In this episode of Washington Watch, host Tony Perkins brings listeners a comprehensive analysis of current events that impact both the nation and the world from a faith-based perspective. The focus begins with insights on President Trump’s efforts to mediate the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, offering a glimpse into the complex geopolitical tensions and the American role in seeking a resolution. This episode also delves deep into the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest hearings on a significant case regarding donor privacy for a Christian pro-life organization, examining what these legal battles mean for nonprofits nationwide.
SPEAKER 06 :
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 09 :
We’re doing very well. We have a lot of respect. As you know, we have a problem with a war that our people are trying to settle now with Russia and Ukraine. We are not involved in the war monetarily anymore. Biden gave away $350 billion like it was candy. But we’re trying to get that settled and not an easy situation. Let me tell you, what a mess.
SPEAKER 12 :
That was President Donald Trump earlier today during a cabinet meeting discussing his efforts to bring an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine. Welcome to this December 2nd edition of Washington Watch. I’m your host, Tony Perkins. Good to be back. And thanks for joining us. We’re coming up. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today and a significant case involving a Christian pro-life nonprofit in New Jersey. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers is pushing back against the state’s attempt to access its donor records. Caleb Dalton, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, the organization that represented First Choice, will join us later to explain what’s at stake. Plus, Congressman Scott Perry of Pennsylvania will share his perspective on renewed efforts to negotiate peace in Ukraine. We begin this evening with diplomatic developments out of Moscow. Vladimir Putin met with President Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner as part of a bid to resolve the war in Ukraine. The meeting took place just hours after Putin expressed a stark warning to Europe declaring that Russia is prepared for war if necessary. Joining me now is Washington Stand reporter Casey Harper, who has been following today’s main stories. Casey, Vladimir Putin does not sound like a man ready for peace. Where do things stand after today’s talks? Any progress being made?
SPEAKER 15 :
Yeah, thanks, Tony. I think you’re not the only one who has that assessment of Vladimir Putin. But this meeting inside the Kremlin, it brought Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner face to face with Putin himself as the U.S. is trying again to push for an end to the war. This all comes after leaked American proposals sparked a lot of fear and concern in Europe and Ukraine, with some saying that the American proposal leaned too much toward what Moscow wants. European leaders then pushed out their own counter plan pretty quickly, and then Putin shot back, accusing them of trying to block the US-led peace efforts. Putin also issued a pretty sharp and troubling warning that Europe shouldn’t risk a military conflict. Here’s what Secretary of State Marco Rubio said today at that White House Cabinet meeting.
SPEAKER 05 :
Steve Woodcock is in Moscow trying to find a way to end this war, to save lives of 8,000, 9,000 people, Mr. President, as you want to know, are dying every week. More people are dying a week in that war than have died in the entirety of the U.S.’ ‘s involvement in Afghanistan or Iraq. Just think about that, how bloody and destructive it is.
SPEAKER 15 :
The Trump administration says they’re simply trying to be realistic in ending this war, but Ukraine’s arguing that nothing can be decided behind their back. Tony, as these heavy casualties mount, Russia gains ground and issues more threats, there’s a lot of pressure to see whether diplomacy can actually work this time.
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, we’ll explore that a little bit later. Thank you, Casey. I’m going to switch gears now to an important issue here at home, and that is should a pro-life ministry be forced to hand over its private donor information? Now, that question was once again front and center at the Supreme Court today. Casey, what’s the update on that case?
SPEAKER 15 :
That’s right, Tony. So at the U.S. Supreme Court today, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which is a Christian pro-life nonprofit organization that helps families all over New Jersey, they asked the Supreme Court to protect their right to challenge what they’re calling this unconstitutional subpoena from the state attorney general. Here to explain, here’s Erin Hawley. She’s an attorney for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers.
SPEAKER 01 :
First Choices’ associational interests were harmed the moment it received a coercive subpoena demanding donor names on pain of contempt. This is true irrespective of whether the subpoena is non-self-executing, for even an unenforceable threat may chill First Amendment freedoms.
SPEAKER 15 :
This subpoena, Tony, has sought years of private documents and the identities of First Choice’s donors, which critics, of course, say can amount to donor intimidation. Now, the ministry says it’s actually being targeted for living out its Christian mission to support and help mothers and babies. The Supreme Court will now decide whether First Choice can bring its constitutional claims directly in a federal court. Meanwhile, on a related issue, a federal appeals court has ruled that three New York pro-life pregnancy centers may continue sharing information about their abortion pill reversal while their lawsuit moves forward. So these centers, which are supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom, argue that women should be free to hear about using progesterone, which can reverse the abortion pill, And New York Attorney General, who’s a Democrat, Letitia James, no stranger to the limelight these days, she’s suing the groups, and she claims that the information is misleading. But for now, the court has sided with the pregnancy centers in saying their speech is protected by the First Amendment, Tony.
