In this insightful episode of Washington Watch, Tony Perkins delves into the pressing issue of a potential government shutdown as tensions rise between Republicans and Democrats. With essential agencies like FEMA on the line, discussions heat up over funding for the Department of Homeland Security, and similar contentions surround the pro-life debate, specifically regarding the abortion drug Mifeprestone.
SPEAKER 21 :
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 08 :
Whether it’s a partial one or a six-bill one or a one-bill one, but even shutting down DHS, as I said before, while it doesn’t really affect ICE because that got funded last year in the one big beautiful bill, it would affect funding for some really important agencies of government that the American people rely on, like FEMA, particularly at a time when we’ve got a lot of weather-related disasters making their way across the country. So I hope we can get this thing back on track. We need to fund the government.
SPEAKER 12 :
That was Senate Majority Leader John Thune earlier today accusing Democrats of pushing the country toward yet another government shutdown. Welcome to this January 28th edition of Washington Watch. I’m your host, Tony Perkins. Thanks for tuning in. Well, coming up, negotiations are underway between Republicans and Democrats to head off a partial government shutdown. Democrats are calling for legislative changes in the tactics used by ICE or they will block funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham will join us shortly to discuss where things stand. Plus, the Trump administration is asking a federal court to pause Louisiana’s lawsuit against the FDA over the federal agency’s policy on the abortion drug Mifeprestone. Now, this move could further set back efforts of the states to protect unborn life and women’s health. Dr. Christina Francis of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists will join us later to explain what this move by the Trump administration means. Well, earlier today, President Trump said the Minneapolis mayor, Jacob Fry, is playing with fire. The remarks come amid growing controversy and protest over federal agents’ actions and ongoing talks between local leaders and the administration. Fry’s comments came after his meeting with Border Czar Tom Homan. Joining me now is Washington San reporter Casey Harper, who’s been tracking this and other stories today. Casey, can you walk us through the latest of what’s happening in Minnesota?
SPEAKER 20 :
Sure, Tony, so many updates, yet it’s hard to keep up with them all. But in this case, Jacob Fry, the mayor here, he made it clear in a quote that Minneapolis does not and will not enforce federal immigration laws. Now, those comments come just a couple days after President Trump said he had a, quote, very good phone conversation with the mayor. So I guess he didn’t get the message. But in Minnesota, just to give the background, the Department of Corrections is legally obligated to report non-U.S. citizens to ICE. and they have to fully cooperate with the federal detainer and the pickup request. And Minnesota’s governor, Tim Walz, he says they are cooperating. However, it’s the city and county jails that are not cooperating. That’s really the sticking point here. Meanwhile, this investigation into the second deadly ice shooting this month An initial government review of the death of Alex Preddy, the second person who was shot, the young man, it doesn’t mention him brandishing a firearm. Now, this is kind of surprising because the initial statements that came out from Trump officials were really focusing on that weapon. In fact, both Kristi Noem and the White House deputy chief of staff previously called Preddy a domestic terrorist. So it seems like they’re walking back that language, Tony.
SPEAKER 12 :
Thanks, Casey. Obviously, this is not going to go away in time soon. Let’s talk about something else. Trump administration today, government back working today after the snow rolled through D.C. But they’ve they’ve rolled out a new investment program for children. What are the details of that?
SPEAKER 20 :
That’s right. The president is calling them Trump accounts, and the way they work is President Trump rolled out this investment, and the U.S. Treasury deposits $1,000 into investment accounts for all kids born between 2025 and 2028. Here’s what President Trump had to say.
SPEAKER 23 :
For the first time ever, we’re going to give every newborn American child a financial stake in the future, a head start to life, and a fair shot at the American dream, something people don’t talk about so much, at least not for the last four years they haven’t.
SPEAKER 20 :
So 25 million families will be eligible under the program, and over half a million families have signed up so far. Me and my family, we’re too old for the Trump accounts, Tony, but maybe it’s not too late for the Tony accounts.
SPEAKER 12 :
Got to work on that. Got to work on that. I don’t know that it would be $1,000, but I’ll buy you a cup of coffee.
SPEAKER 20 :
Hey, I’ll take it.
SPEAKER 12 :
All right, Casey, thanks so much. All right. Just two days remain before a potential partial government shutdown. Democrats see the approval of funding for the Department of Homeland Security as their leverage point to rein in ICE. But any changes to the funding bill would require it to go back to the House where time and politics are not on the side of passage. Joining me now by phone to discuss this and more, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. He is also a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Graham, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us. Thank you, Tony. All right. I want to talk about in just a moment, save some time here, because I want to talk about the serious threat to Christians and other religious minorities in northeast Syria. But first, I got to get to the latest on this funding drama on Capitol Hill. Where do we stand?
