In this episode of Washington Watch, host Tony Perkins unravels the events surrounding the U.S. Senate’s War Powers Act vote and the implications for President Trump’s unilateral military actions in Venezuela. Republican Senator Jim Risch offers insight into the Senate floor’s discussions, while Casey Harper and Travis Weber elaborate on constitutional authority regarding military engagements and its historical context. The episode delves into the political ramifications of recent legislative efforts and the quest for Congressional involvement in military decisions.
SPEAKER 14 :
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 13 :
There isn’t anybody. that has any information that the president is using armed forces against Venezuela. He did for about 47 minutes this last weekend, but he is not in the process of doing this. And the resolution says that he should stop it. He’s not doing it.
SPEAKER 08 :
That was Republican Senator Jim Risch, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, speaking earlier today on the Senate floor during a vote on the War Powers Act. Welcome to this January 8th edition of Washington Watch. I’m your host, Tony Perkins. Thanks for joining us. Well, coming up, the House is on track to pass a three-year extension of enhanced Obamacare subsidies with a growing number of Republicans crossing party lines. What does this mean for the health care debate and the next government funding fight? Congressman Dr. Andy Harris joins us later. Questions are mounting after a deadly confrontation in Minneapolis involving an ICE agent and a 37-year-old woman. What do we know and what should an investigation look like? Former FBI Assistant Director Wiley Thompson joins us to break it all down. Well, the Senate has voted to advance a resolution that would limit President Trump’s ability to take any additional military action in Venezuela without congressional approval. The measure passed 52 to 47, advancing the measure. Now, five Republicans actually joined Democrats in advancing this measure following a surprise U.S. raid that captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Now, lawmakers say the vote sends a clear message about Congress’s role in decisions of war. though the resolution still faces major obstacles ahead. Joining me now is Washington Stand reporter Casey Harper. Casey, understanding that this is just the first in many steps in the legislative process and the president would have to sign it, so the reality is it’s unlikely to become law, but what would the measure do?
SPEAKER 12 :
Yeah, that’s right, Tony. In many ways, this is sending a message, especially with some Republican support. But to your question, This resolution specifically – it requires congressional approval before the president can take any future U.S. military action in Venezuela after his pretty unilateral decisions to remove Nicolas Maduro. And then we have this – it’s not clear how much the oil – 30 to 50 million barrels of oil was seized or given over or given under – given over with a lot of pressure. And now the president’s saying that they’re going to – or Secretary Hegseth and Rubio saying that they’re going to use this oil to direct a Venezuelan transition. and the president saying that this could take years to come. With all of that going on, this new resolution, if it is sending the message that Congress wants to be involved, it passed with bipartisan support, but it does face a likely veto from President Trump, as you said. Here’s what Senator Chuck Schumer had to say about it.
SPEAKER 02 :
How can the American people watch this and not just groan and grimace and ache and fear When we try to do this kind of nation, when America has tried to do this kind of nation building, this kinds of regime replacement in the past, it’s led to the American people paying the price in treasure and in blood.
SPEAKER 12 :
So that’s Senator Schumer echoing the sentiment of many Democrats from his House floor speech today, Tony.
SPEAKER 08 :
Casey, this may not come as a surprise to you, but Senator Schumer does not move me in any form or fashion toward or against a piece of legislation. But Casey, with five Republicans joining in this there, I would think that there is a political message being sent.
SPEAKER 12 :
there is a political message being sent but of course to say hey we want to be included as this goes on especially if as president trump is saying this is going to take years i mean the republican senators who who broke with this i looked into their statements and uh… for the for the most part there was a distinction made where they didn’t say that what President Trump did to capture Maduro was necessarily wrong, but they said, hey, going forward, we want Congress to be involved, especially if this is going to drag on or involve any kind of military involvement. So they weren’t necessarily condemning what the president did, though many Democrats did. And you mentioned those five senators. We had Senator Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Todd Young, and Josh Hawley, who voted to send this message to Trump, which comes after this backlash over the raid to Nicolas Maduro’s capture. But President Trump had many supporters. Here’s what Senator Jim Risch had to say.
SPEAKER 13 :
There isn’t anybody. that has any information that the president is using armed forces against Venezuela. He did for about 47 minutes this last weekend. But he is not in the process of doing this. And the resolution says that he should stop it. He’s not doing it. Now, if the resolution were drawn to say, president, you can’t do this anymore, that would actually have some effect or attempt to have some effect. It would be unconstitutional, unenforceable. But to tell him to not do something or to stop doing something he’s not doing is nonsense. The effect of this is to slap the President of the United States in the face.