SPEAKER 12 :
You know, Casey, that previous case you talked about out of New Jersey, it reminds me of the scripture, there’s nothing new under the sun. It was just a few years ago that California tried the very same thing. So it’ll be interesting to explore that with ADF’s attorney a little bit later. Let’s talk about another issue. Voters in the 7th Congressional District are voting in a special election today to fill the vacancy left by Mark Green, who resigned earlier this year. A lot of eyes are watching that.
SPEAKER 15 :
Yeah, Tony, they are. I mean, it could affect the GOP’s slim majority in the House of Representatives, which is one reason to watch it. But it’s also a potential bellwether for the future. So Republican Matt Van Epps, he is the favorite. There’s no question about it. He’s got the endorsement of President Trump and the outgoing Congressman Mark Green. His opponent, on the other hand, is Democrat Afton Bin. The district, as I said, it leans Republican, but a new poll has shown the race might be a little tighter than expected and tighter than Republicans are comfortable with, which makes turnout very important. And of course, as I said, it’s really important for that narrow House majority.
SPEAKER 12 :
Casey, one more topic I want to go to very quickly, and that is Sudan. What’s happening in Sudan?
SPEAKER 15 :
Yeah, well, in Port Sudan, two of the country’s oldest Christian churches were vandalized with, and get this, Islamic graffiti. This happened in a busy central area near police stations, but that didn’t seem to deter it. church members they covered the markings to avoid the tension but community members say this is just raising more fears as across sudan the humanitarian crisis is worsening we have 30 million refugees in need of aid in nearby country of chad who are facing food shortages all against the backdrop of president trump saying he might intervene to stop the conflict tony
SPEAKER 12 :
All right, Casey, thanks so much. Hey, by the way, folks, it’s Giving Tuesday. And today you have an opportunity to give a gift that makes twice the impact in the year ahead. Washington Watch comes to you only because of folks like you who receive no government money. But thanks to a special challenge match, every gift you give today will be matched dollar for dollar. And so you can take advantage of this opportunity. It’s limited just to today. So call right now. We have folks standing by to take your call, 800-225-4008. That’s 800-225-4008. So make double the impact today by standing with Washington Watch and the Family Research Council. All right, I want to go back and look at the latest developments on the Russia-Ukraine war. Joining me now to discuss this and a bit more, Congressman Scott Perry, who serves on several House committees, including the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He represents the 10th Congressional District of Pennsylvania. He’s also a combat veteran who retired at the rank of Brigadier General after nearly 40 years in uniform. Congressman Perry, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for taking time to join us.
SPEAKER 07 :
Great to be with you, Tony. Of course, a lot happening and we’re all watching. Of course, Steve Witkoff headed to Moscow and after you know meetings yesterday with Ukrainian officials and the president’s folks, including the president’s son in law down in Florida, it appears that Russia is going to continue to push the envelope, so to speak. Now they want Ukraine to give up territory that Russia is not even currently occupying. So you know, but at the same time. As you know, the world’s losing thousands of people every week in that war. And I think as time goes on, Ukraine’s leverage becomes less and less. So it is a really difficult conundrum. And, of course, you know, I think that, look, the Russians are not to be trusted in any way, shape, or form in this. And I think we have to have an eye towards the future of what Russia might do once it’s emboldened with whatever gains it makes in Ukraine. And we’ve got to be thinking about that in any agreement that… that we come to with Russia over Ukraine, but also involving the rest of Europe.
SPEAKER 12 :
But beyond Europe, Congressman, do we not have to be concerned about how China might be interpreting the outcome of these negotiations?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, without a doubt, But Russia does have the upper hand, and China is not in the same situation militarily, at least right now. Now, I think what you’re talking about is would China kind of seek the same thing in Taiwan? Exactly. And I do think we have to be very mindful of that, although I can say that I don’t think China makes a move on Taiwan. as long as Donald Trump is the president, but he’s not gonna be the president forever. And we also have to be prepared for the future with that. And keeping everything involved here, Syria is a factor as well because Russia would like to move back into Syria under new management there. And so that’s a factor that we should be considering in these discussions as well. Is it peace at any cost? I mean, obviously we want peace. It can’t be at any cost. I hear you. We definitely want peace. We want peace for the European continent, for the Ukrainian people, for the Russian people that really don’t want to be involved in this war and all the neighborhoods around there. But we simply cannot let Vladimir Putin continue to profit from this aggressive action you know, that was taken unilaterally and unjustifiably. And so at some point, I think even he will push the limit of what’s achievable. And so the question is, does he want to continue grinding down? You know, he’s losing soldiers as well in this war.
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, he’s not been able to bring this to a conclusion. I mean, and it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen anytime soon. But are the sanctions in the secondary sanctions on Russian oil, are they starting to work? I think they will.
