In this episode of Washington Watch, host Tony Perkins delves into pressing political topics from the ongoing congressional budget negotiations to the potential politicization of the military. Joined by a range of knowledgeable guests, including Congressman Warren Davidson, and Senator-elect Alyssa Slotkin, the talk anchors on pivotal issues like the National Defense Authorization Act’s implications and Defense Secretary picks by President-elect Trump. This includes discussions on congressional strategies being put forward as December deadlines loom. Furthermore, the episode showcases a detailed examination of election voter demographics with insights from Dr. Adam Rasmussen of the Cultural Research Center. The compelling
SPEAKER 10 :
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 running out of clock. December 20th is the deadline. We’re still hopeful that we might be able to get that done. But if not, we’ll have a temporary measure I think that would go into the first part of next year and allow us the necessary time to get this done.
SPEAKER 08 :
That was House Speaker Mike Johnson yesterday on Fox News Sunday. Welcome to this Monday edition of Washington Watch. Glad you tuned in. Congress faces a ticking clock with just one month until the current temporary spending measure expires. So what’s next? Well, we’ll get insights from Ohio Congressman Warren Davidson in just a moment. Embrace yourself for this.
SPEAKER 15 :
Our military and the role of the military is in the Constitution for a reason, and I think we’re really at risk of politicizing the military in a way that we can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
SPEAKER 08 :
Really? That was Senator-elect Alyssa Slotkin on ABC this weekend. Her comments were about a proposed warrior board that will review the mission competency of the Pentagon’s top brass. We’ll discuss her comments and their implications. Dr. Adam Rasmussen will join us to break down the latest numbers from the 2024 election as they have been analyzed. Who voted? Who didn’t? And what does it tell us? Plus, I’ll share highlights from my weekend conversation with Real Clear Politics White House correspondent Philip Wegman about President Trump’s cabinet picks.
SPEAKER 14 :
What that tells you is that it is Donald Trump fundamentally who is making these decisions and him alone. It’s not an advisor. It’s not any outside group. It’s him.
SPEAKER 08 :
We’ll talk about it. All this and more coming up on this Monday edition of Washington Watch. Well, as our nation approaches a significant transition in leadership, we’re facing pressing global challenges and critical decisions in this lame duck session of Congress that’s already underway. Now, this moment demands not just vigilance and observation, but it calls for unified, fervent prayer. And we believe this is a season for heightened spiritual vigilance. And that’s why we’ve launched Operation Prayer Shield, a powerful collective prayer effort to seek God’s divine protection, wisdom, and guidance for our nation, for Israel, and our allies during this pivotal time. So from now until January the 20th, we invite you to stand with us in prayer by texting SHIELD, that’s S-H-I-E-L-D, to 67742. That’s 67742, the word SHIELD. You’ll receive weekly alerts, daily prayer points, and other resources to keep you engaged and praying during this critical time. So join us in covering our nation in prayer. Text SHIELD to 67742 today. I’m not sure how they say this with a straight face, but the left is claiming that the incoming administration’s proposal to make sure the top brass in the military can lead the military in its mission is politicizing the military. Who has politicized the military? I would suggest it’s the left, as they have used it as a laboratory for social experimentation. Well, joining me now to discuss this and more is Congressman Warren Davidson, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Financial Services Committee. He’s also a veteran of the United States Army. He represents the 8th Congressional District of Ohio. Congressman Davidson, welcome back to the program. Always great to see you. Tony, it’s always an honor. Thank you for talking with me tonight. All right. So let’s start with this issue of the warrior board, the left claiming that would politicize the military. One look at the National Defense Authorization Act and how the cleanup effort has been underway by Republicans to remove the political elements would suggest to me it’s not the right that’s doing it, but the left.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, I mean, that was part of the effort we’ve had, really, since Democrats took the majority. They’ve continued to push for, you know, kind of woke and weaponized government. And one of the kind of key woke elements, they created this three-letter acronym, DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, which are really just political officers. They created these departments in every federal agency, and they’re there to politicize every department. And they’re clearly doing it in the Department of Defense, you know, very aggressively pushing it out And frankly, imposing training on troops all the way through the field. So we need to extract this from our military and get them back to being strong and focused.
SPEAKER 08 :
Do you think this is a good idea that the president has put forth with what’s being called a warrior board to evaluate the competency of the military’s top brass?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, fundamentally, the Department of Defense has never passed an audit since they were required to pass an audit, and no one ever gets held accountable. And look, it’s not like we can just say, we’re done with you guys. We’re closing the Department of Defense. We can’t really do that, but we can hold somebody accountable for it. No one’s ever gotten fired for failing the audit. And every year they’re rewarded with more money and more responsibility. And so it’s time. I’ve had a bill for years now that I introduce every session to try to say when it says whenever the Department of Defense fails an audit, 10 percent of the general officer corps is eliminated. And then there would be consequences for it. And frankly, our senior ranks are already bloated. I mean, we have one officer for every nine enlisted soldiers. When we won World War II, we had one officer for every 30 enlisted soldiers. So we’re very top heavy.