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, we had a bipartisan agreement on six bills to fund the government, including the Department of Homeland Security. Twenty percent of DHS is ICE and border. The rest of it is FEMA, the Coast Guard, a bunch of things. Because of what’s happened in Minnesota, Democrats are now saying we will not support DHS funding. So this six-bill package is becoming five. If you have to change it at all, it will go back to the House. The House will not accept leaving DHS out. So what’s going to happen is that Democrats have gotten so crazy about sanctuary city policy that they’re going to refuse to fund Department of Homeland Security policies in a way they had previously agreed to, which is a disaster for the Coast Guard, disaster for FEMA, disaster for border security. My belief is that the crazy wing of the Democratic Party is completely taken over and the deal we had before is going to crumble because Democrats hate Trump more than they love the country.
SPEAKER 12 :
So where does that leave us?
SPEAKER 16 :
Either the government shuts down, we do a continuing resolution, Or you’ve got to have some Democrats say this is crazy. Maybe they can do some things with Trump to lower the temperature, but if we change the bill at all, it will not go through the House. This is previously agreed to. They’re pulling a fast one on us. I don’t know where it goes, but I know this. I cannot support not funding DHS. The world is on fire.
SPEAKER 12 :
Right. I heard some conversations that there might be a short term extension of Homeland Security in order to come back and do some legislative adjustments as it pertains to ISIS conduct, like making sure there’s warrants for arrest, federal agents wearing identification, body cameras, things that, you know, quite frankly, sound pretty reasonable.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, I hope that will prevail, but that means you’ve got to do a deal with Trump. I just don’t know if there’s any space. I think that the hatred for Trump and the insistence on keeping sanctuary city policy may win out. But that sounds good to me. We’ll see. I know this. I think it’s very important that we fund the Department of Homeland Security, given the threats we face at home and abroad. As to abroad, northeast in Syria. That’s the home of the Kurds, ancestral home in many ways. The Syrian Democratic Forces who defeated ISIS were mostly Kurds working with our military. The idea that we would abandon them and let the new Syrian government run by al-Shira, the former al-Qaeda guy, would destroy American credibility for generations. I don’t believe President Trump’s going to let that happen. Saudi Arabia… is a big supporter of al-Shira, the new Syrian government, a former al-Qaeda guy. I’ve told them, I’m expecting you to make sure that he does not make a run on the Kurds. They helped us. They fought for us. We need to have their backs. You can’t have a one Syrian policy by force of arms. I worry about the Druze. I worry about the Christians. The al-Qaeda wing, the al-Qaeda movement wants to destroy everything that’s not uh… their view of god christian screws right other Muslims.
SPEAKER 12 :
So here’s my question, Senator. When you look at al-Sharia, the new president of Syria, first off, the infrastructure there is just almost non-existent. He’s having difficulty managing what he has. Why is he moving up to northeast Syria, driving out the self-governing region that’s been doing quite fine, frankly? Why is he wanting to take over that area when he can’t even control what he has?
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, number one, I would like to help a guy control what he’s got. Why is he doing that? Well, there’s an agenda by Turkey. They hate all things Kurds. The Kurds have been friendly to the United States. All I can say is Erdogan has had a real problem. And to me, it seems like instead of trying to unite Syria, he’s enacting a very uh… sectarian agenda we’re going to have another writing well make them but that i don’t think they’ll ever be one syria under him look what happened with a so even if you wanted to you’d have a hard time but now i’m doubting whether he wants to or not why are they spending the energy to go after the kurds rather than trying to build the country up well it tells me they got an agenda inconsistent with one period
SPEAKER 12 :
Right. I mean, you mentioned Sueda. That’s down in the southern part. That’s where the Druze are.
SPEAKER 16 :
That’s where the Druze got just slaughtered.
SPEAKER 12 :
I’ll have to say, you know, I really appreciate the Israelis. You remember when Assad was falling and everything was imploding. Even though the Americans didn’t really want them to do it, they went and destroyed the munitions that Syria had. Can you imagine now with what we see these trends taking place, that if al-Sharia had all of the arms and munitions that the Syrians had before, and even chemical, biological possibly?
SPEAKER 16 :
That’s a really good point. You’ve got to assume the worst in the Mideast and hope for the best, fight for the best. But, you know, what happened with the Druze is Israel came in and saved them. They got a quarter from Israel into Sueda, which is a Druze community in Syria. There are a lot of Druze in Israel. If it hadn’t been for Israel, they would have killed them all.
SPEAKER 12 :
But, again, the United States holding them back, holding the Israelis back from providing that relief.
SPEAKER 16 :
We’ve got to understand that this idea that all these people are going to live together happily is – a long way away.