SPEAKER 12 :
So Senator Risch’s comment about enforceability is an interesting comment here. But overall, he’s echoing the sentiment of Republicans who support it. They say this was very brief, and this is not even close to a declaration of war, Tony.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, we’ll look at that a little bit more later. I want to switch gears to domestic issues. Minnesota and federal officials are at odds over a U.S. immigration agent fatally shooting a Minneapolis woman as the FBI assumed sole control of the investigation. Now the shooting has triggered protests and conflicting accounts of what actually happened have been surfacing. So Casey, what are the facts as we know them right now?
SPEAKER 12 :
Sure, we have multiple videos going viral online. We have President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance supporting the ICE officer along with ICE itself and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, whereas many Democrats, including local Minnesota Democrats, Tim Walz, the mayor, Jacob Fry, saying this is, you know, And we’ve seen massive protests break out all over the country in some of the predictable cities. Now, these protests aren’t new, by the way, Tony. I mean, we’ve seen these anti-ICE protests going on for months and months, but they’ve been renewed, reinvigorated. And as I said, federal officials are in lockstep. They’re saying that even though there’s going to be an investigation, that the Asian Act on Self-Defense, as I said, those state leaders, they say that the video tells a different story. And these protests, I think this is just the beginning because we’re going to have more hearings, more investigation into this, and these protests are only mounting. As you can see here, the video footage is increasingly violent and more violent than the other protests that I’ve been following last year, Tony.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right. Thanks, Casey. We’re going to take a little bit more of a look at that a little bit later. The Republican-controlled House is preparing to vote on legislation addressing the expired Obamacare subsidies as insurance costs rise for millions of Americans. Now, Republicans say action is needed. I think there’s agreement there, but warned that the program is costly and vulnerable to waste. So, Casey, where do things stand right now with this?
SPEAKER 12 :
Yeah, Tony, so this is in the aftermath, as you know, of the government shutdown, where Democrats shut down the government over these expiring Obamacare subsidies because it turns out the Affordable Care Act was not as affordable as many hoped, and the premiums are skyrocketing. And so this vote, though, it’s important to note, this came from a discharge petition. which means that any lawmaker, Republican or Democrat, can introduce legislation and circumvent their leadership or their party. So we saw support for this from representatives like Brian Fitzpatrick, John Katko, and others. But like the bill before it, this needs both chambers and presidential approval, though I think President Trump might be more inclined to have a conversation about health care like this one. Senate Republicans, they’re continuing to speak sort of a different tune. They’re opposing a full extension, but they want something shorter, more targeted, and a plan for lower-income Americans. And GOP lawmakers say the ACA needs to rein in the oversight, have oversight to rein in the fraud, waste, and the exploding healthcare costs that we’re seeing all around the country, Tony.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, Casey, we’re going to look at that a little bit more with Dr. Andy Harris a little bit later. Thanks so much for joining us, Casey. Talk to you later. All right, I want to explore a little bit more the Wars Power Act that was passed today in the United States. Well, the first step in the process, a vote will be held on it next week. But it was significant in that it, as I mentioned earlier, five Republicans voted. joined with all of the Democrats in advancing that. Joining me now to talk about this, Travis Weber, Vice President of Policy here at the Family Research Council. Travis, thanks so much for joining me. So let’s break this down first. This goes back to the 1970s where we had Congress first passing this when Richard Nixon was president. He vetoed it. Congress overrode his veto. It’s long been controversial. Presidents on both sides of the political aisle have said it’s unconstitutional. So this vote today was more of a messaging vote than it was a policy substantive action.
SPEAKER 11 :
That’s absolutely right, Tony. And we have to look at this issue in the context of constitutional authority. So Article 1, covering Congress, grants Congress the power to declare war. Article 2, covering the executive branch, grants the president, the executive branch, the authority to conduct foreign affairs and gives the president the position of commander-in-chief of the military. So these constitutional provisions have, throughout our country’s history, have set up a discussion or paradigm in which the conduct of foreign affairs concerning the military in areas that might blur the lines between these two, there’s going to be a discussion about it. Now, for most of our history, this is not as much of a discussion. Historically, war was declared by Congress in the era of, quote, maybe more traditional wars. The War Powers Resolution in the modern era, which was passed after Vietnam, in the decades since, we’ve seen a series of smaller actions that have provoked these questions. Afghanistan, our involvement elsewhere, like the raid to capture Osama bin Laden, more recently Syria, Libya, and now this incident in Venezuela. So Tony, it’s important to have that context. Different resolutions have been passed, like the one today, drawing upon the War Powers Resolution and that framework that it had set forth and directing the president to stop his activity in military activity in Venezuela. In reality, Congress cannot direct him to stop it, part of the Constitution. And the courts have largely stayed out of this because it’s seen as a question for the other branches of government constitutionally under the political question doctrine. But, Tony, we’ll have to see how things play out. A lot of this is going to come down, as you note, how much, to the degree to which leaders, in this case, five Republican senators joining the Democrats, to the degree to which they want to stand up to the president’s ongoing military activity in Venezuela. I think that’s going to be the key, not the one and done, which can be seen under the rubric of a detention for law enforcement purposes, but rather ongoing use of military authority will be a question as we examine this question in the context of the Constitution and the historical assessment of war powers resolutions.