SPEAKER 08 :
Now, their justification for opposing this warrior board and advancing their DEI agenda within the military says that this is the way you get diversity in our military, and diversity is what makes our military strong.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, I think that the ability to shoot, move, and communicate lethal force is what makes our military strong. And frankly, the cohesion out of the unit comes when that is the focus. You inherently build a diverse unit because you take the most talented people at each of the skill sets required to succeed, and the unit flourishes. And I mean, you see that in all kinds of arenas. We should certainly see it in our military. And the other thing is, it’s not uncommon. I mean, if you look at… George C. Marshall did this in a really big scale. And in a smaller scale, Barack Obama eliminated 200 officers when he took the White House. So not an unprecedented thing at all to go through and, you know, purge kind of some of the excesses and realign the military. And this should happen throughout government. But of all the places it should happen and most clearly aligns with the president’s prerogatives, it’s in his role as commander in chief.
SPEAKER 08 :
The president-elect Donald Trump has tapped Pete Hexeth as the next defense secretary. Your thoughts?
SPEAKER 07 :
I’m very excited. I’ve really enjoyed getting to know Pete Hegseth. And I’m sure he’s overwhelmed with feedback and celebratory praise. But he’s also been wrongly criticized. I mean, this guy, OK, he’s a major. Usually you say, oh, we need these seasoned insiders. Well, Donald Trump tried the seasoned insiders. He tried General Mad Dog Mattis, and supposedly he was going to lead transformative change. He didn’t lead anything. He was a disaster. Then he brought in, oh, the lobbyist insider, Mark Esper. Esper, more status quo, no reform. So Donald Trump now is saying, I’m going to take somebody that actually means what I’m talking about, which is we’re going to get a strong and focused military. Pete Hegseth has written books about it. He’s a well-educated, very successful combat veteran as an infantry officer. And I think he’s the right kind of leader. We have to get him confirmed.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right. Let’s turn now to the lame duck session of Congress. One of the issues front and center in this lame duck session is the funding of government. We’ve gone until December the 20th. It’s about one month ago. What are we going to be looking at? Is it going to be another short term continuing resolution, booting it into the first of next year? We’re going to see an omnibus. What do we what do we anticipate?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, no secret. Washington, D.C. loves the status quo. They’ve lobbied hard for it for years and they fight to preserve it. And they’re pushing for an omnibus so that, you know, you can get at least one more year of this woke and weaponized government. All the policies and priorities that the American people just rejected are reflected in the current spending plan. And so it would be a disaster for Congress to accept an omnibus. And, you know, Speaker Johnson has persuaded me convincingly that he’s not going to get rolled with an omnibus, that he is going to push for a CR that goes into the president’s first hundred days. And that’s the fastest way to deliver on the promises Donald Trump and others that make up our Republican majority in the House and Senate made to the American people. So why would we delay that for another year? We should absolutely hit that in the first hundred days, and the best way to do that is to get a continuing resolution that goes into the first hundred days.
SPEAKER 08 :
So an omnibus that some have been discussing would be funding for the rest of the year kind of lumped together as we’ve seen before. You never know what’s tucked away in there, but it would add additional funds to the government, whereas a CR simply extends what we currently have until the new administration can put their fingerprint on the funding priorities.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, precisely. So if you did an omnibus, it would fund the government with no real reforms, plus ups, more spending. There were some negotiations that go in there, earmarks that everybody wants to get for their priorities back home. In general, it’s been more money in more places on more people, and it would go all the way until September 30th. of next year. That’s the fiscal year 2025 spending plan that was frankly due September 30th of this year, but it’s kind of turned into the Christmas tradition that Congress, well, you got to pass this or we’re going to have to stay through Christmas. If that’s what it takes, fine, stay through Christmas. But the reality is we should push it out into the you know, at least early February. So you get, you know, a little bit of runway with the House and Senate. There’s really no reason we couldn’t have this by the end of January, though, on the president’s desk with priorities that he and we promised to deliver to the American people during this campaign season.
SPEAKER 08 :
And Congressman Davidson, call me cynical, but With a lame duck session where you’ve got the Senate majority right now, Democrat, going out, Chuck Schumer playing the heavy hand consistently time and time again. If there were an omnibus, I can guarantee you there would be objectionable spending elements in there that the voters who just cast their votes on November 5th would be opposed to.