SPEAKER 12 :
But it’s contrary, it’s also contrary to the vast amount of history of that region. I mean, this idea of nation state is a relatively new idea.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, it’s kind of a fiction after World War I. This is a religious war. You know, the people on radical Islam, Sunni and Shia, want all of us to bend to their will. You got Hezbollah and you got Hamas, you got Iran, you’ve got al-Qaeda, there’s Sunni Shia versions of this, and they all are drunk on their religion. They will kill in the name of God. This is very dangerous. And so I’ve been talking to President Trump. The worst possible thing for America is for people to come to our aid, help us fight, keep our casualties down, and we abandon them. Biden did it. Obama did it. I am confident Donald Trump won. To your listeners, pray for our Kurdish allies. They’ve been great to Israel. They’ve been great to us. I’m talking to Saudi Arabia. I’m talking to Turkey. We need to hold them accountable if things go bad. So very dicey time for Christians. All over the Middle East, for the Druze, for the Kurds. Pray for them. But we’ve got to do more than pray. We’ve got to act.
SPEAKER 12 :
Right. I just want to make clear for our folks, the listeners and viewers, that the Kurds have been a large part of the military forces that have protected the Christians and the others in that region. 80%. It’s like all one. They’re working together, living together, practicing what religious freedom really looks like. Probably one of the strongest points in that part of the world. 30 seconds left, Senator.
SPEAKER 16 :
Okay, if you’re a Christian and you’re in a Kurdish area, your church would be fine. If you’re a Christian in these other areas, not so much. We need to help the Kurds.
SPEAKER 12 :
Yeah, absolutely. I appreciate you speaking up for him, and thanks for coming on today, Senator.
SPEAKER 16 :
God bless.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thanks.
SPEAKER 12 :
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who really does champion religious freedom in the U.S. Senate. All right, when we come back, we’re going to check in with Senator John Cornyn of Texas. So don’t go away. We’ll be right back. 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 11 :
It’s harder to ship alcohol in this country than it is to ship the abortion pill.
SPEAKER 09 :
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 17 :
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 is 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 19 :
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 12 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for tuning in. The website is TonyPerkins.com. Early today, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and told senators, quote, we’re making good and decent progress with Venezuela. And as Venezuela’s new leaders move toward closer ties with the U.S., he said there are no plans at this time to take further military action. Today marked the first time that Secretary Rubio faced questions from lawmakers since the raid that captured Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro last month. Joining us now, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Cornyn, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 03 :
You bet, Tony.
SPEAKER 12 :
All right, so the Trump administration said no, they don’t see any need for further military action. What do you make of the developments there, things calming down?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I think it took great courage for President Trump to take the political and other risk to arrest Nicolas Maduro. One of the things I think gets lost in the shuffle is this wasn’t a war. This was a law enforcement operation. And of course, we needed to make sure that our agents who were serving this arrest warrant from an indictment in the New York court were safe, and so that required some defensive measures in order to extract him from the country and hopefully bring him to justice. But President Trump has a lot of tools available to him. While Delcy Rodriguez has certainly been part of the Maduro regime, she is, I think, going to have to comply. with a lot of the wishes of the U.S. government as we slowly transition to a democratically elected Venezuela. But I think it’s been a great success so far.
SPEAKER 12 :
So how much energy and effort is it going to take on behalf of America to get them onto the right track and moving forward?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I think President Trump has all the leverage he needs. As you know, Venezuela has sort of been a scorpion’s nest of problems. Our adversaries like Iran, Russia and China and Cuba all conspiring there, particularly Iran, even with the base of Hezbollah there, which they’ve used drug proceeds in order to support their proxy in Lebanon, fighting Israelis primarily in that region. So it’s going to take a while, but I think the source of revenue that is available to the Venezuelans is their oil. And I think we’re going to see this money PUT INTO A FUND THAT WILL ACTUALLY HELP THE VENEZUELAN PEOPLE RATHER THAN THE MAFIA THAT’S BEEN IN CHARGE OF THE COUNTRY. AND HOPEFULLY OVER TIME, I DON’T KNOW HOW LONG, BUT OVER TIME WE’LL SEE MORE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS TAKE CHARGE. Maduro and Chavez before him created a police state there. They killed all their competition and surveilled all their citizens and impoverished them all. So they don’t have any institutions or actually any leaders that can fill that gap immediately. So it’s going to take a little patience.
