Menu
Join us as we examine the role of pastors in political discourse, focusing on the Free Speech Fairness Act and the contentious Johnson Amendment, in conversation with Senator Langford. Additionally, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley brings insights into the proposed Judiciary Relief Clarification Act aimed at curtailing judicial overreach through national injunctions. This episode also introduces David Claussen’s latest work ‘Life After Roe,’ which aims to equip Christians in understanding and advocating for pro-life issues in the post-Roe landscape.
SPEAKER 17 :
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 16 :
I love that Lincoln said, with malice towards none, with charity towards all, But I hear Donald Trump say with malice towards everybody that does not tell me how great I am. And charity, I don’t know if he understands that, what it means to show sympathy and compassion and empathy and to help people whether they like you or not.
SPEAKER 15 :
All right, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker has been on the Senate floor since 7 p.m. last night in opposition to the Trump administration’s policy. We’re going to talk about that in just a moment. Although Senator Booker’s remarks don’t technically amount to a filibuster, since he’s not blocking a specific bill, they could slow the Senate’s plan to advance its budget resolution. So that’s the next step in the budget reconciliation process. We’ll talk with Oklahoma Senator James Lankford about what this could mean for the Senate’s agenda. Meanwhile, the House abruptly adjourned today after nine Republicans voted with Democrats on a procedural measure.
SPEAKER 13 :
Well, it’s a very disappointing result on the floor there. A handful of Republicans joined with all the Democrats to take down a rule that’s rarely done. It’s very unfortunate in this case. 96% of House Republicans voted against proxy voting because they believe it’s unconstitutional and they agree that it would open a Pandora’s box. And so that’s what we just saw.
SPEAKER 15 :
That was House Speaker Mike Johnson outside the House chamber earlier this afternoon. Those nine Republicans supported a proposal that would allow proxy voting for new mothers and fathers. A noble goal, but one that raises larger questions about proxy voting in general. Texas Congressman Nathaniel Moran will join us to discuss the potential ramifications.
SPEAKER 09 :
Southwest border crossings in March fell to the lowest level in American history, down 94 percent from March of last year, under President Biden, when 137,000 illegal aliens poured across our wide-open southern border. Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, Border Patrol agents are now back to doing the jobs they signed up for, securing the border, rather than serving as travel agents for illegal aliens.
SPEAKER 15 :
That was White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt announcing a record low rate of illegal border crossings. That’s right, a record low. If there’s a will, there’s a way. We’ll hear more from Texas Senator John Cornyn on why this drop isn’t surprising and what it means going forward. And over in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Chuck Grassley has introduced legislation to end the practice of nationwide injunctions by federal judges. He’ll join us later to explain the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025 and why he believes it’s urgently needed. And finally, we’ll hear from David Claussen, director of the FRC Center for Biblical Worldview, on his new book, Life After Roe, which releases today. Well, before we dive in, a quick reminder, the seventh episode of God and Government is also out this week, exclusively on the Stand Firm app. It explores how Christians can engage in public policy debates when right and wrong, well, they’ve become subjective. You can find out how to navigate in today’s policy world. Get access by texting the word COURSE to 67742. That’s COURSE to 67742. All right, we’ve got a full lineup, so let’s get started. Joining us now from the United States Senate, Senator James Lankford, a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Select Committee on Intelligence. He represents the state of Oklahoma. Senator Lankford, welcome back to Washington Watch. Always great to see you.
SPEAKER 14 :
Always great to see you, Tony. Thanks for the work that you do.
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, let’s let’s start by talking about it’s not yet a record, but I think we’re 19 hours into not technically a filibuster, but one of your colleagues, Cory Booker, maintaining control of the Senate floor in opposition to the policies of the Trump administration.
