover it. So they’re going elsewhere to get this type of treatment.
SPEAKER 06 :
Right. And we know Medicaid has been providing puberty blockers.
SPEAKER 03 :
And they excluded that from this.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yes, they excluded GoFundMe, Planned Parenthood.
SPEAKER 03 :
This has become an industry for Planned Parenthood.
SPEAKER 06 :
It has become a huge industry. And I just back up so that our viewers understand a little bit more about the sampling issue. So we’re just coming off an election. We’re all thinking about polls, et cetera. If we look at history, we have a great example of how this study fits into our historical knowledge of research. You take, for instance, the election of FDR. He was running against Alf Landon in 1936. And everyone was predicting that Alf Landon would win. Most of us don’t even know who Alf Landon is.
SPEAKER 03 :
I didn’t vote in that election.
SPEAKER 06 :
You didn’t vote in that?
SPEAKER 03 :
No, I didn’t.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay, good. Now we know your age, Tony. So what we learned from that polling data is that they went for those US citizens who had telephones and had automobiles. At that time, that was not as common as it is today. And they ended up with a faulty polling data because ALF Landing clearly did not win by a landslide. And in fact, Gallup is, that’s where he got his start was because he predicted that FDR would win and that people who didn’t have a lot of financial mobility would vote for FDR. And that holds true. So what’s the lesson here? The lesson is when you don’t accurately depict your sample, you can end up with a very bad impression about what’s going on in reality. And that’s the case with this study here. We are told that not many people are on puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones or getting transgender procedures. That’s not true. We have other studies that show about 63,000 prescriptions have been written annually. About 6,000 surgeries have been conducted. And so what’s the discrepancy? Again, going back to they’re only looking at private insurers and they’re making these huge claims that this is such a small problem. But in reality, we know that’s not true.
SPEAKER 03 :
I’m not a pollster. I took statistics in college and I understand that. And I read polls. You can. reach an outcome that you want based upon your sample and what you try to do. This clearly had a desired outcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Clearly. And actually, if you look at the other study that goes along with the one on puberty blockers, it specifically looked at transgender surgical procedures on minors. And what you see in that write-up is, it’s just profound. The authors compare these transgender procedures to a condition in biological men, we shouldn’t even have to say biological, but men, And that’s where they have swollen breast tissue. And they’re saying if somebody wants surgery to remove that breast tissue that may be due to hormone imbalances, that that’s a type of gender-affirming surgery. So their whole study is constructed on the notion that somebody who has a physical problem to deal with, you know, to cosmetically look more like, you know, their biological sex, then that constitutes a transgender procedure. When those who are getting transgender procedures have, it’s completely psychological, has nothing to do with the physical. Right. So that right there just shows you how much they’re going to prove their point that this is not about good science. It’s about their ideology and their worldview that they’re wanting to research.
SPEAKER 03 :
A desired outcome. So let me go back, Dr. Biles, to what I said at the beginning, because correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like, you know, over the last couple of years, we’ve been told that this is a huge problem, that we have all of these children that have gender dysphoria. You know, I’ve talked about this on the program. A lot of it kind of a social media contagion that has spread. And they were putting that number out there to, one, in many cases, like California, block access to counseling. They’re doing everything they can to lock these kids into that gender dysphoria, that confusion. But now that 26 states have actually passed laws that prohibit these experimental surgeries and drugs on minors and it’s, you know, gone to the Supreme Court, they’re changing their tune, saying it’s, oh, it’s not really a problem. And so you’re taking a sledgehammer at a gnat. It’s essentially what they’re saying. Yes. So how can it be both things at the same time?
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah. Yeah. Now it’s no big deal. But before, it’s like, how can we do this to so many people? The fact of the matter is we do know that there’s been a rise in those who are even getting diagnosed with gender dysphoria. So that doesn’t even count for those who aren’t going to clinical practice. So there is a clear rise. And there is a clear rise in the number of people perceiving it.
SPEAKER 03 :
And it’s a problem. And it is a problem. And a lot of this, in your background with trauma, a lot of this is connected to trauma.
SPEAKER 06 :
Absolutely. It’s connected. We’re not dealing with the root issues. And the fact that we’re even using these procedures on one child should constitute legislation.