SPEAKER 12 :
You know, I think it’s very important, Senator, to point out what you just said about who was coming to Venezuela. It was becoming a potential launch pad for attacks on the United States and in this region, this hemisphere, much like what Gaza became to Israel. as they were attacked from the southern border by Hamas. So I think it’s a national security issue. Obviously, there was a president there that most of the world did not see as duly elected, engaged in criminal activity. But there was a much bigger national security issue there in Venezuela as well. Absolutely. Which I appreciate you pointing out. Speaking of Gaza, today U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz outlined a demilitarized plan. He said it would include disarmament and decommissioning weapons through a process supported by the internationally funded buyback program. How do you see this working out? Who’s going to oversee this process?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I think what’s happened in Gaza is a miracle. And certainly we know that that was where the Hamas attacked innocent Israelis on October the 7th. But it was a hornet’s nest of terrorist activity supported by Iran. I’m not quite so sure about a gun buyback program that that’s going to cause Hamas to disarm. I think they’re going to need to be forcefully disarmed, but it’s going to take a multinational group, including Israel. Hopefully some of the Gulf states will cooperate in the interests of peace in that region. And the fact that Israel is sort of, excuse me, Iran, And particularly these proxies are a common adversary for so many of these, even Arab states in the area. So I know the president’s formed a board of peace. He’s invited multinational participation in that. But I think the first step is going to be to force Hamas to live up to the terms of the ceasefire. And that requires disarmament. They’re not going to do it voluntarily.
SPEAKER 12 :
That means somebody’s going to have to make it happen. Is that the United States, or are we going to allow Israel to do that?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I think certainly we need to support Israel in that effort in the interests of our friends and ally, but also in the interests of peace in the region and more broadly in order to continue to put pressure on the Iranian regime. As you know, President Trump has said that if – If the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah, continues to kill innocent demonstrators, there will be consequences. And it looks to me like we’re beginning to make a buildup in the region for something to happen. I’m not sure what it is, but I know that Marco Rubio and Secretary Hegseth and General Kane have prevented a number of options to the president. I don’t know what he’s going to choose, but I do think WEAKENING IRAN IN ANY WAY THAT WE CAN WILL DIMINISH THEIR SUPPORT FOR THESE TERRORIST GROUPS THAT DEPEND ON THEIR FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND OTHERWISE. AND SO I’M ANXIOUSLY WATCHING HOW THIS DEVELOPS. BUT AGAIN, HAMAS IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. THEY’RE NOT GOING TO GIVE UP On their own.
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, you mentioned Iran. President Trump on Truth Social warned Iran that a massive armada is headed their way. He said time is running out to make a deal. And if they didn’t abandon their nuclear weapons, the next attack would be worse. That sounds pretty, pretty clear that something could be in the works. We’ve got 30 seconds left.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, I would suggest that the Supreme Leader of the Ayatollah look at what we did in Venezuela after President Trump gave Nicolas Maduro a deadline to act, a safe trip to a nice, cushy existence somewhere else around the world if he would then let the democratically elected leaders there uh take charge but uh i think the president is a man of his word he says he does what he uh says and uh i think uh something’s gonna happen i’m just not sure when that may be why he is uh in hiding senator always great to see you thanks so much for joining us all right coming up next we’re going to talk about ice in minnesota
SPEAKER 20 :
From the beginning, America has understood that liberty flourishes only when grounded in faith, humility, and dependence on the Lord. America needs God. So in 2026, as our nation marks the 250th anniversary of America’s founding, we pause not simply to celebrate history, but to seek the God who gave it purpose. Family Research Council invites you to join us online Wednesday, February 4th at 7 a.m. Eastern Time for the fourth annual National Gathering for Prayer and Repentance in Washington, D.C. This sacred gathering will bring together members of the U.S. Congress, state leaders, evangelical leaders, and intercessors from across the nation. United as one voice, we will seek the Lord together, praying for all 50 states that God might bless the next 250 years of our historic nation. To watch the live stream, visit PrayDC.org. That’s PrayDC.org.
SPEAKER 22 :
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 12 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. All right, as our nation this year marks the 250th anniversary of America’s founding, we want to pause not simply to celebrate history, but to seek God who gave this nation its purpose. On February 4th, that’s next week, we’re going to be coming together at the Museum of the Bible for the National Gathering for Prayer and Repentance. This event will bring together members of Congress, state leaders, evangelical leaders, and intercessors from across the nation. We invite you to join us. For details, visit ngpr.org, nationalgatheringprayerandrepentance.org, ngpr.org. So last week, the Associated Press reported on an internal memo it had obtained that gives the go-ahead for ICE officers to forcefully enter a residence without a search warrant in order to make an immigration arrest. Now, in the memo, the ICE acting director, Todd Lyons, said, He noted that the DHS general counsel’s office had determined that ICE officers can rely on an administrative warrant of removal to enter a residence rather than a search warrant. Well, there’s a lot of issues now. It’s interesting that, as we were mentioning earlier in the program, Senator Graham, there are some things that Democrats are asking for in exchange for funding the Department of Homeland Security. Some of this seems pretty reasonable. Joining me now by phone to talk about this, Andy McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Andy, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 14 :
Well, thanks so much for having me.