SPEAKER 07 :
100% there would be. And there were last time. I mean, you know, Speaker Johnson caught a lot of blowback because less than half of the Republicans in the House voted for the last omnibus. I mean, he broke it into two pieces. But not just my colleagues and I were unhappy with that. The American people were pretty unhappy with that because we funded a lot of things that we promised not to fund. And that got us through this election cycle. But we certainly shouldn’t start the next one off on a bad foot by getting more of another year of the same bad policies. So we need to get it into the first 100 days so we can deliver on really what this campaign season was all about. And the American people overwhelmingly rejected this woke, weaponized government. And they want a secure border at the most basic level. Why would we continue to fund interior resettlement of people trying to enter our country illegally Why wouldn’t we turn that off? Why couldn’t we in the very first days deliver on President Trump’s promise to stop taxing tips? Things like that ought to be in this Make America First, Make America Great Again, America First funding priorities. And we should be able to do it in the first 100 days.
SPEAKER 08 :
Congressman Warren Davidson, one minute left. Is this something that our viewers and listeners need to weigh in with with their members of Congress? Say, you know, just just give it over to President Trump. Let him shape the spending for the next year.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, absolutely. No omnibus. Get this to President Trump’s desk, not President Biden’s. All right. One final question for you. What should we be looking for in the next three weeks? You know, President Trump’s going to continue to round out his team, and you want to look for people that are going to support President Trump getting his team. I mean, he sent a message to the Senate saying, look, if you’re not going to confirm Matt Gaetz, I’m going to do a recess appointment or I’m going to appoint him for a temporary basis on an interim basis for 210 days and may extend it again for 210 days. Trump’s very adamant that he’s going to get his team and he should have it.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right. Congressman Warren Davidson, always great to talk with you. Thanks for joining us today. Thank you, Tony. All right, folks, you can stay tuned as to what’s going on. Tune in each day to Washington Watch, but also get the Stand Firm app where we have alerts going out so you know what to do and when to do it. So download the Stand Firm app. Coming up, very few in the media are reporting on the Christian vote during the election, but it made a difference. We’re going to talk about that next, so don’t go away. More Washington Watch straight ahead.
SPEAKER 06 :
Download the new Stand Firm app for Apple and Android phones today and join a wonderful community of fellow believers. We’ve created a special place for you to access news from a biblical perspective, read and listen to daily devotionals, pray for current events and more. Share the Stand Firm app with your friends, family and church members and stand firm everywhere you go.
SPEAKER 16 :
Let’s not be discouraged. Don’t lose heart. Don’t lose the faith. Stand now strong because the Lord has given us the great privilege of living in a time when our choices matter, when our lives matter, when our courage matters. So let’s stand together and save this great country. God bless the United States of America.
SPEAKER 01 :
the american republic has a freedom like no other it has roots in the scriptures far more than any other heritage and if we as followers of jesus and conservatives don’t defend it who will
SPEAKER 02 :
Neutrality is not an option. There are many Christians who believe that if we just keep our heads down, if we just don’t say the wrong thing, that somehow we will come out of this unscathed. You’re naive if you think that, because what they want from us is not our silence. What they want from us is our submission.
SPEAKER 04 :
Part of the dilemma of Christianity in our generation is that we’ve relied a little too much on human wisdom and human reasoning, human strength, human resource, and we’ve relied too little on the power of God and God’s ability to open doors that we can’t open and do things that we couldn’t even hope to begin to do.
SPEAKER 11 :
This may not be an easy task, But we are living in a moment of challenge, but also a great opportunity. And we know always that we are not alone, that his spirit empowers us and protects us, and that he can do the unimaginable. Dobbs, after all, was never supposed to have.
SPEAKER 08 :
Father, we thank you. You have entrusted us with this moment in history, and I pray that we would be found faithful, and that as a result of our faithfulness to you, that thousands, millions would come into the kingdom as they would experience the forgiveness of sin and the new life that is found only in Jesus Christ. Amen.
SPEAKER 05 :
Are you a Christian parent looking to raise a spiritual champion in today’s culture? Renowned author George Barna has written a new book, Raising Spiritual Champions. This book offers valuable insights based on extensive research conducted by George Barna, the Family Research Council, and Arizona Christian University. Learn how to help your children discern biblical truth and find compelling meaning and purpose. Don’t miss out on this essential resource for parents. Order your copy today.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Be sure and join us for Operation Prayer Shield. Text SHIELD to 67742. Join us in coordinated prayer as we pray for our nation during this very vulnerable and pivotal time between now and January the 20th. So again, text the word SHIELD to 67742 and we’ll connect you with thousands of Americans who are praying around this country. There has been a lot of post-election analysis on the shifts that we saw from demographic groups that have been traditional supporters of the Democratic Party, such as young adults, women, Hispanics, but little media attention has been given to the Christian vote. which my next guest says made the difference in the race for the White House. Joining me now to unpack what he and his colleagues found is Dr. Adam Rasmussen. He’s a fellow at the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University. Dr. Rasmussen, welcome to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 03 :
Thank you, Tony. It’s my pleasure to be with you.
SPEAKER 08 :
So let’s before we jump into that, I want to address something else that, you know, there’s a lot there was a lot of enthusiasm. I mean, we saw kind of what would be described in modern terms based upon what we’ve seen in recent years, a landslide shift toward Donald Trump. But the overall voter turnout was actually down from 2020 if the current numbers hold. Speak to that.