SPEAKER 07 :
I think it will take some time, particularly with India. But I think they will have an effect. And that’s why I think that Russia is motivated to do as much as it can. But I’m going to say this, too. During the Biden administration, they were encouraging people or other countries to buy Russian oil. At the same time, they were funding the war with American tax dollars. So Russia…
SPEAKER 12 :
you know look they look at american policy and i imagine they shake their heads sometimes and they think if we can just wait this out uh we’ll get you know we’ll get new management there and get away with whatever we want to and congressman’s history of that congressman perry that is an excellent point and it’s something that americans need to ponder very seriously i’ve i’ve encountered that back when i was chairman of the u.s commission on international religious freedom i’d go to some of these bad actors and they’d say Well, you know, so you’ve prioritized religious freedom now, but we’ll wait four years. And our elections have been swinging back and forth. In fact, Scripture talks about that as a nation that has many princes. It’s unstable. And a part of this goes back to the spiritual and the moral foundation of our nation. And that’s where each and every American comes into play. That’s exactly right.
SPEAKER 07 :
And, you know, Americans that we got to be for our country and our country’s interests. And don’t worry about who the Republican is or who the Democrat is, but demand that what’s good for America is good for the world and and try and stay on course about what’s good for us. But oftentimes, of course, if the other party likes it, you have to hate it or vice versa. And that’s no way to run a railroad.
SPEAKER 12 :
You’re absolutely right. And this is one where we have to have consistency in our government because the world takes notice. And part of that is having a set standard regardless of who the party is and holding them accountable to that standard. Congressman, we’re out of time, but it’s always great to see you. Thanks so much for taking time to join us this afternoon. Great to be with you, Tony. God bless you and your audience. Thank you. Congressman Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. Great American. All right. Coming up, we’re going to discuss today’s Supreme Court hearing that pitted five pro-life pregnancy centers against New Jersey’s attorney general. As I mentioned earlier, there’s nothing new under the sun. The Attorney General, former Attorney General of California, who happened to also be the Vice President of the United States with Joe Biden, tried the same thing. Went all the way to the Supreme Court. Don’t go away. We’re back after this. In times like these, we need something solid to stand on. That’s why I’m inviting you to join me on January the 1st for Stand on the Word, a daily journey through the entire Bible. Each day, we’ll read God’s Word together, discuss how to apply His truths to our lives, 15 minutes that can transform your year. Join me and thousands of others as we stand strong by standing on the Word of God. Text BIBLE to 67742. That’s BIBLE to 67742.
SPEAKER 18 :
How should Christians think about the thorny issues shaping our culture? How should Christians address deceitful ideas like transgenderism, critical theory, or assisted suicide? How can Christians navigate raising children in a broken culture, the war on gender roles, or rebuilding our once great nation? Outstanding is a podcast from The Washington Stand dedicated to these critical conversations. Outstanding seeks to tear down what our corrupt culture lifts up with an aim to take every thought and every idea captive to the obedience of Christ. Whether policies or partisan politics, whether conflict in America or conflict abroad, join us and our guests as we examine the headlines through the lens of Scripture and explore how Christians can faithfully exalt Christ in all of life. Follow Outstanding on your favorite podcast app and look for new episodes each week.
SPEAKER 13 :
What is God’s role in government? What does the separation of church and state really mean? And how does morality shape a nation? President John Adams said our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Join Family Research Council for God and Government, a powerful series that explores the connection between biblical principles and the American government, equipping you with truth to engage in today’s most pressing debates. We’ll uncover the foundations of our nation’s history and why it’s relevant for today. Join us to defend God’s plan for government because faith and freedom were never meant to be separate. You can view the course at prayvotestand.org slash godandgovernment or on the Stand Firm app.
SPEAKER 02 :
Are you looking for a meaningful gift to share this Christmas? Family Research Council has you covered. Check out the Stand on the Word official store for gear and gifts that are thoughtfully designed to help you wear, share, and stand boldly on scripture. Check out our Christmas bundle for a $25 discount. Visit frc.org slash Bible store or text store to 67742. That’s store to 67742.
SPEAKER 12 :
All right, welcome back to Washington Watch. I want to thank Jody Heiss for filling in for me last week as I was out. It’s always good to be back in the chair, but it’s always good to take time away. I want to go back to a verse I was referencing with Congressman Perry, Proverbs 28, 2. Because of the transgression of a land, many are its princes, meaning that there’s instability. And that’s what we’re seeing when we go from kind of one side to the other, back and forth. There’s used to there was kind of more stability. I mean, we didn’t have such a change every time. And the world can’t, I mean, they just, they don’t know what to expect from America, nor do we as American citizens. All right, as I mentioned, it’s Giving Tuesday, and today you have an opportunity to give a gift that can make twice the impact in the year ahead. And thanks to a special challenge match, every gift you give today is matched dollar for dollar. Your $50 becomes $100, your $250, $500. We have folks standing by to take your phone call, so just give them a call. They’re standing there waiting. They’re waiting. 800-225-4008. That’s 800-225-4008. As I mentioned earlier, Washington Watch is funded completely and totally by individuals like you across the nation that want information and news from a biblical perspective from here in our nation’s capital. We’re unique. We’re probably the only one here. I think we are the only one here in our nation’s capital reporting what’s happening from a biblical perspective. All right. Speaking of that, earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case of five pro-life pregnancy centers that are challenging what they say was an unconstitutional investigation by New Jersey’s attorney general. The case is First Choice Women’s Resource Center versus Platkin. And arguing on behalf of those pro-life pregnancy centers was Alliance Defending Freedom. so how did it go well joining me now to offer his analysis of the hearing and the case is adf senior counsel caleb dalton who was into the courtroom today caleb welcome to washington watch thank you thanks for uh for joining us tony thanks so much for having me now um well i want to I was talking about earlier how there’s nothing new under the sun. This sounds very similar to what happened coming out of California a few years ago, that ADF handled that case as well, where Kamala Harris was then the attorney general and was going after the First Amendment freedoms of care pregnancy centers out there. It looks like the left will not stop trying to shut down these care pregnancy centers.