SPEAKER 12 :
All right, so there’s a lot of legalese here, but I think one of the things that people are seeing is a very aggressive enforcement of immigration law in Minnesota. All that’s fine. A lot of people like that, and I think it’s time that we enforce the law. But you don’t enforce the law if you’re kind of bending or breaking the law. Is all of this within the confines of existing law?
SPEAKER 14 :
There’s a lot of existing law on it, Tony, that may be brought to bear, but the bottom line answer is what they’re saying they can do, probably they can’t do, but the Supreme Court has never exactly weighed in on this. So to be clear, for a very long time the court has held that if you have a warrant for for arrest which has been issued by a judge which means part of the independent judicial branch then the agents on the basis of that warrant can go into the person’s own home and arrest him you can’t go into a third party’s premises and do it but if you have a warrant for arrest for the person you could go into his own place uh… and take him out what the what the Trump administration is trying to say is they should have the same ability with respect to an administrative warrant that’s issued by the executive branch in connection with immigration proceedings. Now, I don’t think it’s a frivolous argument, because what they’re talking about is a warrant of removal, and you can’t get a warrant of removal unless you go through a very elaborate legal process which entails at the end, an appeal to a judicial court. So it’s not like the judicial courts don’t have anything to do with it at all. But the Supreme Court has never said that such an administrative warrant is the functional equivalent of a judicial warrant, and that’s what the confusion is.
SPEAKER 12 :
So the reason that this is… contested issue is the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects people in this country from unreasonable searches and seizures. Now, I understand we’re talking about people who are here maybe illegally, they’ve been deemed that they should be removed. But I think this is something that people have protected very carefully because someone should be rightfully protected in their home. But the separation of powers, as you pointed out, when you have the judicial branch, it’s kind of a check and balance to the executive branch that is executing that warrant. I mean, I was a police officer. I had to go to a judge to get a warrant to go into the home to arrest someone who already had a warrant to arrest them. But I had the probable cause. I knew that they had committed the crime, but I had to get the arrest warrant from a judge. That was the oversight of the executive branch.
SPEAKER 14 :
Yeah, that’s all very correct. The thing is, as you know, Tony, in this area there’s always an exception that makes everything more confusing, right, or at least uncertain. And the confusion here is that if a police officer says, is acting in exigent circumstances. For example, in hot pursuit of somebody that you encounter on the street, even if you don’t have a warrant at all, you could go into the premises and take the person out. So what the Trump people want to argue is, if you don’t need a warrant at all in exigent circumstances, why shouldn’t we be able to use an actual warrant that’s gone through an elaborate administrative proceeding in connection with someone who’s not legally in the country in the first place, which in their view is an exigent circumstance. I don’t think most courts are going to think that that’s an exigent circumstance, but I understand their point.
SPEAKER 12 :
Right. But I would also, I guess when you add in the political dynamics of what’s happening in the country, that I would want to be very careful to do everything really right by the book so that what I do is not being questioned.
SPEAKER 14 :
Yeah, I think you and I are on the same page on that. If you’re going to ask to do something that might be justifiable but it’s edgy, I think you have to give the courts a comfort level that you’re exercising the powers that you do have in a responsible, unimpeachable way. And I don’t think the best time to have that argument is when we’ve had a couple of incidents like we’ve had in the streets of Minneapolis.
SPEAKER 12 :
Yeah, I don’t think it doesn’t help the situation. Andy, always great to talk with you. Thanks so much for joining us.
SPEAKER 14 :
Thank you, Tony.
SPEAKER 12 :
And folks, I want the law enforced. Look, former police officer want to see law and order, but I also want to see the country stay together. And I think we have rules in place, we have laws in place, we have judicial branch, we have executive branch. You can’t uphold the law by bending the law. All right, don’t go away.
SPEAKER 11 :
On a cold January day in Washington, D.C., thousands still gathered on the National Mall for the 53rd National March for Life. Participants came from across the United States and beyond, united under the event’s simple theme, life is a gift. The event began with powerful speeches linking faith, the sanctity of life from conception, and America’s founding principles to defending the vulnerable. House Speaker Mike Johnson addressed the crowd and expressed his thankfulness for the gift of life.
SPEAKER 05 :
I was the product of an unplanned teen pregnancy exactly one year before Roe in January of 1972. And a lot of people try to convince my very young parents that they should just take care of that problem. But I am eternally grateful that they allowed me the chance at life. Think of the millions of children that did not have that same opportunity. And every single child deserves the opportunity to fulfill their God-given potential. And it is up to us to defend that freedom and that right.