SPEAKER 08 :
Travis, you just have a little over a minute left, but I would think that this is more responding to the president’s statements that the United States was going to be running Venezuela as there was going to be some type of occupation, not the 47-minute raid that Senator Risch made reference to earlier in the clip.
SPEAKER 11 :
I think that’s absolutely right. And the term running, it leaves a certain amount of ambiguity and vagueness on the table in terms of we don’t know the time frame of that, how long that’s going to be, the implications of that, or the implications civilian or military. We see down in Venezuela forces aligned with Maduro detaining people, scanning their cell phones for evidence of celebration of alignment with the raid and celebration of that. So certainly there is going to be questions that arise of how are things going to be conducted down there. And so I think that’s absolutely right. The question here is going to be the extent and longevity and level of involvement of military assets in Venezuela.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, Travis Weber, thanks so much for joining us. Always appreciate your insights. All right, the House just approved a three-year extension of the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, or the Unaffordable Care Act, the subsidies that we’ve been talking about for a number of months. That now will go over to the Senate. What will be the outcome? We’re going to be joined by Dr. Andy Harris, congressman from Maryland Next. He’s also the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. He’s going to give us the latest, so don’t go away. We’ll be right back after this.
SPEAKER 06 :
The book of Hebrews says that the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Stand on the Word is Family Research Council’s journey through the living and active Word of God. Follow the plan with us. Spend 10 to 15 minutes a day reading God’s Word, and over the course of two years, discover that the Bible is one big story, a story of many words pointing to the Word, the one who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. because the Word is alive and His name is Jesus. Find our Bible reading plan and daily devotionals from Tony Perkins at frc.org slash Bible. Join us as we stand on the Word.
SPEAKER 01 :
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, as 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 15 :
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 01 :
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 10 :
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 08 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m your host, Tony Perkins. Thanks so much for tuning in. Be sure and check out the Web site, Tony Perkins dot com. All right. As I mentioned going into the break, the House just moments ago approved a measure that would extend the Obamacare COVID era subsidies for three years. Now, this is. was passed primarily by Democrats. Now, this was a we’ve been talking about this over the last actually going into the Christmas break. The there was a discharge petition that was put forward. We had a handful of Republicans join that. But in this vote, 17, if my numbers are right, 17 Republicans joined with the Democrats to approve this measure. Now it goes to the Senate. unlikely it’s going to move from there. Joining me now to talk more about this, give us the latest, Congressman Dr. Andy Harris, who is the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, also a member of the House Appropriations Committee. He is also a doctor and he co-chairs the GOP Doctors Caucus. Dr. Andy Harris, thanks so much for joining us. Give us the latest.
SPEAKER 07 :
Good to be with you, Tony. Well, yeah, I mean, the 17 Republicans did vote to send that over to the Senate, but the Senate’s not going to take it up because they already tried to take up the identical measure before the holiday, and it failed. It failed to gain closure is, you know, technical term. So I’m sure John Thune is not going to waste Senate time on bringing up the exact same measure that failed once in the Senate.
SPEAKER 08 :
Now, there has been some efforts by Republicans to—and let me just say at the outset, I’ve said this before, people need to know—no Republican— to date has ever voted for Obamacare. This is the first time we’ve actually had them vote for these subsidies. Republicans have never voted for these subsidies, never voted for the underlying measure. There was conversations and correct me if I’m wrong, Congressman Harris, but my understanding and talking with members, there was some discussion about temporary extensions while the underlying health care system is being worked on in terms of the making this maybe private driven through health care savings accounts. But Part of those discussions was that Hyde would have to be applied to any extension. That’s what the Republicans said. Democrats said non-starter.
SPEAKER 07 :
That’s absolutely right. And the bottom line is that Hyde protections were not in the original Obamacare bill for obvious reasons. It was passed by Democrats. And there’s been a resistance to put it in. You know, the rumor circulates, well, there are Hyde-like protections, you know, or it’s subject somehow to Hyde. It’s not. Obamacare needs a hide protection, and there are a lot of Republicans, myself included, who feel that if we open up Obamacare in any way, shape, or form, we should add hide protections to Obamacare. And that’s why I think this is going nowhere. If the Democrats were serious about extending these, again, the COVID era, what we call Biden bonuses, these tax credits, then they should be willing to add high protection. But that’s how truly extremist they are, that they actually want public funding for abortion coverage, even though a clear majority of Americans don’t think that government funds should be spent on abortion.