SPEAKER 03 :
Happy to do so. Yes, in 2020, it was 62%. But what we at the Cultural Research Center predicted is that it would be down. And it looks like it’ll be about 55% of the total voting population came out to vote. And sadly, that trend was the same with those who identify to be Christian. So it was 55%, only one point up for Christians. 56% of those who say they are Christians came out to vote. And that’s just not very good at all, Tony.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, okay, so let’s start there. Let’s break down, because you’ve got several different subcategories of the Christian vote. There were a couple that were actually up, some were down. Let’s talk first about the ones that were up.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, one of the most exciting that I think to watch, I’ll just go right for that, is the SAGECONS. And this stands for Spiritually Active Governance Engaged Conservatives. And they voted very strongly in the 2020 election. 99% voted. And we saw that again in the 2024 election. And they represent 5% of our total population in the United States. but 7% of the election population this time. And that was very exciting to see.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, in fact, most of our audience, most of our viewers, listeners fall into that sage con category, spiritually active, governance engaged conservatives. So while we’re on that particular subgroup, what did they point to most as helping them make their decision on how they would vote in this election?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, they looked at things that were different than the other side. Abortion was very popular, of course. Sage cons are not going to vote in that direction. And we saw that our churches encouraged by talking about things like religious freedom, addressing poverty, crime, law, and order. And this translated, again, to the sage cons coming in, and they voted on these issues.
SPEAKER 08 :
And in terms of determining their, as I read down through some of this information, their faith, obviously very important in guiding that decision, party platforms played into their decisions as well as some of the other subcategories.
SPEAKER 03 :
Absolutely. The sage cons have a different way of looking at the way that they’re going to vote because They have an above-average political attentiveness and participation, and they have that conservative political ideology and commitment to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. And party platform, not necessarily the personality or the character of a candidate is much more important to them. And, again, that’s why they come out and vote in droves, 99 percent of them.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, they’re, of course, by definition, spiritually active, governance engaged. They’re going to be there. So our big task, I think, and this is what we’re focused on at Family Research Council in Washington Watch, is growing that element of the population because they also have, as we have studied, a… a greater influence on family and friends because they’re plugged in, they know what’s going on. Let’s talk a little bit about the young adult vote, Hispanic. Those were new votes for Donald Trump. What about the younger evangelical, younger Christian? What do we know about them?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, they aren’t as involved with voting as we saw with our older voters. And And they’re more moved towards voting again on being pushed more towards not liking a political candidate, perhaps, a candidate not reflecting their views. And we saw that with the younger generation as well. And unfortunately, some of our research shows that the younger they are, the more apt they are to be positive on allowing abortion under any circumstances. So, while your boomer, theologically defined born-again Christian, would say that they are not for abortion, the Gen Z, for example, the youngest among us, they were focused on the not theologically defined, many of them, a majority of them said that they were for abortion. And this is something that we really have to turn around.
SPEAKER 08 :
You know, I think, Dr. Rasmussen, but if you look at historically, and I know we don’t have time to unpack that today, but younger people tend to be a little more liberal on some of these things until they get older and they start having children, they start buying houses, they become more economically conservative. But the big challenge we face is that young people are putting off marriage and childbearing, which prevents them from moving over into that more conservative ideological category. We’re up against a break. We’ll pick that up on the other side of the break. Also want to look further into some of these segments and also get you to unpack the reason some people didn’t vote. As you just pointed out, the numbers have dropped from 2020, which is surprising, I think, to a lot of people. But why? What did people point to as the reasons? Dr. Rasmussen, my guest, we’re going to continue this conversation on the other side of the break. So stay tuned. Don’t go anywhere. I’m going to break down the numbers and tell you what it means. All right. More Washington Watch straight ahead.