SPEAKER 14 :
Yeah, it’s interesting. He’s actually coming in opposition to things like we now have record low immigration, illegal immigration numbers coming across the border. We’re getting control of our spending, starting to be able to reduce some of the waste in government. And we have a tax bill that we’re trying to start the debate on that will actually prevent a massive tax increase on the American people. This tax bill actually has a deadline. It expires in December of this year. And if we don’t act, We will have taxes go up on every single American, every single person that’s right now watching or listening to your program, their taxes will go up. And Senator Booker is in apparently strong opposition to that. He wants us to see the tax increases go up. Tax rates go up. We do not on it. So this is kind of a side by side differences between where we are right now as political parties and where we are as Americans.
SPEAKER 15 :
Now, the plan, as of yesterday, was to advance the Budget Resolution Act in the Senate. That would trigger 50 hours of debate. Is that still going to happen this week, or is Senator Booker’s kind of commandeering of the Senate floor going to throw off that schedule?
SPEAKER 14 :
No, we’re still going to do that. So it’s 50 hours of debate, but it’s actually 25 and 25. So it’s split Republicans and Democrats. We will just yield all of our time back and get straight to the votes on it. People are not tracking and watching all the ongoing debate leading up to it either way on it. They know our arguments. They know where we stand on this, that we want to be able to have a good tax policy for small businesses, individual rates that stay actually affordable. We’ve had high inflation for the last four years. We can’t have a huge jump in tax rates on top of that. So they know where we stand on that. So we’ll try to get to the vote as quickly as we can. Once this vote starts, as you know, that’s what they call a voter Rama. It sounds fun, but it’s not. It’s just endless amendments one after another. We’ll keep going through that until we’re done. Thursday could be Saturday, but we’re determined. We’re just gonna keep
SPEAKER 15 :
I want to talk about a measure that you introduced yesterday along a House version of it from Congressman Mark Harris. But before I do that, one more question. As we look at the budget resolution which sets up the reconciliation, that has to go through the parliamentarian, and there’s an area – of that an argument is being made by Republicans in the Senate that the tax cuts are simply the baseline. So the expiration of tax cuts and the revenue that that would generate should not be counted when the parliamentarian looks at the fiscal impact of this. Explain that and tell us where that stands.
SPEAKER 14 :
So whenever you start a budget debate, the first thing you have to start is, what’s the baseline? Where are we starting from? When you start counting numbers, for us, most of the time, we start from zero. So we’re zero, one, two, three, four. But when you’re doing tax or budget, we’re not at zero. There’s already debt that’s happening. There’s already spending and everything that’s happening. So you have to figure out, where is the spot we’re going to start from on this? the law actually the 1974 budget act says that actually the budget committee sets what it is so there’s three different groups that could set the baseline one is called joint tax it’s an outside committee one is called the congressional budget office outside group or it could be set by the chairman of the budget committee It’s typically done by the Congressional Budget Office. We’re saying we want to actually have the budget chairman do this this time. And so it’s in the statute that it’s allowed. And for this strange reason, this has become this big debate to say, just because typically it’s done by one of the other two doesn’t mean it has to. The law allows any of the three to be able to set the baseline. We’re saying the baseline of where we should begin is where the law is today. That doesn’t seem that complicated to me to say the law today says here’s where where we’re going with the current policy. Let’s just if current policy were to continue, what would that look like?
SPEAKER 15 :
Seems to make sense. I mean, this is what we’re working with today. So going forward, if we just assume that we are where we are, I mean, it’s it’s just basically carving a path out going forward.
SPEAKER 14 :
Right. And it’s a Washington, D.C. argument. No one outside of D.C. is really going to track this day to day on this. But it is important. when you’re doing any kind of accounting to be able to know what zero point. So I do understand the accounting side of it. But quite frankly, most folks are not going to be able to track that. What we’re trying to do is we’re going to follow the law. We’re going to do what the law allows. But we’re also going to be able to set a policy decision that I’m sure Democrats are going to argue with and say last time they picked a different arbitrator. Fine on that. They did what the law allowed. We’re doing what the law allows as well.