SPEAKER 08 :
57% of Americans do not believe taxpayers should be forced. That’s all Americans, all American voters. When you look at Republicans, it’s about 67%, if I’m not mistaken, in the last poll, 67% of Republicans. So this is a red line for Republicans in that they’re not forced to fund abortion. Again, going back to this scenario, Congressman Harris, Republicans, I thought, were pretty generous in saying we will extend this temporarily while we fix the underlying problem of the Unaffordable Care Act. But for us to vote for this, which we’ve never voted for before, we’ll vote for it. But you have to protect the unborn. I mean, that sounds like a pretty generous offer on behalf of the Republicans.
SPEAKER 07 :
That’s absolutely right. And that’s that’s the way, you know, legislation should work. Every party is going to give a little bit. But the Democrats, again, adhering to an extremist position, which is insisting on public funding for Obamacare subsidies, even though they cover abortion. I mean, the bottom line is it’s just a nonstarter. So, again, we thought and again, it was going to be part of a larger package. But without Hyde amendments, it’s just not going anywhere.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, so let’s talk about now, Congressman Harris, the House Freedom Caucus has a plan for health care. Now that this, you know, we’ve got all this, hopefully this noise will go away because they realize it’s not going anywhere. Tell us about what the House Freedom Caucus is putting forward.
SPEAKER 07 :
So that’s right. So we think that every American should be able to pick or choose the health care insurance that they want or the health care that they want. They’re not equivalent. So we think that some of the faith ministries that have health care sharing, we think those should be a completely allowed choice for Americans. We think that Every American should have a health savings account or an equivalent into which their employer or they can put money. It’s tax-free, and they can choose. Again, if they want to go to a health-sharing ministry for their health care, they can do that. If they want to go to an association health plan, they can do that. If they want to go to Obamacare, they can do that. but they make the choice, and we have many choices available. We think that’s what Americans want. They want to be able to spend their own dollars in a health savings account, and again, employers can put it in, small businesses can put it in, and then they go into a marketplace that includes many more choices than just Obamacare, which is a very expensive marketplace if you don’t have huge federal subsidies.
SPEAKER 08 :
And I think these health savings accounts can also be structured in such a way to encourage healthy choices so that because you’re controlling it yourself, the money’s coming in there and that we can encourage good behavior in terms of, you know, Exercise, dieting, all of these things that lead to healthy outcomes. I think when people realize that they’re paying for it and the money’s coming out of their pocket indirectly through these health savings accounts, it could prompt healthier living and choices.
SPEAKER 07 :
That’s absolutely right. In fact, Mr. Burleson, one of our representatives in the Freedom Caucus, has suggested that once you have enough in your health savings account, you’ve bought your insurance plan, you have enough to cover your deductible, you can use the rest of the money for healthy food. I mean, again, it just makes sense that we return the ability of people to actually preserve their health, not just treat their disease out of health care.
SPEAKER 08 :
I mean, you can pay for your health club membership, other things that lead to healthy lifestyles. All right, we just have a minute left. Appropriations, January 30th deadline to avoid a shutdown. Where do we stand?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, we passed another package of three bills today, but Tony, to be honest with you, the six bills we’ve passed so far have been the easier ones. We have two more weeks to pass the other six. I’m just not sure it’s going to get done. We’re going to try, and if not, then we might have to do a continuing resolution. And again, the new appropriation season basically is already starting in a couple of weeks, so we should just do a continuing resolution to the end of the year, but I’m hoping that we can negotiate a few more of the bills before the January 30th deadline.
SPEAKER 08 :
But there is movement. It looks like these atrophied muscles of appropriations are starting to come back.
SPEAKER 07 :
That’s absolutely right, because we’ve got six across the desk that weren’t part of Omnibus, and today we actually voted on the components separately and then recombined them. The next step is just vote on them separately and keep them separate.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, Congressman Andy Harris, always great to see you, my friend. Thanks for joining us. All right, folks, stick with us. We’re back with more after this.