SPEAKER 10 :
First Choice, our client that we are honored to represent at the United States Supreme Court today, they provide free, compassionate care to women in need. These are women who are going through situations they never imagined they would be in, and First Choice provides the resources they need to make the right choice to protect their baby’s lives. And as you know, Tony, I mean, the studies show that when those resources are available to women, they’re more likely to choose life. And that’s what First Choice does here. And because the attorney general doesn’t like that choice, that’s why he’s targeting these pregnancy centers for harassment and intimidation. And the First Amendment doesn’t allow that.
SPEAKER 12 :
What’s the justification for going after their donors? That’s what he’s subpoenaed. He’s requested, he’s demanded, I should say, their donor information. Based on what?
SPEAKER 10 :
He’s asking not only just for the identities of their donors, he wants their addresses and their phone numbers. And the allegation is maybe the donors didn’t know that first choice pregnancy resource centers were pro-life. And that’s absurd, frankly. Not only are they absolutely clear about who they are and what they do on their websites, The attorney general doesn’t need that information. If the law was violated, he could enforce the law without that.
SPEAKER 12 :
What possible violation could there be?
SPEAKER 10 :
There’s not. And if there was, he would have already filed a lawsuit. That’s why he’s using the subpoena power to harass them and try to chill their speech and try to chill their donors from donating to them.
SPEAKER 12 :
That’s exactly what this is about. We’ve seen the same thing in other cases where State officials almost always in blue states trying to intimidate these conservative Christian organizations by having this chilling effect because the donors don’t necessarily want to be harassed. I remember back during the marriage debates where people would show up at the homes of donors to harass them. So I don’t want to run out of time here. What… What was your sense from the questions asked by the court? Did they see through what the Attorney General in New Jersey was trying to do?
SPEAKER 10 :
I think the court did. As the adage goes, I think at the end of day you’re asked, would you rather be us or the state of New Jersey? And I think you’d rather be first choice pregnancy centers at the end of the day today. The court absolutely saw through this facade. Justice Barrett asked questions about the harassment and kind of the past statements the Attorney General has made by setting up this strike force to go after pregnancy centers. And Justice Thomas asked the New Jersey attorney general’s attorney, were there ever any complaints that triggered this investigation? And the answer was no. There was nothing that justified this other than the attorney general’s ideological opposition to first choice.
SPEAKER 12 :
So, Caleb, did anybody ask him if he had anything better to do than harass an organization that was helping out women in crisis pregnancies?
SPEAKER 10 :
That’s a great question. He should have better things to do because first choice deserves his support, not his harassment.
SPEAKER 12 :
So, Caleb, this case oftentimes, I mean, it depends. Sometimes the court has a very narrow decision that just affects the particular client before the case. Could this have ramifications across the country?
SPEAKER 10 :
I think the biggest ramification of this case is whether or not nonprofits will be able to vindicate their rights in the federal court if they face political harassment by a hostile attorney general. And this is across the board. We are at a crossroads as a nation where the justice departments have been weaponized. We’ve seen that at the federal level and at the state level. through different politics being played with justice. And that’s not the way it should be. And the question before the court is, when an attorney general is playing politics with the justice system, can you go to federal court and preserve your First Amendment rights? And the answer should be yes.
SPEAKER 12 :
So what New Jersey is trying to do is keep them bottled up in state court where they really had no relief.
SPEAKER 10 :
That’s right. And that’s not how the First Amendment or the federal statutes that authorize you to protect your First Amendment rights. That’s not how they work.
SPEAKER 12 :
So we expect a decision on this at the end of the court’s term?
SPEAKER 10 :
By June at the latest, but it could come earlier. This isn’t a decision I think that should take the court very long to write. So it’s possible we see an earlier decision, but certainly by the end of June next year.