SPEAKER 15 :
I mean, that’s a really big question to be answered because that’s going to really shape this debate going forward. If the parliamentarian says, no, you can’t take where you stand today as the starting point, that’s going to, I think, set Republicans back significantly, will it not?
SPEAKER 14 :
It would, but I don’t think it’s going to be an issue because, again, the law is pretty clear on this. Okay, very good. All right. So we’ll see what the parliamentarian says, but there’s not a big argument about the law.
SPEAKER 15 :
All right. Very good. Well, let’s go to something else you and I passionately care about. And that is the ability of pastors to preach the word of God as it applies to the issues of our day, including politics. You care about that as one who’s been in the ministry. And so you have introduced the Free Speech Fairness Act. Talk about that.
SPEAKER 14 :
Yeah, pastors should be able to preach the Word of God. They should not have to worry about an IRS agent sitting in their congregation monitoring their speech to make sure they don’t mention something in politics in their sermon. That’s absurd. We’re the United States of America. Pastors have First Amendment rights just like every single American has First Amendment rights. Why we even discuss this at all is because decades ago something was added to the IRS rules called the Johnson Amendment. that says if a church endorses some political candidate, and again, that’s up to the interpretation of the IRS agent, what that actually means, then they could actually have IRS take away their nonprofit status. Churches often live in fear of something that has literally never happened to any church, but they just live in fear of that. So it restrains their speech. So all I’m trying to do is be able to clarify and say pastors have the same free speech rights as everyone else. Now, I don’t believe pastors should preach politics all the time. I think they should talk about Jesus and salvation and the goodness and grace of God all the time. I think that should be their obsession to be able to talk about. But when things like abortion come up or marriage comes up or so many other things, or when there’s an election coming and they encourage people to go vote or say there’s an obvious candidate here that shares our values, they shouldn’t be restrained from that either. And so this gives the opportunity for people to just freely speak as every other American.
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, the Word of God speaks to practically every aspect of life. And so when those issues are touched upon in the Scripture, we need to be able to preach freely upon them. Now, I had Congressman Mark Harris on yesterday, as I mentioned. He’s a pastor, and something that happens very frequently are those on the left that want to silence biblical truth. They will send out letters to pastors right before an election saying, if you violate this IRS law, you could lose your tax exemption. And so there’s a lack of clarity, as you alluded to, and it has the effect of self-censoring the pulpit.
SPEAKER 14 :
It does. And again, it tries to make churches and church leaders live in fear of their own government as if they don’t have First Amendment protections. Quite frankly, churches that are more left-leaning, they talk about politics all the time. They endorse candidates all the time. and don’t live in fear of the irs because there’s a belief that they have they’re not going to come after us we’re on the left it’s only going to come after churches on the right on that we need to be able to make sure this is very clear the irs doesn’t have the authority to go monitor the speech of pastors and the church leaders let’s have them do tax collection that’s what their job is not monitoring free speech
SPEAKER 15 :
Final question for you, Senator Langford. The House, I’ve spoken to the speaker about this. The majority leader feel pretty confident this will come out of the House successfully. You’re going to need Democratic support in the Senate. Do you think you can find Democrats that will support the freedom of the pulpit?
SPEAKER 14 :
I have not found it yet. And it’s a very interesting thing because even folks that are here that are on the left that come out of a ministry background as well, kind of like the opportunity for the government to be able to reach in and to be able to dictate that. So we’re working to be able to have a coalition in saying this is a basic constitutional freedom. As you know, there are many churches that for years have actually recorded a message, endorsed a candidate, mailed it to the IRS and say, I dare you to go to court because they want it to go to court. People just want it to be resolved. It’s clearly unconstitutional. It’s just a bully pulpit that’s out there, just a bully stick out there to go after the pulpit.
SPEAKER 15 :
All right, Senator, thanks for joining us. Stick with us, folks. We’re back after this.