SPEAKER 03 :
Three years ago, the Supreme Court issued its historic Dobbs decision, a ruling that overturned Roe versus Wade, which for nearly 50 years imposed abortion on demand, silencing voters and bypassing the democratic process across the country. The Dobbs decision was a huge step forward against abortion, but it didn’t outright ban it. It returned the power to the people. Now, 29 states have laws on the books protecting life. However, there’s a catch. Abortion numbers since Dobbs have actually gone up with an increase of 12% since 2020, climbing from 930,000 to over 1 million in each of the most recent years. So how can this be? The answer is simple, the abortion drug. Today, over 60% of U.S. abortions involve abortion drugs, many of these without medical oversight. In 2021, the Biden administration quietly removed bare minimum longstanding safety protocols for the abortion drug that have existed for 20 years to protect women from life-threatening risks and ensuring informed consent. The Biden DOJ then declared that they would not enforce the Comstock Act, which prevents the mailing of anything that causes an abortion. This is not only illegal, but also dangerous. A study shows nearly 11% of women who take the abortion drug end up in the emergency room with serious complications. Unless the Trump administration reverses these reckless Biden-era policies, pro-life laws will remain largely symbolic. Without a full review and repeal of Mifepristone, unborn lives will remain in grave danger and pregnant mothers will remain at risk. Let’s stand for life and end this mail-order abortion drug pipeline. Sign the petition urging the Trump administration to take action at frc.org slash stop chemical abortion.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us. If you’ve not yet downloaded the Stand Firm app, I encourage you to do so, especially as we’re going into the election season. Lots of resources there for you to be an informed and engaged citizen. Not only will you have access to Washington Watch, you’ll have access to The Washington Stand, which is our news and commentary from a biblical perspective. You’ll have my daily devotional, Stand on the Word. But you’ll also have other tools available to help you be an informed and engaged citizen. So go to the App Store and download the Stand Firm app. All right, emotions are running high right now after the confrontation yesterday in Minneapolis that resulted in the death of a 37-year-old woman. Now, there’s been a lot of finger-pointing and jumping to conclusions, with some blaming the woman and others blaming the ICE agents who shot her. But as the House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters yesterday, conclusions can’t be drawn without knowing all the facts, and that requires a thorough investigation. Here’s what he said.
SPEAKER 12 :
So you don’t think there’s any chance the officer did anything wrong?
SPEAKER 05 :
I don’t know. I wasn’t there, and neither were you. And it’s wrong for people to jump to these conclusions without a full investigation. You have to find out the facts on the ground, and I think that will happen.
SPEAKER 08 :
I actually spoke with the speaker about that this morning. And the fact is we need an investigation. But what should that process look like in such a charged, politically charged environment? Well, joining me now to discuss this is the former FBI assistant director, Wiley Thompson, who currently serves as director of security at the Family Research Council. Wiley, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thank you. It’s good to be back, Tony.
SPEAKER 08 :
So the Minneapolis Bureau of the Criminal Apprehension, the BCA, said today that the FBI will be leading the investigation. Now, during your time at the FBI, this is what you were responsible for. So kind of walk us through what the process looks like for investigating a situation like this.
SPEAKER 04 :
The primary interest here will be for the FBI to collect the evidence that’s there, forensic evidence and other, and then to be able to present that to the United States Attorney for a prosecutive opinion. There’s a lot of information that needs to be gathered. There will be interviews of the witnesses, probably dozens of people who had firsthand uh… notice of what took place and we’re looking at it uh… firsthand and uh… they’ll be interviewed uh… the fbi will want to collect the videos that have been taken by the uh… by the uh… cell phones and uh… any uh… home uh… security systems that were nearby or by the officers themselves and we’ll want to look at the forensic evidence when it comes to the uh… the bullet rounds that went through the glass of the of the vehicle that struck the uh… lady who was who unfortunately died uh… want to look at the angles and everything there did it to be able to make some determinations now the fbi will collect all that information put it into a report that information will then be presented to the united states attorney’s office for that opinion at the same time there’s a parallel uh interest here and that is the department of of homeland security is going to want to know for sure for certain whether or not the officer and officers were working within the rules for the use of force for federal agents and for those within the Department of Homeland Security. That is separate from the criminal investigation itself. Criminal investigation comes first, but from that is just a determination of whether or not the officer was following the rules.
SPEAKER 08 :
Wiley, during my time in law enforcement, I have to go back a few years. It’s been a while since I’ve been in law enforcement. So video cameras were prominent, but not cell phones that had cameras. And so today it’s much different in that you get the social media and you’ll get a video clip of almost anything because everybody’s quick to whip out their camera and take pictures. I saw this, again, limited fashion, but I saw it in my kind of final years in law enforcement, is that that can be very deceptive when you see a certain angle or a certain clip, it can lead you to a particular conclusion that may not be accurate. What do you say?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes, you are correct. I mean, that’s very unreliable. There will be more video clips, many more than what we know of right now from what we’ve seen on the social media or out there in the media in general. The FBI will try to get as much of that, gather as much of that video that’s available. go through that and see what’s relevant to be able to piece this all together so yes we we must take the time as you and the speaker of the house said earlier we we have to take the time to do this correctly we owe this to the citizens and we must find out whether or not it was a lawful shooting and then proceed from there and again even if it was lawful the department of homeland security needs to find out whether or not The agent was actually still following all the guidelines that apply to any agent.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, Wiley, we just have about a minute left. But this comes with a backdrop of a very divided country, especially when it comes to law enforcement action and, quite frankly, the rule of law. I think a lot of the underlying issue here is the rule of law where you’ve had a state like Minnesota where they wanted to defund the police. They’ve fomented this opposition. And then you have this clash with maybe an overly strong presence of federal police force in the area.