SPEAKER 13 :
All of us are born with the desire to find truth and meaning. Where did I come from? What happens when I die? While our answers to these questions may divide us, we are united in our need for the freedom to answer life’s biggest questions and make life’s biggest decisions for ourselves. That’s why religious freedom matters for everyone. Religious freedom matters because the powerful have long wanted to control those who are less powerful. Religious freedom matters because the freedom of those who are different is often threatened by those who believe different is dangerous. Leah Sharibu, a Christian teenager in Nigeria, remains a captive of Boko Haram for her refusal to renounce her Christian faith. Chinese pastor Wang Yi is serving a nine-year sentence for speaking publicly against the Chinese government. In Pakistan, Asif Pervez is on death row for allegedly sending a blasphemous text message. All of this because people in power decided different is dangerous. at the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council. We promote religious freedom for everyone because the only alternative is religious freedom for no one. We encourage Americans and the American government to engage and advocate for the persecuted. And they do. We work every day to bring good news to the afflicted, to proclaim liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners. We do it because that’s what Jesus does. We work to give freedom to others because we ourselves have been set free.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to this Monday edition of Washington Watch. So good to have you with us. Check out the website, TonyPerkins.com. Better yet, download the Stand Firm app, and you can have Washington Watch in your pocket with a whole lot more. That’s the Stand Firm app. Continuing my conversation with Dr. Adam Rasmussen from the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University. And the researchers over there, led by our friend and colleague, Dr. George Barna, last week released their post-election study that underscores the dominant role of faith in voter turnout and candidate choice. Dr. Rasmussen, thanks for staying with us. So I want to talk a little bit. We’ve got about five minutes. I want to talk just a little bit about some of the motivating issues. You touched on that in the last segment. Then we’ll talk about why people didn’t vote. Inflation topped. One of the issues, I mean, the economy, people are feeling this thing. I mean, Christians feel the same thing as everybody else. They got to put food on the table. You know, when we saw Kamala Harris talking about abortion every time she spoke, it was very interesting that more women voted for Joe Biden in 2020 than they did for her in 2024. What that tells me is more women were worried about putting food on the table than aborting their children. And so these pocketbook issues do matter. While abortion is a major issue for evangelicals, so is feeding their children.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s true. And what we saw is that 72% of those who came out to vote were Christians. And they have values. And as you were mentioning, the values about abortion raising families and living through this economy matter. And we saw that probably because of the platform of the Republicans and Donald Trump. Christians gave a 17 million vote advantage or cushion to Donald Trump. And because the margin between the two of them was less than that, it was insurmountable. And that is something that we really should explore.
SPEAKER 08 :
Mm-hmm. One of the issues I found very interesting, theologically identified evangelicals placed relatively higher emphasis on immigration. 40% chose it as a deciding factor in their candidate selection. Is that because of an underlying concern about law and order and understanding the breakdown of the rule of law?
SPEAKER 03 :
Oh, I think so for certain. And living here in Arizona, a border state, That’s a very important topic to us, and it should be to the entire country. And as we know, that’s one of the major responsibilities of the federal government, is to have safe borders. How could it not? And that was a decisive factor for certain.
SPEAKER 08 :
So as you point out about the Christian vote, I think 72% of those who voted identified as Christian. Is that becoming a big defining issue, whether you are religious, Christian, or non-religious?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I think this particular season, the Christian faith, as you know, Tony, is to be salt and light in our country. And right now, because we hold 72% of those who voted, that’s a good thing. And Christians outnumbered those of other faiths or non-faiths five to two. But, and here’s the part of statistics that’s interesting, we really didn’t come out to vote as much as we should have. Only 56% of self-identified Christians voted. But that’s greater in percentages than the other groups. 53% of non-Christian faiths and 48% of those who have no faith.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, so let’s break that down. We’ve just got a couple minutes left. Why? Why did they not vote?
SPEAKER 03 :
The others?
SPEAKER 08 :
Let’s talk about the Christians, the Christians who didn’t vote, those who identify as Christian. Why didn’t they vote?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes. Well, sadly, 20% of them said, I was planning on it, but I just didn’t get around to it. So there were several reasons, but I mean, that was one of the highest and what a lame excuse that is. I was going to do it, but I didn’t get to it. I forgot or something like that. And other reasons were I thought it might be rigged. I didn’t think my vote would count. Perhaps I didn’t like one of the candidates. It wasn’t pleasant to me to vote. Politics is not that important to me. These are some of the reasons. people were giving. But as you and I know, Jesus Christ needs to be Lord of all of life, not just on Sunday mornings, but Mondays too, and not just the parts of life that are easy for me.
SPEAKER 08 :
Right.
SPEAKER 03 :
All of them.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, even more so for the difficult issues, that’s where we need to lean into our faith more because it provides guidance and direction for us. In your research, did you, and we just got about a minute and a half left, do churches need to give more guidance and direction? I’m not talking about endorsing candidates, but Christian citizenship, do churches need to speak more into that?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes, I mean, the numbers weren’t great. Just to bottom line it for you, Tony, we found that perhaps if there was a last-minute push, pastors and family members and churches could encourage those 32 million Christians we were calling to come out and vote, okay, and that maybe that might push another 5 million to the voting polls. And we need to be more engaged in those things.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, I mean, that 20% that said, well, I just forgot, didn’t have time. I mean, if the two Sundays prior to the election, their pastors had been saying, don’t forget to vote. We’ve got voter resource. We’ve got a platform comparison. We’ve got voter guides for you. I’m not going to tell you who to vote for, but it should be pretty evident to you when you look at their policies and you look at what the scripture says. That could help, I think, significantly. Dr. Rasmussen, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate the work and appreciate you joining us today to tell us about it.