SPEAKER 07 :
At Family Research Council, we believe religious freedom is a fundamental human right that all governments must protect. That’s why FRC President Tony Perkins went to Capitol Hill to testify on behalf of persecuted Christians in Nigeria. Islamist terror groups target Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria with brutal violence. Representative Chris Smith, who chaired the hearing, said 55,000 people have been killed and 21,000 abducted in the last five years alone. The congressman also stressed that 89% of Christians in the world who are martyred are from Nigeria.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yet the government of Nigeria has failed to make progress against religiously motivated persecution of Christians despite religious freedom being enshrined as an essential human right in their constitution.
SPEAKER 07 :
Tony Perkins called for the United States to send an unmistakable message.
SPEAKER 15 :
This is systematic religious violence. Nigeria must be redesignated a country of particular concern. The Biden administration’s removal of this designation was a reckless mistake that emboldened the very terrorists who are slaughtering Christians.
SPEAKER 07 :
Redesignating Nigeria will enable the U.S. government to pressure Nigerian leaders to protect vulnerable Christians.
SPEAKER 15 :
These are not just numbers. These are fathers, their mothers, their children, their families.
SPEAKER 07 :
Bishop Wilfred Anagabe risked his life to speak out, sharing firsthand accounts of the danger faced in his church district in central Nigeria.
SPEAKER 02 :
We live in fear because at any point it can be our turn to be killed, but to remain silent is to die twice. So, I have chosen to speak.
SPEAKER 07 :
FRC is calling on President Trump to act now to promote religious freedom around the globe and speak up on behalf of Christians in Nigeria.
SPEAKER 04 :
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 :
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 15 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for tuning in on this Tuesday. All right. The House of Representatives adjourned earlier today, earlier than originally anticipated, due to a fight within the Republican caucus that just boiled over into public. The issue has caused this unexpected adjournment is the issue of proxy voting. Now, you may recall the proxy voting system was widely used during COVID. Nancy Pelosi put that into place, but Republicans actually took it to court. The court sidestepped it, saying it was up to the Congress. But there are serious constitutional questions about proxy voting. Now, there’s been a measure. There was a measure put forward to allow new parents to vote by proxy, which sounds nice. But how do you draw the line just with new parents? What about someone who is ill or undergoing cancer treatment or you name it? Well, the House Republican leadership was opposed to it, but nine Republicans joined with the Democrats to It’s a procedural vote, but to take down a rule that was put forward earlier today on the House floor. Joining me now to talk more about this, Congressman Nathaniel Moran, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, the House Ethics Committee, and the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. He represents the 1st Congressional District of Texas. Congressman Moran, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 10 :
Tony, it’s great to be with you. Unfortunately, under these circumstances where Frankly, we have shot ourselves in the foot here in the House of Representatives and done ourselves a disservice and done the people of America a disservice.
SPEAKER 15 :
Let’s talk about the measure we’re discussing. There was a member of Congress put forward a measure that would allow parents, I think it was at 12 weeks, 6 or 12 weeks, to have proxy voting after having a child, both fathers and mothers.
SPEAKER 10 :
Yeah, it was a proxy voting proposition put up by a Republican member. It’s for 12 weeks, not just if you had a baby, but if your spouse had a baby. So it’s both for male and female to access. And in the history of the United States, we have not allowed proxy voting up until Nancy Pelosi did it during the pandemic a few years ago. We didn’t allow proxy voting after 9-11, not during the Spanish flu epidemic of of 1918, not during the Civil War or the War of 1812, you can go through the list. We never allowed it. Why? Because the Constitution is firm in its regard to getting together physically and being present physically with one another to deliberate and decide the important matters of the American people. So proxy voting is not a constitutional issue. I mean, it’s not a constitutionally permitted avenue to go, and it certainly is not a conservative viewpoint. Here’s the real problem. We cannot allow our sympathetic propositions to supplant constitutional principles, and that’s what’s going on here.