SPEAKER 04 :
it’s a recipe for conflict it certainly is and this is something we need to be prayerful about because i hope that it’s not the beginning of of a trend of anything else is going to happen but there’s been a lot of rhetoric taking place and we just have to pray that it doesn’t uh… get any worse than what it is today and we hope that whatever the results are from this investigation whatever the decision is made that the Americans will stand behind this, that we’ll trust the results. And again, understanding that we followed the evidence, that we were an honest broker in presenting that evidence to the United States Attorney. And then a decision was made on whether or not this was lawful. And then again, a decision made on whether it was within the guidelines of the Department of Homeland Security.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, Wiley, thank you. Folks, stick with us. We’re back with more.
SPEAKER 06 :
Should a Christian support Israel? That question has become one of the most emotionally charged issues of our time, both in the world and within the church. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins offers a clear biblical and prophetic answer. In his latest book, He examines Israel’s past, present, and future through the lens of Scripture, revealing why support for Israel is not rooted in politics, partisanship, or cultural sentiment, but in the unchanging promises of God. Drawing from Genesis to Revelation, Tony Perkins demonstrates that the ultimate rationale for a Christian’s support for Israel is spiritual. Should a Christian Support Israel invites believers to see beyond headlines and ideologies, returning to the foundation of God’s Word to understand His heart for His chosen people and the blessings that flow when we stand with what He has established forever. Text the word Israel to 67742 for more information.
SPEAKER 09 :
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 16 :
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 08 :
Hey, welcome back. Good to have you with us on this Thursday edition of Washington Watch. And as we often do on Thursdays, we want to kind of give us an overview of the week and what has unfolded and what we’re anticipating for the week ahead. And we do so with our panel of guests. in-house expert here at the Family Research Council. And joining me today is Casey Harper, managing editor of the broadcast at the Washington Stand. And again, joining me, Travis Weber, vice president of policy and government affairs here at FRC. Casey, Travis, thanks for joining me today. Let’s start with a topic that’s a top focus here at the Family Research Council, and that is the issue of the sanctity of human life. Now, we’ve seen quite a bit of pushback against President Trump’s remarks earlier this week regarding being flexible on the Hyde Amendment. Travis, let’s start with you. Your thoughts.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, I mean, Tony, this is a major break from where Republicans have historically stood on this issue and, you know, points in our country’s history not too long ago where even leaders from both parties stood on this issue, which is a no-brainer, which is that taxpayer dollars, the tax dollars that Americans are contributing to our government that are legally obligated to contribute to our government for the common running of the country and what should be the common good of the country should not be used to go to the slaughter of the unborn just because they happen to be helpless and outside the the protection of others and are helpless and remain vulnerable in their mother’s womb. That’s what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about tax dollars going to the slaughter of the unborn. So, Tony, if you kind of zoom back out of that, we’re putting that issue in context of decisions that are being made right now about health care, which abortion is not. It’s not health care. And that’s really, in essence, what we’re talking about with the president and what’s being considered and what has been considered in Congress in recent months.
SPEAKER 08 :
I mean, this is something that will soon be 50 years old. It was first passed in 1976, just three years after Roe v. Wade was… imposed upon the country by the Supreme Court. And this was kind of, as I see it historically, it has been kind of the, if there is any common ground or any ground of agreement on abortion, it’s been this, that taxpayers wouldn’t be forced to fund it. And Casey, this remains, despite decades of pro-abortion propaganda, this remains something that a majority of Americans still remain opposed to being forced to fund abortion.
SPEAKER 12 :
Tony, well over half of Americans in recent polling, multiple polls, shows that over half of Americans support no taxpayer funding for abortion. And kind of the really interesting, maybe troubling part of this for Republicans is that this was an unforced, you could call it an unforced error, because it’s not as if Democrats were banging down the door to get Hyde removed. And why weren’t they? Largely because they’ve given up. As you said, 50 years of precedent, Republicans in Congress have been lockstep on this issue. And so for Republicans to have the majority in the House and the Senate and the White House, and for the president to kind of offer up Hyde I think was just as surprising to Democrats probably as it was to Republicans. And I think this is an instance where I think it’s important to note that Republicans have not, in Congress, have not changed their position on this. It’s just the president made some remarks that really broke away with rank and file members of Congress.