SPEAKER 03 :
Thank you so much, Tony.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right. And we appreciate the partnership with all the folks out there at Arizona Christian. All right. Coming up, I’ll share with you my conversation with Real Clear Politics White House correspondent Philip Wegman, who joined us over the weekend for This Week on the Hill. That’s next. Don’t go away. More straight ahead. Hello, I’m Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council here in Washington, D.C. Behind me is one of the most recognizable buildings in all the world, the U.S. Capitol. What does it stand for? Well, most people say government. But do you know the Bible talks about four institutions of government? Do you know what they are? And do we have a republic or a democracy? Well, what do you say? Also, what about this saying separation of church and state? Does that mean Christians shouldn’t be involved in government? Guess what? We address those issues and more in our new God and Government course. I invite you to join us to see what the historical record and the Bible has to say about government. Join us for God and Government.
SPEAKER 12 :
Everything we do begins as an idea. Before there can be acts of courage, there must be the belief that some things are worth sacrificing for. Before there can be marriage, there is the idea that man should not be alone. Before there was freedom, there was the idea that individuals are created equal. It’s true that all ideas have consequences, but we’re less aware that all consequences are the fruit of ideas. Before there was murder, there was hate. Before there was a Holocaust, there was the belief by some people that other people are undesirable. Our beliefs determine our behavior, and our beliefs about life’s biggest questions determine our worldview. Where did I come from? Who decides what is right and wrong? What happens when I die? Our answers to these questions explain why people see the world so differently. Debates about abortion are really disagreements about where life gets its value. Debates over sexuality and gender and marriage are really disagreements about whether the rules are made by us or for us. What we think of as political debates are often much more than that. They’re disagreements about the purpose of our lives and the source of truth. As Christians, our goal must be to think biblically about everything. Our goal is to help you see beyond red and blue, left and right, to see the battle of ideas at the root of it all. Our goal is to equip Christians with a biblical worldview and help them advance and defend the faith in their families, communities, and the public square. Cultural renewal doesn’t begin with campaigns and elections. It begins with individuals turning from lies to truth. but that won’t happen if people can’t recognize a lie and don’t believe truth exists. We want to help you see the spiritual war behind the political war, the truth claims behind the press release, and the forest and the trees.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Good to have you with us on this Monday. Have you joined Operation Prayer Shield? Today, in this critical moment, we’re praying for followers of Christ to be bold in this moment. If America is to be great again, we must be moral again. And Christians cannot compromise on truth. We must lead the way. If you’d like to join Operation Prayer Shield as we pray from now until January the 20th with so much going on, Join us. Text the word SHIELD to 67742. That’s SHIELD to 67742. Our word for today comes from Hosea chapter 12. The Lord also brings a charge against Judah and will punish Jacob according to his ways. According to his deeds, he will recompense him. He took his brother by the heel in the womb and in his strength he struggled with God. Yes, he struggled with the angel and prevailed. He wept and sought favor from him. He found him in Bethel and there he spoke to us. This passage encourages the nation to follow their forefather Jacob’s example of wrestling with God for a blessing. Jacob’s life was marked by tenacity. He wrestled with Esau in the womb for the position of the blessing. He wrestled with God himself, refusing to let go until he received favor and he succeeded. Jacob’s persistence serves as a model of faith and determination. The text also affirms the sanctity of life in the womb. Jacob is described not as a blob of tissue, but as a person with identity and purpose even before birth. This serves as a reminder, a child in the womb is not a choice, but a sacred creation of God. To find out more about our journey through the Bible, text BIBLE to 67742. All right. President-elect Donald Trump continues to roll out his list of cabinet nominees. And as House Speaker Mike Johnson said over the weekend, he made picks, quote, who will shake up the status quo, end quote. Well, on the latest edition of This Week on the Hill, my weekend program with Speaker Johnson, I was joined by Real Clear Politics White House correspondent Philip Wegman to get a snapshot of some of the status quo shaking selections. And here’s that discussion. All right, let’s start with this. A 30,000-foot view of the nominations thus far, what does this tell us about a second Trump administration?
SPEAKER 14 :
What this tells us is that it’s Donald Trump’s transition and no one else’s. For a little while there, it seemed that the incoming president was playing it kind of safe. There was a bit of bipartisan consensus behind a pick, like, say, Florida Senator Marco Rubio for Secretary of State. That’s someone who is certainly well qualified for that position, but also a shoe in the door. And then came some of these more unconventional picks. Pete Hegseth for Department of Defense Secretary, Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, and then most recently, Florida Representative Matt Gaetz for Attorney General. What that tells you is that it is Donald Trump fundamentally who is making these decisions and him alone. It’s not an advisor. It’s not any outside group. It’s him. He’s the one who won 320 electoral votes, I was told, by a former senior White House official who’s in close contact with the transition. And he’s the one making these decisions.
SPEAKER 08 :
It clearly looks like Donald Trump. It’s much different. You see the connections with TV. He’s fixated on television news. Pete Hexeth fills that block. And you see, you know, those who have been successful in business also are coming into his administration. Of course, it appears that Elon Musk is at his right hand most of the time. I want to go back, as we talk about nominations and the process as it unfolds, I want to get your read on something that took place this week with the Senate electing or selecting their leaders for the next Congress or the next session. And the president didn’t weigh in. The president-elect did not weigh in. But a lot of his supporters did, including Elon Musk and some other, you know, a strong social media presence. And they wanted to elevate Rick Scott to the top. And it appears—my read on this is that the Senate leadership— really is sending a message that they’re not going to be swayed by outside pressure and moving John Thune up from the number two position to the number one position.