SPEAKER 15 :
Yeah, I mean, look, you’re tugging at people’s heartstrings. And look, we’re the Family Research Council. We know how important it is for that bonding of parent and child. But we also know if you signed up to run for Congress and you were elected to Congress, you have a constitutional obligation to represent the people that you were elected to represent and to do so in a way that’s consistent with the Constitution. So let me ask you a question that I posed at the beginning of this segment. How do you draw the line at new parents?
SPEAKER 10 :
Yeah, you don’t. And Mike Johnson made this point in conference. He said, look, if you accept this and allow new parents to provide for proxy voting with a new child, then there is no limiting principle. And where does it stop? Is it somebody next going to say, well, I have an illness that’s going to prevent me from being there, or I’ve had a car accident, or I have something important to do at home? Under those circumstances, where does it end? And there is a slippery slope. Once it begins, there is no end to that. And ultimately, we are going to take away what is the important nature of being together physically. If you look back at the Constitution, it mentions words like meeting and assemble and attendance and present and sitting and seat. It uses physical words to talk about us getting together to deliberate and decide the important matters of the legislative body.
SPEAKER 15 :
All right. So explain kind of what happened this afternoon and why. I mean, we talked about the substance, but let’s talk about process. What happened and why Congress has adjourned for the rest of the week?
SPEAKER 10 :
Yeah, we have a process where we’re going to adopt a rule, which is the procedural guidelines for voting on substantive matters to follow. And this was that procedural vote ahead of a number of very important substantive matters. And here’s the thing I think the American people need to realize about what happened today is Now we have a number of really important bills that we cannot vote on this week that were planned. A couple of them really, really important. The SAVE Act by Chip Roy that would help to ensure that we only have citizens voting in national elections. We have a bill by Darrell Issa to rein in these rogue federal district judges that are trying to do these nationwide injunctions. Those were bills that we were gonna vote on this week that were part of this rule that we can no longer vote on this week. Hopefully we can bring it back in the future, but who knows, all over this desire to allow proxy voting. And as you said, we just had a handful of Republicans joining all the Democrats. And here’s the other problem with that is that we effectively let emotion trump logic in this debate. And when that happens, we simply become liberal policymakers. That’s how liberals make decisions. Conservatives should make decisions based on logic, principles, and the Constitution, not emotion.
SPEAKER 15 :
So in order, just for the benefit of our viewers and listeners, in order for votes to take place on the House floor, you have to have a rule in place. Nine Republicans joined with Democrats to take down that rule. Therefore, there can be no vote on these legislative matters. So you regroup, come back next week, and what, try it again?
SPEAKER 10 :
Yeah, hopefully there’s some discussion between now and then between the Republican representative that’s pushing this and the leadership to help cool temperatures a little bit, but we’ll see. And, you know, as we look back at how this even came about, it was through a discharge petition which circumvents the ordinary course of of deliberation and debate, it skipped committee. And this representative was offered an opportunity to take her bill to committee, to the Judiciary Committee, to the Constitutional Subcommittee, have a hearing, go through regular order, the amendments process, and bring it before the body using that method. And she simply declined to do that. I thought that was a fair offer.
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, Congressman, it sounds like Some of the Republicans need to have a conversation with their colleagues about derailing the agenda of the American people. Nathaniel, always great to see you. Thanks so much for taking time to join us today.
SPEAKER 10 :
Thanks, Tony. Have a great evening.
SPEAKER 15 :
All right. You too. All right. On the other side of the break, Senator John Cornyn joins me with some good news about the southern border and just how little illegal immigration is taking place at the southern border. Can you believe it? We’ve actually hit a record low after hitting record highs. We’re now at a record low, which says to me, if there’s a will, there’s a way. Don’t go away. We’re back after this.