SPEAKER 12 :
All right, Caleb. Again, we appreciate Alliance Defending Freedom and the great work that you guys do across the board defending our first freedom. Thanks for joining us. Thanks, Tony. They do do great work. But it takes those willing to fight and those organizations that are being, their rights are being violated. Sometimes many want to just go silent because they don’t want the trouble. And that individuals, conservative business owners, we got to stand up and fight for our freedoms. Paul did it. Paul exercised his right as a Roman citizen. And I’m grateful for groups like Alliance Defending Freedom that are out there helping Americans defend their fundamental rights. All right, don’t go away because we have more Washington Watch straight ahead. For over 4,000 years, the Jewish people have had legal, historical, and biblical ties to the land of Israel, especially the heartland of Israel, Judea and Samaria, which much of the world still calls the West Bank. To Israelis, Judea and Samaria is far more than a name. It’s the center of their ancestral homeland where nearly 80% of the Bible’s events took place. Abraham purchased property in Hebron, Jacob in Shechem, Joshua made an altar on Mount Ebal and led the Israelites into a covenant before God. On Mount Gerizim, overlooking Shechem, Jesus talked to the Samaritan woman at the well about worshiping neither on Mount Gerizim nor in Jerusalem, but in spirit and in truth. Judea and Samaria is nearly a quarter of Israel’s current land mass, not a small strip of land on the Jordan River, but a vital and strategic part of the nation’s identity. The October 7th massacre, launched from Gaza, shattered the illusion that giving away territory brings peace. Gaza, which was once seen as the cornerstone of a two-state solution, became a launchpad for terror. Today, only 21 percent of Israelis support a Palestinian state. Trust in a two-state solution has all but collapsed. The Middle East is changing. Iran’s grip is weakening. New alliances are forming. But Western countries and some U.S. officials still chase the mirage of a two-state solution. History speaks clearly. The 2005 Gaza withdrawal, backed by the U.S., led not to peace, but to a terrorist regime. Judea and Samaria are 24 times larger than Gaza, deeply woven into Israel’s geographic and spiritual fabric. To surrender them would not bring peace. It would invite conflict and existential danger. Family Research Council stands with Israel’s rightful claim to sovereignty. It’s time for America to do the same for history, for justice, and for lasting security in the Middle East. all right welcome back to washington watch as i mentioned it’s giving tuesday and we have team members standing by right now to take your phone call if you’d like to partner with the family research council to make sure washington watch stays on the airwaves across the country Give us a call, 800-225-4008. That’s 800-225-4008. And today, today only, we have a generous match so that your contribution can be doubled. $1,000 becomes $2,000. So give us a call, 800-225-4008. I see some folks just kind of sitting there waiting for the phones to ring, so make them ring, 800-225-4008. All right, War Department Secretary Pete Hexeth made clear today that U.S. military’s operations against narco-terrorists have only just begun. And this is despite the recent bombshell report alleging that he ordered the killing of survivors of a boat strike back in September. Now, that’s been walked back a little bit, but how fine of a line is the War Department walking? Joining me now to discuss this by phone is Andy McCarthy, senior fellow at 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 11 :
Tony, thanks for having me.
SPEAKER 12 :
You know, I want to get your take on this. I’ve been reading your pieces. And of course, there’s been a little change in the narrative surrounding this. The Trump administration yesterday defended the legality of the September 2nd attack on the boat in the Caribbean. Is this gray area? I mean, we’re talking about are we talking about criminal activity? Are we talking about warfare? Which is it? Well, I think you mean the specific strike or the— Well, how the administration—I mean, when we’re talking about narco-terrorism, we’re talking about drugs being brought into the country. Is this—I mean, we’ve had the war on drugs going on. I remember, you know, Bill Bennett was the drug czar, and we had all kinds of operations going against drug running. But have we ever considered an open warfare as we’re now seeing it with the Department of Defense?
SPEAKER 11 :
No, we never have. And in fact, I don’t think they’re authorized to do this. I think we would have a gray area, Tony, if Congress had not spoken. But Congress has thoroughly, extensively regulated the way the United States and its government treats narcotics trafficking. which is including the importation of large quantities of narcotics from overseas. The way we treat that is as a prosecutable crime or set of crimes in the criminal justice system. It is not an act of war. The term narco-terrorism, which they keep repeating, is a nonsense term. It doesn’t exist in the law. If you look at the very extensive definitions of terrorist activity in in federal law, narcotics trafficking is not mentioned. There’s one narcotics statute that deals with terrorism, and it doesn’t equate the two things. What it says is if you earn financial proceeds trafficking in narcotics and you contribute them to terrorist activity, you can get a higher sentence for narcotics trafficking. That just brings drug trafficking into line with other laws on the books that deal with material support to terrorism. So the two things are not the same. Even if they were, designating an organization or an entity as a terrorist organization is not an American law authorization to use military force. That has to come from Congress. So I think this whole thing from beginning to end is illegal, but you know, that’s the president has a lot of, uh, The president has a lot of authority to use military force.
SPEAKER 12 :
I mean, back in the 1980s, early 90s, I worked as a contractor with the State Department in anti-terrorism in their ATAP program. And we were dealing at that time mostly with narco-terrorists. We were dealing with those in Central and South America that were running drugs. We were training foreign police officers. But we had to be very careful. It wasn’t a military operation. It was a law enforcement operation. And that’s how this has long been treated. But what really brought this to the forefront, we just have a couple minutes left, but what really brought this to the forefront were two survivors of an initial attack of one of these drug-running boats that a second strike was launched to… eliminate those two individuals. I mean, that’s a problem, I would think, whether it’s dealing with a crime, obviously, if it’s dealing with as a criminal activity, but even under the laws of warfare.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, it would be if that’s the way it happened. And I think that’s the reason the Washington Post’s initial report about this was so alarming. As you pointed out when we began our conversation, a lot of that’s been walked back in the last couple of days. What appears to have happened, at least this is the administration’s account now, is that Secretary Hegseth gave an order to use lethal force against the boat, but he didn’t say what would happen if there were survivors. It’s obviously an offense against the laws of war and against American law to attack shipwrecked defenseless people who are ordered to combat. And it looks like what the administration is now saying is that the admiral who gave the order to do the second strike was targeting the vessel and the cargo, which apparently survived some of the first strike intact and didn’t realize at the time that the second strike was ordered that there were survivors. That was something they figured out either when the second strike hit or afterwards. So if that’s their account – that at least takes that war crime off the table. But I don’t think it helps the legality of the overall operation.