SPEAKER 03 :
So I just want to be very clear here. We’re not saying this is not a problem. We’re saying it is a problem. It is. And I see it. And again you’re the expert. But as I see it you have two issues here. Number one you have this social contagion that’s out there this promotion that this is cool. This is thing. But then underlying that you have this rise in trauma. through sexual abuse or emotional abuse. And oftentimes, again, you’re the expert, correct me if I’m wrong, but oftentimes this is a form of response in terms of defense against further abuse and trauma.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah. And I want to say this to Tony that, you know, we used to think about exposure to sexual material at an early age as as a type of trauma. Right. And now we’ve just institutionalized it. And we have kids exposed to sexual material early on across the board. It’s like our own covid pandemic in the school system.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, and we actually want—schools actually want to expose them with their sexual education material that is pornographic in its content.
SPEAKER 06 :
Right. So you’re absolutely correct in saying, you know, we do have two different issues going on. We have the rise of trauma in our society, but then we also have this social contagion, which is— very much at work on this issue.
SPEAKER 03 :
And so we’re saying, yes, we need to deal with it. Surgeries and drugs are not the way to deal with it. But counseling, therapy is the way forward. And that avenue has been blocked on many occasions by these same people that are doing these studies saying that it’s not a problem.
SPEAKER 06 :
Right, right. And again, we have a whole system at play that needs to be changed because researchers It’s not right to call this an objective study and have other news outlets pick this up as an unbiased… I think AP News said this is the most reliable data point. Well, we have a number of other data points that show that these numbers are not reliable. And clearly, we have a worldview that has been fueling this research question. And… And it’s been used, this whole study has been used as a political weapon.
SPEAKER 03 :
To arrive at a desired place. What other anomalies do you see with this study?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, I think that one of the things that probably has been less discussed is the fact that they talk about the gender dysphoria diagnosis, how they arrived at their sample. But then they also talk about gender diverse people. You know, from a research perspective, if you’re going to look into something, you need to define your terms really very clearly. And here in this study, it’s kind of like they’re lumping in a number of terms, and we don’t really know, okay, is it a diagnosis that you’re looking at, or is it… What does gender diverse mean? It’s like gender fluid. Okay, who are these people? How do you measure them? And how do you predict that they’re going to stay in this continuum of whatever it is? You can’t. You can’t. It’s not clear. So, you know, like this study, like many of the other ones, you can easily pick them apart. And it’s sad. It really gives science a bad name.
SPEAKER 03 :
It does. Just like we saw what happened to health care during COVID, it really lessens the trust, weakens the trust that Americans have in these institutions. And I want to, we just got a couple minutes left, Dr. Bowens, I want to ask you this question because you have come out of the academic world and the research world. We’ve seen recently how corporate America has kind of backed away from some of this DEI wokeness, and I put this into that same category because it all comes out of the same basket. Will that reach education? Will academia, will they come to their senses and begin to do valid, trustworthy research that is not constructed to reach a predetermined outcome?
SPEAKER 06 :
I think that actually this administration has a grand opportunity before them and to address some of the things that are less exciting and interesting, and that is let’s go after the grant funding. Let’s go after the money that taxpayer dollars are currently spent on issues like this, on the trans issue, that most Americans don’t even agree with. So I think that a number of academics will come to their senses when their pocketbooks are affected and there is no longer money to fuel this type of research. It might surprise us how quickly their ideology shifts.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, it does underscore the big carrot, I guess it was almost a stick, that the federal government has with all of the funding that it provides for research because nobody else is going to pay for this stuff. Right.
SPEAKER 06 :
I mean, you have a few activists, but, you know, they were smart. They propped up a number of universities with huge endowments and, you know, with kind of the stipulation that they would research this stuff. I mean, you have to give it to them in that sense that they were smart to do what they do because they have a continued discourse that they are funding and that they’ve started that they can kind of back out from. Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, there’s just another area that we’re going to need to be watching and speaking into and praying about as we go into this new administration. Dr. Jennifer Bowens, always great to see you. Thanks for stopping by. Good to see you too, Tony. All right. And folks, thank you for stopping by as well. And this is another item to add to your prayer list, that truth would come back into the realm of academia. that the research would be authentic and we would tell the truth again. What an amazing concept. All right, we’re out of time for today, but I do want to thank you for joining us, and I encourage you to check out the Stand Firm app so you can stay in touch with us throughout the day. Until next time, I leave you with the words of the Apostle Paul, founder of Ephesians 6, where he says, when you’ve done everything you can do, when you’ve prayed, prepared, and taken your stand, by all means, keep standing.
SPEAKER 08 :
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.