SPEAKER 06 :
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 world view. 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 15 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Good to have you with us. Let me remind you, it is out, the seventh episode of our God and Government series. You can get it only on the Stand Firm app. So make sure you have the Stand Firm app. Go to the App Store, download the Stand Firm app. where you can listen to Washington Watch. You can also get our news feed, our news and commentary feed, the Washington Stand, as well as my daily devotional, Stand on the Word. So if you don’t have it, text the word course to 67742 so you can have access to the God and Government course. I’ll send you a link. Earlier today, White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt announced some good news that would have been unthinkable during the Biden administration. The news? Illegal immigration at the southern border was down, are you ready for this, 94% from this March to last March. As one unnamed DHS source told the New York Post, these illegals are scared. There are consequences now. What does this say? It says that if you want to do something, you can do something. This whole thing that what we saw for four years at the southern border was by design. Joining me now to talk more about this, Senator John Cornyn from the great state of Texas. Senator Cornyn is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Cornyn, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us. Thanks, Tony. So this is big news, and it does reveal that if there’s a will, there’s a way.
SPEAKER 12 :
Absolutely. We didn’t need to pass any more laws. We just needed a president who would enforce the law. And that’s exactly what President Trump has done. And as you point out in your introduction, you talked about consequences. That’s one of the things that the Border Patrol would always tell me during the Biden administration was lacking. There were no consequences to coming to the country outside of legal channels. And also, I would say that we’re seeing some deterrence. That is, people who know that they’re not going to be allowed into the country absent a legally valid claim aren’t coming. And that’s had a dramatic impact.
SPEAKER 15 :
Now, Senator, the president has been citing the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 as his legal backing to deport dangerous gang members like MS-13. In fact, I think it was Sunday night, he sent another 17 people identified as violent criminals to El Salvador. If I’m not mistaken, there are some on the other side of the aisle, Democratic members of the Senate, that are trying to take that authority away from the president to crack down on what has been happening at our southern border.
SPEAKER 12 :
It’s hard to imagine, because if there’s people who certainly we do not want in the United States, it’s hardened criminals, and particularly those under final orders of deportation. There have been roughly a million and a half, maybe more, immigrants who are in the country who have had final orders of deportation, but the Biden administration simply refused to send them back home. That’s changing now, but certainly the Biden administration and Tom Homan, the head of ICE, is focusing on the worst of the worst, and that’s who you’re talking about here.
SPEAKER 15 :
Have you seen a noticeable difference in Texas? I mean, Texas is a border state. This is where a lot of these folks are coming across. Have you seen a noticeable difference in Texas?
SPEAKER 12 :
Absolutely. It’s been dramatic. And of course, to your point, it has been the border of Texas, 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, that has borne the burden, the principal responsibility to deal with what is actually a federal government responsibility. Governor Abbott and Texas leadership have had to step up and fill the gap and to do the federal government’s job because the Biden administration refused to do so. But now, as a result of the enforcement efforts of President Trump and his administration and the continued efforts of the Texas leadership, we’re seeing the kind of dramatic decreases in immigration that you’ve mentioned.
SPEAKER 15 :
All right. I need to ask you this question, Senator Cornyn, because as you’ve laid out, this was President Trump taking the authority that he had and using, looking for the authority under the Constitution and federal law. But Joe Biden had that same authority. He just didn’t use it. He didn’t want to use it. What can Congress do that would ensure that that southern border remains secure, regardless of who’s in the White House?
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, the first thing we can do is provide the funds that Tom Homan needs, the border czar, and this administration to provide for detention facilities and for additional personnel. Because you can imagine this is a very labor-intensive job, identifying these immigrants who are illegally in the country and then detaining them and then sending them back to their home country. But we need to, in order to actually make this permanent, we may need to consider additional legislation. Most of this is occurring under an executive order, which would expire at the end of President Trump’s term. And in fact, that’s what happened the first time, is all the executive orders that President Trump put in place, President Biden withdrew all those and created the open border. I guess more than anything, Tony, that what we need to do is to elect presidents who take their job in the law seriously, because we didn’t have that under Joe Biden.
SPEAKER 15 :
Just about 30 seconds left. But if you did have the law and a president did not enforce the law, could not Congress then take action against that president for not enforcing the law?