SPEAKER 08 :
And I have spoken to a number of members since the president made those comments earlier this week during their policy summit, their caucus of the Republican House Caucus. at the Kennedy senator. And while some have spoken out publicly, many have spoken privately that this is, as I mentioned earlier, a red line for them, and it should be, because we’re talking about two-thirds of Republicans are opposed to taxpayer funding of abortion. But, Travis, I want to go to the practical implication of this, because as I was talking earlier with Dr. Harris, the Obamacare COVID era subsidies, got to make sure you get all those things in there right, was approved. Three years, 17 Republicans joined with it. No hide protections on it. But it’s more of a show vote. It’s not going anywhere in the Senate. This was apparently to give some of them political cover by voting for it, saying that they voted to extend these health care subsidies.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, Tony, I think that’s true, right? And so we have to look at this in the context of the ripple effect, the implications this will have elsewhere. It’s not a good signal for, you know, I would say any leader for the, you know, when it comes, Tony, we’ve talked about this before, the implications of what it means when a nation’s leaders have innocent blood on their hands and responsible for shedding innocent blood. And that is a question of whoever is in leadership, Republican or Democrat. But here we’re talking about Republicans recently holding the line on this in recent memory. And so now if that’s starting to be shaken, that’s a major concern. for the country and the implications in the sight of God for our country and where things go. We have to look at what does it mean for elsewhere when it comes to the protection of life. We’re thankful the president issued executive orders that actually implemented the Hyde policy in the executive branch and implemented it overseas through the Mexico City policy, which prevents U.S. tax dollars from going to groups that fund or promote abortion. These are good things, but But, Tony, we have to continue to fight and defend these things. And every little signal that’s sent has an implication for the broader debate. And so we need to be crystal clear. This is non-negotiable. It’s a matter of principle. It’s a matter of responsibility in the sight of God for what we know will bring blessing to the country. And that extends far beyond any one election, far beyond party affiliation, and is an eternal matter, really.
SPEAKER 08 :
But the administration has been a little schizophrenic when it comes to the life issue, because, as you said, there’s been executive orders when it comes to abortion funding overseas. But at the same time, we’ve seen a significant rise in the number of abortions, and it is attached directly to the abortion drug Mifeprestone, which, going back again to COVID, The Biden administration removed all of the basically the guidelines so that this could be sent through the mail without in-person consultation. And now we have 70 percent of abortions being done through this pill. Many pro-life states, these pills are being sent in. And so now Prior to COVID, 930, I mean, prior to the overturn of Roe, 930,000 abortions a year. Now we’re at 1.1 million. That could be changed, but the administration hasn’t. And that’s the backdrop to these comments about Hyde. So I think that’s why a lot of people are concerned.
SPEAKER 11 :
That’s right. And if you look, as you mentioned, Roe being overturned, it’s no secret that the abortion lobby and abortion interest, which are invested financially in this slaughter of these innocent babies, will pivot to the facilitation of mailing of the drug Mifepristone across state lines as a way to pivot to… conducting chemical abortions instead of surgical abortions. That is clearly documented when you see the numbers and what’s happening in the shift. And, Tony, there are two levers of action for this, two areas where this could be curtailed or stopped in the hands of the federal government. Department of Justice rescind the Biden policy. President Trump is currently operating under a Biden-era policy. So you have a Republican administration that is pushing a Democrat party line narrative and position on this at the Department of Justice by not enforcing prohibitions on mailing these across state lines. Number two, conducting FDA review immediately, pause and suspend the distribution of the drug while the review is conducted. And we assess the effect and the safety impact of it on women. And it should ultimately not be in circulation. But those really need to be the steps that are taken. And the administration could take them. We need to pray that they take them and take them soon.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, I want to go to another issue outside of Washington, D.C., talking about it in the last segment with former FBI Assistant Director Wiley Thompson, and that is the issue of the shooting yesterday. There’s also the issue of the congressional investigation or the hearing in the fraud that was taking place in Minnesota, but I want to start with the shooting. So, Casey, what’s your take on the back and forth that has come out since the incident occurred yesterday?
SPEAKER 12 :
Tony, it feels like we’re reliving the first couple years of the Biden administration. We’re talking about COVID-era subsidies, Mifepristone mandates, which came out in the beginning of the Biden administration, and now a reliving of viral videos of police shootings in Minneapolis that is sparking massive protests. And so it’s interesting. I think this is an opportunity for the Trump administration to sort of address some of the sins of the past here from the previous administration. But as far as politically, we’re just seeing the predictable battle lines. And with Tim Walz and the Minneapolis mayor, Jacob Fry, he’s using very strong language telling ICE to leave the city. J.D. Vance has come out very strongly in a press conference today using very strong language condemning the media and others who have tried to go after this ICE officer who This is something that hasn’t been reported as much, but this ICE officer was actually recently hit by a car, rammed by a car, and had, I think, 33 stitches. So, you know, this is why I’ve been hesitant, and I think others have, to just let some of the facts come out as how Speaker Mike Johnson said. Can we have some facts come out? Every time I learn a new fact, it changes my perspective a little bit. I watched the first video. I had an opinion, then I saw the second, then I found out he’d been run over by a car recently. So everything we learned, I think there’s wisdom in letting some facts come out, as Speaker Johnson said, so that we can form a measured opinion.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, I think that’s the important thing, and that’s why we’re exploring how the investigation looks like without drawing conclusions. And I think that last point that you bring up, Casey, is significant because these are human beings. These police officers, just like the woman in the car, human beings. My son, the police officer, he was struck by a car intentionally, and so it created some issues with him in future encounters. So these are real things that people have to factor in. But I want to go to you, Travis, with something that Casey said about, you know, this looks like deja vu. It looks like we’re facing some of the same things again. You know, we can’t look at this without having some spiritual perception of what is taking place and principalities and strongholds. You know, we’re seeing some of the same things playing out once again on the streets of Minneapolis.