SPEAKER 14 :
I think your read on this is correct. I think another takeaway here is that Twitter is not real life. You had folks like Elon Musk that you just mentioned, Tucker Carlson and others who are really trying to exert pressure on the rank and file of the Senate GOP conference. But that’s a secret ballot. It’s also a term that’s going to last for some time. And these members are obviously insulated from some of the populism that’s swaying, not just the House of Representatives, but also the White House. These guys are up for election every six years, not every two or four. And so while I think that what we saw from Senator Rick Scott was was a pretty valiant effort, regardless of whether or not you like his politics. It was an interesting challenge to follow. He just didn’t have the votes. The reason why I think that we should still put a pin in this and watch closely is that there’s sort of a bubbling frustration among the right flank, previously McConnell’s right flank, now Thune’s right flank, with how things are going. And certainly in Washington, D.C. right now, Republicans are of the opinion that Donald Trump has a mandate after winning the Electoral College and also the popular vote. And so the question is, when someone like Speaker Mike Johnson has shown that he is ready to move the ball down the field, are Senate Republicans also going to be team players here, not for the establishment, but for the base that wants to see big policies actually delivered, not just changes at the margin?
SPEAKER 08 :
But by design, the Senate was created to kind of be the—kind of some speed bumps there, kind of slowing the process down to reach consensus. And we’re going to see that when the confirmations begin. You know, the Republicans, we’ve still got a seat that’s outstanding, so we don’t know what the total count will be. But the Republicans have the majority in the Senate. So let’s talk about some of these. I want you to handicap some of these because I know you’re going to be tracking them. You mentioned Marco Rubio. I think that’s a no-brainer. He’s going in.
SPEAKER 14 :
Yeah, your read on that is the same as mine. Rubio is someone who has done the homework when it comes to the China question. And of course, we can get into this later. But he’s well liked by both Republicans and Democrats because he’s seen as not necessarily overtly political when it comes to the foreign affairs question. When it comes to defense, this is someone who keeps their nose in a book and is trying to find consensus. on a common problem. Certainly, he’s well-respected, not just by Republicans, but also Democrats.
SPEAKER 08 :
Lee Zeldin, administrator of the EPA, that’s another one that I think is going to sail through.
SPEAKER 14 :
Yeah, I think Zeldin, in all likelihood, won’t have much trouble. That said, you’re sending Zeldin to the EPA. He’s not thought of as a big environmental guy. He’s a lawyer. Obviously, this is a pick that the incoming president would like someone to slash red tape. There could be some trouble there, but I don’t see any Republicans abandoning ship. I think you’re correct.
SPEAKER 08 :
Governor Kristi Noem as the Secretary of Homeland Security, that’s going to be a big department. I mean, it is a big department, but with the border issue being overseen by Homeland Security, what do you think on this one?
SPEAKER 14 :
Yeah. Kristi Noem, she had a bit of a fall from grace, certainly, when her book came out because of the revelations about some family pets. I’m not certain that we’re going to see Republicans abandon ship here. DHS, while it is a vast and sprawling agency, I think that she is seen sort of as a key piece here who’s going to complement Tom Homan, the border’s all borders are. And then Stephen Miller, who’s a deputy chief of staff for policy in the incoming administration. I think that this is one to watch, but in all likelihood, she gets through.
SPEAKER 08 :
One came coming out at the end of the week, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head up the Health and Human Services Department, one of the largest federal agencies.
SPEAKER 14 :
You want to talk about a realignment, and I’d be more curious about your thoughts on this one, because RFK Jr., he represents so much of what is new from Donald Trump because of Trump’s ability to reach out to independent voters who are perhaps homeless among the two-party system. But let’s not forget, RFK Jr. Yes, he’s a Catholic individual, but he also supports abortion rights. Yes, he’s very skeptical of pharmaceutical companies, but he’s also anti-big bank, anti-big business. He’s an environmentalist. This is one of these guys who sort of breaks the mold. And Democrats, I don’t think many of them are going to lend their support to RFK Jr. at HHS. I’m curious to see if there will be many Republican defections. But look, trust in science and institutions is at an all-time low after COVID. Perhaps he sneaks through. Yeah.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, I’m not going to give you my thoughts right now because I’m willing to sit down and talk with him. I have reservations, but there are many positive things that you just laid out there that I think are good and need to happen. But for me, the sanctity of human life and that moral fabric of our nation, that foundation is absolutely critical. And I’d have to have some assurances there for now. Put me in the skeptic column when it comes to RKF. All right, let’s jump to one that really turned some heads this week. Actually, there were two that kind of turned heads. One almost had head spinning. And that would be the nomination or the selection of an Attorney General, Matt Gaetz. Talk about that.