SPEAKER 12 :
It would be extraordinary, but I think warranted when we have a sort of invasion of humanity coming in. And so there are things we could do. For example, impeachment is something that’s provided in the Constitution if presidents aren’t doing their job.
SPEAKER 15 :
Right, right. Senator John Cornyn, always great to see you. Thanks so much for joining us today on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 12 :
Thanks, Tony.
SPEAKER 15 :
All right, when we come back, a part of the equation here, the courts, courts being used to stop the president’s agenda with nationwide injunctions. And we’re going to talk with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee next.
SPEAKER 05 :
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 13-part series that equips you with biblical truth to engage in today’s most pressing debates. From the Ten Commandments in Classrooms to the Immigration Crisis of America, we’ll uncover the foundations of our nation’s history and why it’s relevant for today. Defend God’s plan for government because faith and freedom were never meant to be separate. New episodes available each Monday. To view the series on the Stand Firm app, text COURSE to 67742.
SPEAKER 06 :
The world is hurting, streets are filled with crime, families are broken, sin is celebrated, and God is mocked. Everywhere we look, the wages of our sin are on full display. As Christians, we know that surrender to God’s will is the solution to our biggest problems, but not everyone agrees. Even in church, we hear people say the most important thing is to be tolerant, that we shouldn’t impose a morality on other people, and that loving our neighbor means celebrating what they do. But you can’t do that. It’s not that you don’t love your neighbor. You do. But you care about God’s opinion more than your neighbor’s opinion, and this makes you different. In fact, sometimes it makes you feel alone, like you are the only one. But there is good news. You are not alone, not even close. Research has found that there are 59 million American adults who are a lot like you. There are millions of people around the country who are born again, deeply committed to practicing their faith, and believe the Bible is the reliable Word of God. But that’s not all. They’re also engaged in our government. They’re voters. They’re more likely to be involved in their community, and they’re making a difference in elections. The problem is that a lot of them feel alone, too. We want to change that. FRC wants to connect these 59 million Americans to speak the truth together, no matter the cost. If you want to learn more about this group and what it means to be a spiritually active, governance-engaged conservative, or if you want to find out if you are one of these sage cons yourself, go to frc.org slash sagecon and take the quiz to find out. The world is hurting, and we have the solution. We can’t do it alone, but we can do it if we work together. That’s what we’re working toward every day. Join us. Go to FRC.org slash S-A-G-E-C-O-N, SageCon, to learn more. That’s S-A-G-E-C-O-N, SageCon, to learn more.
SPEAKER 15 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us. All right. Since President Trump took office in January, more injunctions have been filed by federal judges against President Trump than any president in history. One of the more controversial injunctions includes one from a Washington, D.C., district judge who sought to prevent President Trump from deporting dangerous criminals who were part of foreign gangs. Now, what’s happening here is that these injunctions are coming from district court judges, and instead of applying to their district, they’re applying it universally for the entire nation. This is an unprecedented use of misuse, I would say, of their judicial power. Therefore, Congress, which has authority over the lower courts because the lower courts are a creation by the Congress, they are clarifying this. And one of the measures that’s been introduced, introduced yesterday by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is the Judicial Relief Clarification Act, which would put an end to this judicial activism. And he joins us now by phone. Senator Grassley, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 11 :
I’m glad to be with you. Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER 15 :
All right, Senator. So I think I laid it out what the need is for your bill, but provide a little more context as to how urgent this legislation is needed to clarify the scope of the court’s authority.
SPEAKER 11 :
The urgency of it is, and my bill brings attention to the issue and how these national injunctions have been used to fight President Trump’s agenda. And so we have 600 or 700 district court judges. They serve in 93 different districts encompassing all of the United States. And when you have a national injunction in a California district, that means that that judge is making his decision nationwide to stop the president from doing what he thinks he should do as a result of his election and carrying out that election. And in the final analysis, this judge, one out of 600 or 700, is a policymaker instead of being a judge interpreting law. So my legislation would stop district judges from dictating national policy. It would limit judges to deciding cases and controversies. And the words cases and controversies come directly from the Constitution limiting what judges can do. So starting over again, it limits judges to deciding cases and controversies and the parties directly before them. and just having that interpretation applied to that single district court district and just to the parties and not any nationwide application. And to make sure that this sticks, we would strengthen and speed up the appeals process if either party wanted to take it higher up.