SPEAKER 11 :
I think it’s notable, and I think that should call our attention to be praying for Minneapolis, praying for these places where we see repeat sort of instances that might differ in detail, but instances that bear the marks of similar indicators of things that are not for the blessing of the nation. conflict, destruction, violence, right? And so, Tony, even looking at this as it’s played out in the news, right, we see the back and forth, the kind of between the political powers, right? Reflexively defending, reflexively opposing. Tony, we really need to pray for, we desire to see justice and truth prevail. And that is really something that has to break through from the Lord in these situations because the entrenched battle lines gets hardened by continuing to just kind of punch back and forth sideways when really the nation for the healing in these types of things needs to look up and seek to see the Lord break in on these situations. I mean, you mentioned there are human beings involved here. I wonder what led this woman in her life journey What did she listen to? What was she reading? Who was she hearing that led her to even be at that spot that put her in this situation? That’s a question that I wonder because how many others are hearing similar things? What are they hearing? And you can kind of ask the same thing for the other side. And what is all that leading people to? Is it setting people up to come together around the things that should unify our nation and bring blessing to it? Or is it setting us up for division, defensiveness, and internal fracturing as we really look at this as I’m right, you’re wrong, and just fight it out instead of seeking the blessing of the Lord for the nation.
SPEAKER 08 :
And I think that’s important that we not get distracted by what we see on the surface all the time. Because when you add to what took place in Minneapolis with the shooting, but it was prompted by the massive fraud that’s there and the investigation that’s going on there. So you look at these things and it’s easy to draw quick conclusions without praying about and having an understanding of the underlying issues, as you said. So, Casey, with what we’ve seen in the fraud, this looks to be pretty substantial and widespread and may go even beyond the borders of Minnesota.
SPEAKER 12 :
Yeah, that’s right. We’re seeing reports that this could be in California, several other states with these massive entitlement programs. You know, in my reporting on state entitlement programs, they’re famously fraudulent and corrupt, and it’s very easy to take advantage of them. They don’t have even the same resources to watch over fraud that the federal government does, and the federal government is famously bad at it. I mean, speaking of COVID era fraud, hundreds of, the House Budget Committee, I just read this report today, said that about $420 billion was estimated loss to waste, fraud, and abuse from COVID-era payments. $420 billion.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, this is what happens when the government gets out of its lane and starts doing things that it shouldn’t be doing. It opens itself up to fraud, waste, and abuse. And I think, you know, sometimes the intentions are good. But I think the scripture is very clear on areas of responsibility. And when the government assumes, the civil government assumes the responsibility of others, other institutions, the family, even the state government, it opens it up to, as I said, waste, fraud and abuse.
SPEAKER 12 :
Yeah, that’s right. And I thought I wanted to make a point about what you said earlier about the principalities. And I think there’s many things layered on here, but I think one thing that’s going on here is a spirit of lawlessness. Because that’s what we saw in 2020 with the massive riots, the anti-police sentiment. I mean, I understand accountability and all that, but it’s well beyond that when you read the rhetoric and hear what people say. And if you watch these protests and the anti-ice, people are practically foaming at the mouth, screaming, cursing at these officers, people they don’t even know who are just standing guard outside of a building, and that’s happening today. And it’s the spirit of lawlessness, because the point you made, led to all this fraud, in part, was massive immigration, disregarding immigration laws. It lets in millions of people who come in, and it’s proven that the Somali community, not entirely, but was a large part of the fraud. And so all these things are layered in. When we disregard laws and we have people who attack law enforcement, it’s compounding, and I think we’re seeing that effect.
SPEAKER 08 :
Travis, 30 seconds left. But in order to restore law, we have to do it in a lawful manner. So we can’t be lawless in trying to address lawlessness.
SPEAKER 11 :
That’s right, Tony. It requires going back to the foundations. What is it built on? Where does law come from? And what produces a just society? And that’s a great time as we enter our 250th anniversary. It’s a great time to reflect on our Constitution, our Declaration, and the Judeo-Christian foundations of our nation which look to the source of justice and truth Himself, the Lord God.
SPEAKER 08 :
Travis, Casey, thanks so much for joining us. Always great to have you guys on the program. Thanks, Tony. And folks, thank you for tuning in as well. And I do encourage you to keep a prayer list and be praying about many of these items that are facing our leaders and facing us. We need to be praying. Until next time, keep standing.
SPEAKER 14 :
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.