SPEAKER 14 :
So we broke the news that Representative Matt Gaetz was expected to resign. It wasn’t much of a scoop, though, because 15 minutes later, you had Speaker Mike Johnson, who told his conference that Gaetz had resigned effective immediately. And the reason why this is interesting is if you talk to Gaetz’s allies, they’ll say that in preparation over preparation for this contentious confirmation battle, he’s burning the ships like Cortez. This is someone who is going all in for President Trump. If you talk to folks who are a bit more cynical, the timing here is very curious. The House Ethics Committee was preparing to release a report concerning activity of Mr. Gates in a allegedly underage girl. And by leaving Congress, that effectively stymies that effort. The committee generally does not release their reports if it involves someone who is no longer in Congress. And that was sort of the speculation that perhaps he was leaving early to avoid that accountability. I do want to note, though, that these allegations that the committee is investigating They began with a DOJ investigation, and the Department of Justice certainly didn’t charge and did not convict Mr. Gates. And he’s of the opinion that this is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. So that’s where things stand right now. And all of Washington, D.C. is curious to see if Gates actually makes it to the Senate for his confirmation hearing.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, I’ve had a few conversations on the Hill regarding this, and you’re correct to the timing of that. No one—the general membership does not know, because it’s only the committee members of the Ethics Committee that have seen the report and know the timing of its release. And they won’t see it now, because as you pointed out, once a person leaves Congress, it’s no longer under the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee, so it’s for most purposes dead. However, there’s some that I’ve talked to that feel that it— You know, Democrats could leak it out. Those members of the committee could leak it out if the nomination advances. Now, there’s some that have the theory that this was to kill this issue. He’ll probably withdraw his name from attorney general and run for governor in Florida, which is something he’s wanted to do. And he can do that in two years without any baggage related to an ethics investigation.
SPEAKER 14 :
The theories abound, but I want to zero in on the first thing that you said about this report, because I think that your sources are very well informed. This report is not supposed to come out if Gates is no longer in Congress. There are some examples where information did follow the exit process. of a member of Congress, but those are exceedingly rare, and we’d have to go back to, I think, 1990 for the last example. But what I’m hearing is that this report is a grenade, and it is only a matter of time before it leaks and it explodes. Democrats have an incentive for this information to get out there, but they don’t want it to go off right now. They want to wait until it’s able to inflict maximum damage. Then there are some Republicans who would rather this information get out earlier so the president-elect can either re-examine his choice or perhaps Gates can bow out. And the second scenario, which you noted, perhaps a run for Florida governor, You know, maybe that becomes the final scenario here. But one thing that I did find rather curious was that when the president-elect was at Mar-a-Lago talking to some of his supporters, he was shouting out each member of his incoming cabinet. No word, though, on the latest nomination that he had made, Representative Matt Gaetz.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, we know what the playbook of the left is. So we saw what they did in the Supreme Court nominations and how they dropped these things right there in the middle of a hearing. So that would be a good indication or a good model to go by. All right, we’ve got 30 seconds left.
SPEAKER 14 :
Not a lot of time to cover this, but Pete Hexeth. Pete Hegseth, it makes the left go crazy, but this is someone who was in armed services for 20 years. He has won medals. And his nomination makes sense. If you look at his book, if you look at the Sean Ryan interview, this is someone who is absolutely on fire for reforming the Pentagon and going after sort of the woke excesses there. I think that’s why Donald Trump picked him. And Hegseth will be prepared for that confirmation hearing. You don’t get to be on TV every weekend if you’re not quick on your feet. I think he’s got a good shot.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right. Philip, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate your insight. Thank you, sir. All right. That was my conversation over the weekend with Real Clear Politics White House correspondent Philip Wegman. I want to just address one issue. I’ve been asked over the weekend about my support for Mr. Kennedy. Will I support him? I don’t know. I like his skepticism of big pharma and the bureaucratic medical complex that has been proven to mislead Americans. But I’m equally concerned about his disregard for the sanctity of human life. And his views on life have been inconsistent over the last year. I’d like to discuss the topic with him and a couple things I’d like to know. Will he apply the same standard for informed consent, fair, uncorrupt testing of drugs and research on the impact of medical interventions to the abortion industry? And will he protect the right of states to protect life by stopping the FDA from mailing dangerous abortion pills into pro-life states, which have been proven to send one out of 25 women to the hospital? These are big issues. We’ve got to address them. All right, folks, we’re out of time. Thanks for joining us. Until next time, just keep standing.
SPEAKER 10 :
Washington Watch with Tony Perkins is brought to you by Family Research Council and is entirely listener supported. Portions of the show discussing candidates are brought to you by Family Research Council Action. For more information on anything you heard today or to find out how you can partner with us in our ongoing efforts to promote faith, family and freedom, visit TonyPerkins.com.