SPEAKER 11 :
The stage welcomed numerous members of Congress, as well as Vice President J.D. Vance, who highlighted God’s design for the family.
SPEAKER 06 :
We know that family is not just the source of a great joy, but it’s part of God’s design for men and women, a design that extends outward from the family to our neighborhoods, to our communities, and to the United States of America itself.
SPEAKER 11 :
Representative Andrew Clyde stressed the government’s duty to secure and defend life.
SPEAKER 10 :
It’s in the birth certificate of our nation that says that government’s responsibility is to protect life. And for so long, government has been giving people the authority to destroy life through Roe v. Wade. And the Dobbs decision, the incredible Dobbs decision, reversed that from the federal level. And so, you know, finally, government is here under the Trump administration defending life. And that’s what we’re supposed to be doing.
SPEAKER 11 :
Representative Michael Cloud urged perseverance in the battle to protect life.
SPEAKER 18 :
Our job is to be the watchman on the wall, so to speak, and to stand for life, to stand for principles of truth and righteousness. And so there’s never going to be a point where we can think our job is done. We don’t get weary in well-doing. We know we’ll get the rest of that scripture goes, you’ll reap a reward if you don’t faint.
SPEAKER 11 :
Family Research Council will always march and stand for life because every life is a gift. Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, much has been achieved in this March for Life, but the work is far from finished. We must remain unwavering in our commitment to stand for what God has given, this precious gift of life.
SPEAKER 12 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. All right, our word for today comes from Job chapter 23. My foot has held fast to his steps. I have kept his way and not turned aside. I have not departed from the commandments of his lips. I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. Here’s Job defending his integrity in the midst of grief, uncertainty, and despair. Not throwing in the towel, but holding on, holding on to the character of God. God doesn’t change. Like the psalmist who clung to God’s word in affliction, Job held on to the ways and the word of God. Look at verse 13. But he is unique in who can make him change in whatever his soul desires that he does. For he performs what is appointed for me, and many such things are with him. Therefore, I am terrified at his presence. When I consider this, I am afraid of him. We, as finite creatures created by an infinite God, cannot understand his ways nor make him change. Yet in that tension, we find hope as we cling not to control, but to the mercy and the character of God, which are unchanging. To find out more about our journey through the Bible, text Bible to 67742. Yesterday, the Trump administration asked a federal court to not move forward with Louisiana’s case against the FDA policy on Mifeprestone, the abortion drug. The Trump administration said that they are conducting a review of the abortion drug. Now, according to the Trump administration, Louisiana’s lawsuit against the FDA threatens to short circuit the agency’s review and study of the safety risks risk of mefeprestone. So the court should wait until the review is complete. Well, the problem is many of the states that have laws protecting the unborn and their mothers have been waiting and they’ve been waiting and they’ve been waiting. And under the Dobbs decision, it made very clear that the states, as well as the federal government, the states have a right to protect the unborn. That’s not happening because of the policy, the Biden era policies governing Mifeprestone. It’s being mailed into the states and abortion rates are actually going up. Joining me now to discuss this, Dr. Christina Francis, Chief Executive Officer of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Francis, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thanks for having me, Tony. It’s great to be back.
SPEAKER 12 :
So let me ask you this question. What do you make of the FDA’s assertion that the review of Mifepresto needs to be complete before the court can consider this lawsuit from Louisiana?
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, I think it’s a ridiculous assertion. I mean, I’m very glad that the FDA is commenting publicly once again that they are, in fact, doing a safety review. But, you know, this Louisiana case is asking for something that is very common sense. They’re just asking that that in-person dispensing requirement be put back into place before a woman can obtain the abortion drug. Or, as is the case of the individual plaintiff in this case, Rosalie Marquezich, Her boyfriend actually obtained these pills online and forced her to take them, forced an abortion upon her that she did not want, and she lost her child because of that. That in-person dispensing requirement was in place for over two decades after the drug was approved. It was what was in place under the first Trump administration, and there’s no reason that the FDA couldn’t immediately reinstate that in-person dispensing requirement while at the same time doing a thorough safety review to see if more safeguards need to be put back into place.