SPEAKER 12 :
So, Andy, 30 seconds left. Is this something that Congress has to determine or who determines?
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, I think Congress absolutely has to determine this. The courts aren’t going to go anywhere near it, Tony. But it’s time for Congress to step up to the plate on this anyway. If we’re going to stumble into a war in the Caribbean, I think Congress ought to be heard on.
SPEAKER 12 :
All right, Andy McCarthy, always great to talk to you. Thanks so much for joining us. All right, folks, something else to pray about. All right, when we come back, we’re going to be looking at an FDA vaccine memo.
SPEAKER 19 :
At Family Research Council, we believe religious freedom is a fundamental human right that all governments must protect. For years, Islamist militants in Nigeria have targeted Christians and other religious minority groups with brutal violence. Since 2009, 52,000 Christians have been slaughtered. A staggering 89% of Christian martyrs in the world today are from Nigeria. The first Trump administration declared Nigeria a country of particular concern, a designation reserved for countries whose governments engage in or tolerate religious freedom violations. However, this designation of Nigeria was quickly reversed by the Biden administration. Following consistent calls from FRC President Tony Perkins and other religious leaders across the U.S., President Donald Trump has responded.
SPEAKER 08 :
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States of America, Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands and thousands of Christians are being killed. I am hereby making Nigeria a country of particular concern.
SPEAKER 19 :
This is a huge step forward for the protection of Christians in Nigeria as well as religious freedom across the world. While this opens the door for the U.S. government to pressure Nigerian leaders to protect vulnerable Christians, it is only the beginning. We must continue to pray diligently, work strategically, and stand firm for the protection of religious liberty across the globe.
SPEAKER 16 :
At Family Research Council, defending the family isn’t just a mission, it’s our daily calling. Every team member at FRC uses their God-given talents to stand for biblical truth, protect life, and uphold religious freedom.
SPEAKER 20 :
Here at Family Research Council, we face many threats to the family, threats that have been with us for some time. Abortion, the gender ideology threat, the attacks on marriage, the attacks on parental authority, and the attacks on religious freedom. We have to promote, support, strengthen, and incentivize family growth so families take their place in society in a place of honor.
SPEAKER 14 :
I’m defending the family by working in the Center for Biblical Worldview to provide cutting edge research and resources for pastors, ministry leaders, and Christian parents.
SPEAKER 17 :
Through my work at the Washington Stand, I passionately defend what God has defined for marriage and family. I don’t see the Washington stand as just a place to talk about cultural events. It’s a place to share biblical truth. It’s a perfect outlet to advance and defend what God has defined as good, true, and beautiful.
SPEAKER 19 :
Because of you, we’re able to frame things in such a way that help Christians stand for truth on the things that matter most like life, faith, family, and freedom.
SPEAKER 20 :
Thank you for standing with us. Thank you for your support. It is so critical to the work that we at Family Research Council are doing day to day as we support and strengthen the family. So thank you.
SPEAKER 12 :
All right. This is Washington Watch. And it’s Monday. No, it’s Tuesday. It’s Tuesday because it’s Giving Tuesday. That’s right. It’s Giving Tuesday. And today you have the opportunity to give a gift that makes twice the impact. thanks to a special challenge match. Every gift you give today will be matched dollar for dollar. So we’ve got folks, team members, standing by to take your call. This is today only because it’s Giving Tuesday. 800-225-4008. That’s 800-225-4008. So stand with us to make sure that Washington Watch continues on the airwaves all across America. Our word for today comes from Hebrews chapter 10. Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which he consecrated for us through the veil, that is his flesh, and having a high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart and full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. So how do we hold fast and not waver? Well, verse 24 tells us, “…and let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembly of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much more, as you see the day approaching.” We need to be in the Word. We need to be in prayer and in community with other believers, all of which are vital to the Christian walk, especially as we see the day of the Lord’s return drawing closer. To join us in our journey through the Bible as we begin a new journey coming up in January, text BIBLE to 67742. That’s BIBLE to 67742. All right, a leaked memo over the weekend from FDA’s top vaccine regulator is shedding more light on the problems that the Trump administration needs to address and tackle in order to get the agency back to its mission of protecting public health and restoring public trust in the government. So in this memo to the staff at the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the director, Vinay Persad, highlights the… failures of the reporting system for deaths related to COVID-19 shots and the failure to act on or even acknowledge that that data was available. Now, Dr. Prasad also discussed the path forward, which he said will see vaccine regulation directed toward evidence-based medicine, something that is in line with what we’ve been hearing from other officials at the Department of Health and Human Services. So, How significant is this moment and will change come? Joining me in studio to talk about this, Dr. Chris Gacig, Senior Fellow for Regulatory Affairs here at the Family Research Council. Chris, thanks so much for joining me today.
SPEAKER 03 :
Good to be here, Tony.
SPEAKER 12 :
All right, so this is pretty significant. Absolutely.
SPEAKER 03 :
You know, we’ve had Dr. Robert Malone on the program a few times, and he, in a couple of posts, sub-stack columns, one of them he said was that he was just flabbergasted. He never thought in his lifetime he would see a document like this that was reviewing all of the problems in the vaccine space.
SPEAKER 12 :
And we have children who were forced to get this vaccine and they died.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. And so Prasad had data before him about vaccine injuries. And then he had… apparently another epidemiologist come in like a sort of a somebody who’s a real specialist in digging out the issues they’ve so far in this sample of the adverse event reports they found 10 deaths that they consider to be likely caused by the vaccine okay so in children so we back during covid
SPEAKER 12 :
when this program was on, talking about this. In fact, we got flagged for raising this issue about children being forced to get the vaccine who were healthy, who didn’t need it. In fact, it’s better sometimes for children to get these things because they build up an immunity to it, especially if they’re healthy, if they don’t have any other morbidities. That’s one issue that wasn’t considered in this process. But then there was not a systematic reporting of these adverse effects.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, and so let me go back to your first point, which is you’re absolutely correct. And this is sort of the guts of it. There was a huge controversy at the time about, look, maybe give the vaccine to the people who are at risk. You know, if you’re over 65. Right. And people have to be careful. Right. And then people with certain kinds of character.
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, I mean, they had other secondary effects that could be, you know.
SPEAKER 03 :
Made worse by COVID. Sure. But they knew that this population of children, it was very, very low probability that anything would happen to them. And so this was a very touchy issue. But that wasn’t even considered in the protocols. Right. And it was, in fact, he lays this out in such a way that it’s… It’s scathing. The document is in sort of—he says, why did the commissioner himself, this is Macari, have to come up with this information and get it to you before we found out that these 10 deaths had occurred? In other words, the staff itself had not been doing the work it should have been doing.
SPEAKER 12 :
So this information was available to them?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 12 :
And they just didn’t report on it? They didn’t release it?
SPEAKER 03 :
They didn’t analyze it properly. Whether it was either corruption or dishonesty or ideological blindness, they didn’t do the digging and the work that was necessary. And Prasad and Macari, I think, had actually studied this outside before they came into office, and they went right there. And so they are not going to lose this argument, by the way, the two of them, because this is the strongest case And they picked a very careful place. They have somebody working on it who was very methodical. And they’ve done a very smart thing here.
SPEAKER 12 :
So in part, what they’re talking about in terms of going forward is reorient vaccine regulations toward evidence-based medicine, not speculative, require randomized clinical trials measuring real-world outcomes, again, before they put these things into wide application. What about the reporting of these adverse effects?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, right. I mean, one of the things that’s a problem is you need better reporting. And this is a problem that we have with drugs and with vaccines. But remember, some of the things that they did in the whole process with the FDA is that, with the COVID vaccines, is that you always have a control group, right? But they wiped out the control groups because they said it was unethical to keep a control group when you have a vaccine that works. But this is not kosher because if you don’t have a control group, you can’t tell these- But it’s not good science. It’s not good science. But it’s a trick that the FDA has allowed to be played over and over and over again. And I think it’s dishonest and it’s meant to cover up the evidence. Of bad things.
SPEAKER 12 :
What do you think will be the outcome of this report?
SPEAKER 03 :
I think it’s going to change a lot. The report itself, the six-page letter, is basically a memo, a signpost of where they’re going. And they are going to be aggressively going in a direction that is very powerful, science-based. They’re going to sweep away all these sort of ideological presuppositions And I think the FDA itself is in a mood, and this is why I think this is an important topic for other things like Mifepristone. Which we’re going to talk about in a moment. And, you know, in other words, they’re starting to look at a lot of preconceptions and a lot of problems that have occurred because you couldn’t challenge the orthodoxies inside these various – stove pipes at the FDA.
SPEAKER 12 :
So, Chris, we’re going to talk about the myth of Preston here in a moment with our next guest. But in order to cement change, because you get another… I was just talking earlier with Scott Perry about how our government’s going back and forth with its policies based on elections. You have to put certain things in place. One of the things I think is needed is a systematic reporting mechanism so that we’re looking across the board at, as you mentioned, not just vaccines, but drugs and Mifeprestone. We’re looking at the adverse effects in a very systematic way. And the reporting is systematic so that we can evaluate the effectiveness.