SPEAKER 12 :
Dr. Francis, I think it’s a very good point to make. What the Louisiana Attorney General, the state of Louisiana, is seeking is simply to go back what was in place, not to what I would like to see. I think the drug is dangerous. I think it needs to go away. But they’re just saying go back, as you said, the in-person dispensing requirements, the And the fact that what’s happening is the failure to enforce federal law on the Comstock Act is allowing this to be mailed into the states, undermining the pro-life laws of the states. How long does it take to do a review? I mean, it’s been over a year.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, exactly. If the FDA had in fact started their safety review when we were promised that they were, then that should be completed by now, or at least close to completion. But now, you know, my understanding from the legal brief that was filed is now they’re saying it could be another year. And during that year, we know that hundreds of thousands of preborn children will lose their lives due to this drug, and tens of thousands of women will be harmed. You know, even using conservative estimates of 63% of abortions being done via these drugs, which are numbers from 2023, I think it’s likely higher, and even using the FDA’s own very conservative numbers, that one in 25 women who take these drugs will end up in the emergency room with complications that still is 30 000 women a year ending up in the emergency room with severe complications and every day that the fda waits to do what it needs to do to do its job more women are being harmed and more children are losing their lives
SPEAKER 12 :
Just for a little bit of context for our viewers and listeners, and I’ve talked about this a lot, but just so we understand how this policy that is currently in place came about during the Biden administration. This was after the overturn of Roe. The Dobbs decision came about and there was a all. of government approach during the Biden administration to figure out how to circumvent that, and this was one of the ways, the abortion drug. That policy, unlike many of the other policies that Biden put in place, remains. The other policies were overturned by the Trump administration, but this one remains. Can you see this? I don’t want to sound cynical, but it looks very political in terms of the decision surrounding this policy.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, I would agree with you. I mean, there’s certainly not a reason from a medical standpoint to keep from reinstating that in-person dispensing requirement. This is frank medical malpractice what’s happening. Not only are women not receiving appropriate evaluation before they get this high-risk drug, But doctors in other states, as you stated, are shipping these high-risk drugs into states where abortion is illegal, and they’re then being shielded from the consequences of their actions. You know, when women are being harmed. There was another case in Louisiana, actually, of a teenage girl whose mother ordered these drugs from a doctor in New York and gave them to the teenager against her will, and she ended up with severe complications in the emergency room. This is frank medical malpractice, and it should not be put on hold because of any sort of political calculations. You know, women’s health, women’s safety should be paramount. Lives of preborn children should be paramount. And as you said, this is not actually, this case out of Louisiana is not actually asking for that much. They’re just asking that a woman be evaluated by a physician before she takes this drug so that she can receive fully informed consent about her individual risks related to this drug so that she can understand about the humanity of that child that’s growing inside of her and so that we can ensure that abusers are not getting their hands on these drugs to force abortions.
SPEAKER 12 :
Dr. Francis, final question for you. You talked about the complications that many of the women are experiencing because this drug was designed for a certain period of early pregnancy. If it’s taken beyond that, it can create big complications. But oftentimes, if it’s in one of these about a dozen states where this drug is illegal and a woman shows up or a girl shows up at an emergency room, oftentimes they’re afraid, even though it They would not be in trouble if they acknowledge it, but they’re afraid to acknowledge that they got this drug through the mail, which further complicates the situation.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yes, absolutely. And this is not theoretical. I practice in the state of Indiana as an OB hospitalist where abortion is illegal. And I have gone down to our emergency room along with my partners multiple times to provide care for women who were suffering horrific complications. after taking this drug. And in fact, one specifically said to me, why did nobody tell me that this was a possibility? They didn’t tell me that it was going to be like this. And so this is a very real thing that’s happening to women. And, you know, obviously, APLOG is against abortion because it ends the life of one of our patients. It harms our other one. But really and truly on this issue with what’s going on right now with Mifepristone, no matter what somebody’s position on abortion, they should be opposed to the medical malpractice that is happening. And we all should be demanding that the FDA do its job and ensure the health and safety of women and children across this country.
SPEAKER 12 :
Could not agree more. Dr. Francis, thanks so much for joining us today. Appreciate your insight.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thank you so much.
SPEAKER 12 :
And I think actually I’m reaching for the number, but I think it was about 64 percent of Americans actually agree. Even those who support abortion believe that women should at least have a consultation with a doctor before taking the abortion pill because of the risk. All right. I need you to weigh in on this. OK, this is one of those issues. I’m just if you want me to stop talking about it, help me end it, because I’m not going to stop talking about it until the Trump administration changes the policy. So text the word LIFE to 67742. That’s LIFE to 67742. And I’ll send you a link. You can sign the petition that we’re going to be delivering to them to encourage them to change these Biden era policies. To allow the states to protect the unborn and their mothers. So text LIFE to 67742. That’s LIFE to 67742. All right. I want to turn to another core issue. here at the Family Research Council, and that’s the issue of marriage. Earlier today, the Family Research Council joins a large and diverse coalition of pro-family organizations, leaders, and influencers in launching the Greater Than campaign to restore marriage to the child-protecting institution it was designed by God to be. Others who are a core part of the coalition include Focus on the Family, American Family Association, the Colson Center, And the organization of my next guest, who is the driver behind this, Katie Faust, founder and president of Them Before Us. Katie, welcome back to Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 13 :
Always good to be with you. Thank you for being a part of this cornerstone campaign that is going to do what no other country that has legalized gay marriage has even attempted, which is retake it in the name of child protection.