SPEAKER 03 :
I agree completely. And this is one of the things I think Dr. Altman is going to talk about is, you know, the criteria that can be used to evaluate adverse events on the drug side and that there really isn’t a proper criteria. But I won’t go into that. But let me just say that these what’s clear is that Macari and Prasad on the vaccine side are just it’s almost like they’re just throwing out all of the The sacred cows. And they’re just going to start. And what we need to do is urge them and give them applause, but say, let’s do this on the drug side and let’s go back and look at what was going on.
SPEAKER 12 :
I think it’s the only thing that will restore any type of confidence in our public health system. Right.
SPEAKER 03 :
And it’s going to be a tough fight. I don’t trust them. Right. No, I mean, and they destroyed the trust. CDC did. NIH did. And so but the only way I don’t think they realize that the only people who would help them get it back are people like Secretary Kennedy and Prasad and Macari, because they’re they’re fighting, you know, this memo tooth and nail from what I know.
SPEAKER 12 :
I’ve seen the reports on that. Chris Gacic, thanks so much for joining us. You’re welcome. All right. I want to unpack more on the issue of the FDA and focus on its collection and handling of data related to the abortion drug, because this factors into this. It’s the same, basically the same structure that we’ve looked at on the vaccine, lack of systematic reporting, that we’ve seen with the mefeprestone, the abortion drug. And with me to discuss this, Dr. Kathy Altman, a retired board-certified OBGYN who has done extensive research into what is known about deaths and adverse events following use of the abortion drug. She’s an associate scholar with the Charlotte Lozier Institute and a member of the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs. And she joins us now. Dr. Altman, thanks so much for joining us today on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hey, thank you. Great to be here.
SPEAKER 12 :
Let’s start with what you have found from the work that you’ve done about the adverse effects that we’ve seen from the drug Mifeprestone.
SPEAKER 04 :
So we collected all of the adverse event reports that were generated between 2000 And I’m trying to remember now, it was either 2009 or 2011. Prior to that time, some of the adverse events had been reported by Gary and Harrison. So we took the ones during that time period. There were over 6,000. Out of that, I think we ended up with 2,000 and something. that were unique US reports that had not been reported by Gary. And we used the NIH’s common terminology criteria for adverse events, and we were able to pull out how many were life-threatening, how many were severe, how many moderate, And then there was a mild category, but of course the ones we were looking at were not mild because they had to be serious events.
SPEAKER 12 :
In the report of findings that you wrote about, you argue that the FDA’s current reporting system is quote, woefully inadequate. What I mean, and we just heard you heard us talking about the vaccine, very similar situation. What needs to happen to ensure that we’re getting accurate information to make good medical decisions or in terms of what vaccines, what drugs are made available to the public?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, I think they should for the first thing would be to implement the NIH system that I just mentioned. And then for Mifepristone, we need to start reporting the adverse events. The only adverse event that is required right now to be reported is deaths. So we need to go back to the old REMS system and report these adverse events and categorize them, evaluate them, What we found were that the actual adverse event reports were very poorly written. We had a large number that we couldn’t even evaluate because there was not enough information in the report to evaluate. So they’ve got to police the people that are reporting, and if they don’t give them the information necessary, they need to go back and get it from them.
SPEAKER 12 :
So, Dr. Altman, is it safe to say that these decisions are not being made systematically across the board, but they’re being influenced by political concerns and considerations? Why is the abortion drug mifeprestone being treated differently?
SPEAKER 04 :
Because it’s an abortion drug. And they eliminated this reporting right at a time when they changed the drug dosage. They allowed non-physicians to dispense the drug. They also eliminated, they were supposed to be reporting and keeping a record of the ongoing pregnancies that were not aborted.
SPEAKER 08 :
Right.
SPEAKER 04 :
And they stopped that as well. And you were mentioning 10 deaths of the children. There were 20 deaths of women.
SPEAKER 12 :
Yeah. And that’s just what we know about. Correct. Because in many cases, this information just came through the hospitals, not through the abortionist and not from the women who did not admit that they had taken the abortion drug. So we just don’t know because we don’t have the information.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right. Right.
SPEAKER 12 :
Dr. Altman, thanks so much for taking time to join us. Appreciate your insights on this.
SPEAKER 04 :
You’re welcome.
SPEAKER 12 :
You know, folks, this is something we need to really be praying about because… It’s political, and it’s not just one party, okay? This is an issue that’s politicized, and it should be standardized. We should treat all of these things the same. If public health is about public health, then we should treat it as such, and the standards should be applied, whether it’s an abortion drug or whether it’s a— antibiotic or whatever it might be. We need to have the same systems in place to report those adverse effects so that good decisions can be made. But first off, you’re not going to end up with a good decision when you’re killing babies. This administration needs to stop the Biden policies that are in place. You can help us by doing that. Text the word life to 67742 and join us in communicating that to the current administration. All right, very quickly, folks standing by, still taking your phone call, 800-225-4008 for Giving Tuesday. So give us a call. All right, that’s all we have time for today, but I want to thank you for joining us. And until next time, I leave you with the words of the Apostle Paul, found in Ephesians 6, where he says, you’ve done everything you can do when you’ve prayed, when you’ve prepared, and when you’ve taken your stand. By all means, keep standing.
SPEAKER 06 :
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.