SPEAKER 12 :
Yeah, I remember our conversation several months back about this. And you you have a passion for this. I am 100 percent with you. And this is a big day because this is when you launched it. Describe to our viewers and listeners the greater than campaign. And you’ve touched on it. But unpack that, what that looks like, what we’re going to be doing.
SPEAKER 13 :
Well, I think a lot of people don’t understand how Obergefell actually victimized children. And very simply, when we made husbands and wives optional in marriage, mothers and fathers became optional in parenthood law. The problem is that for children, their mother and father are never optional. It always leaves a lifelong wound. It always destabilizes their existence. It hampers their identity formation. It hinders their development. And very often, it places them in homes that are statistically risky, elevating risks of abuse and neglect. We have made mothers and fathers legally optional by stripping mother and father out of parenthood laws and replacing it with guardians or parents. We have adulterated birth certificates so adults can say that they’re a parent when they’re not biological and they’re not adoptive. We have redefined infertility so that single or same-sex couples can have their motherless and fatherless children subsidized by insurance companies through IVF. We have eliminated all of the contours of the family. So the only thing left is what an adult wants. And very often what they want is the acquisition of a child that does not belong to them. We have 10 years of receipts of how gay marriage has victimized children, and the Greater Than campaign stands together and says no more.
SPEAKER 12 :
It should be fundamental. I mean, this is where children, I mean, we look at all of the social pathologies. Probably it’s been almost 30 years ago. Yeah, almost 30 years ago, I introduced the nation’s first covenant marriage law, passed it. And then looking at all of the social science, the reason it passed overwhelmingly is because the social science made it very clear that children do best when they’re in a home with their mother and father who are married. And it’s not two parents. It’s not two adults. It is a mother and a father. I mean, we’ve got now decades of the fallout of experimenting with family. And now we’re accelerating it with a redefinition. And I mean, at what point at what point does America wake up?
SPEAKER 13 :
I hopefully today. That’s what I hope. I hope they wake up today because I don’t think a lot of people know about the carnage that has been inflicted on children in the realm of the legal understanding that they have a claim to their own mother and father. And so we’re going to make it very evident that there is a direct connection between gay marriage and child victimization. And the alternative, the right way to think about it is natural marriage results in child protection. And so we
SPEAKER 12 :
Yeah, well, we don’t have time to go into your story, but I just want to put people at ease because they think, well, this is going to be confrontational. What we’re talking about, we’re talking about removing the focus on the desire of the adults to putting it on the needs of the children, which everybody says they’re for.
SPEAKER 13 :
Yeah, that’s exactly right. This is a campaign that is going to elevate the rights of children to be known and loved by their own mother and father. We’re going to emphasize, obviously, the social science that you mentioned that is unequivocally clear that this home, the home of a child’s married mother and father, benefits them in ways that any other spattering of adults Two loving parents simply cannot. You are exactly right that it is this household configuration where children are raised by the married biological mother and father that exempts them from so many of the social ills, whether it is risks of homelessness or suicide or teen pregnancy or high school dropouts or incarceration or gang involvement. There is something about this one household, a child’s own mother and father loving them and raising them together in a permanent relationship, that benefits children and society in a way that adult desires, adult consent, adult romantic attractions, and households formed around those adult identities are going to benefit kids in ways that simply other adult arrangements do. And so that’s what we’re saying. We need to get back to the place where we are elevating and promoting the one family structure where children have their mother and father in the home. And we want to tell the court that they need to make a choice. They can either have gay marriage or they can protect children’s rights to their mother and father, but they can’t do both. And I think that they’ll choose the kids.
SPEAKER 12 :
And if we don’t choose the kids, there is a high societal price to pay. We’ve already seen the down payment that we’ve been paying, as I’ve made reference to, but it’s only going to intensify and it’s beyond what we have the ability to pay at the end of the day. Katie Faust, I want to thank you for joining us today, but I want to thank you for your passion and your leadership on this extremely important issue.
SPEAKER 13 :
Well, you’re welcome. And we are grateful for the Family Research Council that has been with us from day one, making sure that we are able to not just create a judicial strategy with the possibility of success, but we are going to change public opinion, too. And FRC has been right along with us from the very beginning.
SPEAKER 12 :
Very quickly, five seconds. Where can people find out more?
SPEAKER 13 :
Greater than campaign dot com. Sign up. Follow us on all the socials and join our coalition.
SPEAKER 12 :
All right, Katie. Thanks, folks.
SPEAKER 21 :
Check it out. 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.