SPEAKER 15 :
Now, that actually has been the tradition. Usually, that’s what has been the case, that these decisions are rendered for the parties that are before the court affecting only that district. Am I correct? Yes. And so it’s highly… unusual that we see the courts taking such far-reaching actions. I mean, the only thing we’re left to assume here, Senator Grassley, is that this is, as you pointed out, judges who are legislating, judges who are trying to stop the agenda of President Trump and the Republicans.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah. So far, this bill has been introduced just by roughly 21 Republicans. It should get Democratic support because we had an effort made in the Biden administration by at least 243 Democrat members of Congress, Republican and Senate, saying the same thing I’m saying, how this was being abused. right by then i suppose republican judges in the biden administration to stop the biden agenda right so we should get bipartisan support but i’ll bet you we won’t because the democrats are using this tool very effectively
SPEAKER 15 :
You are correct in that this is something that cuts both ways. We saw this, not to the degree that we are seeing it now, but we did see it during the Biden administration. It’s kind of venue shopping. You get a judge that is going to be inclined with kind of your position, and hopefully you can get a broader ruling or injunction from the judge. Again, it cuts both ways. You’re right. You should have Democratic support for this, but I think you’re also correct. It’ll be unlikely that you will get it. So give us the timeline. You’re obviously the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, so you’re going to get a hearing in the committee. Do you think this will make its way to the Senate floor anytime soon?
SPEAKER 11 :
I think we have all Republicans on board. There’s a couple that have sponsored other bills, but I think in the end we get them all on board. So we have the hearing tomorrow. We will put it on the agenda. I assume we’ll put it on the agenda the next Wednesday. It can be automatically carried over for a week, so it will probably be after the recess of Congress. And there is one other thing that is a factor here, if the Supreme Court could do it. The Supreme Court writes rules of civil procedure. And there’s a process for them to put a stop to this by amending the rules of civil procedure, and it works this way. They have to submit them to Congress for our disapproval. So if we don’t disapprove of them, they automatically go into effect. And with the Congress the way it is right now, if Chief Justice Roberts would decide to do this, I can guarantee you that this would be handled much more effectively and probably with more strength behind it, I mean more prestige behind it, if the Supreme Court would do this on their own. But we can’t wait to see whether the Supreme Court will do something. So let’s say in 240 years the Supreme Court’s never done anything on this, Maybe they won’t. So that’s why Congress can act.
SPEAKER 15 :
And it is under the authority of the Congress. The Congress creates lower courts according to the Constitution. So it’s certainly within the purview of Congress to take these actions. Senator Grassley, always great to talk with you. Thanks so much for joining us today.
SPEAKER 11 :
Keep up your good work there.
SPEAKER 15 :
Goodbye. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So there was a similar bill in the House, Congressman Daryl Ice of California. That was to have a hearing this week in the Judiciary Committee, actually a vote this week. But that’s not going to happen as a result of the House having to adjourn. So we’ll watch it. It is important. It’s an important measure. It’s something that… needs to happen, restricting the reach of the court, the overreach of the courts. One of the issues that’s very important here at the Family Research Council, because it’s fundamental, is the issue of life. And of course, we’ve talked a lot about that, especially since the overturn of Roe v. Wade in the wake of the Dobbs decision. And we’ve continued to discuss that issue, even though many Republicans, especially in the year or two right after that, running from the issue. But we need to know how to address this life issue. It’s a spiritual issue. Before, it’s a political issue. And it has significant ramifications for our culture. And it’s so important that we get this right. And we got to begin from a biblical perspective. And I want to bring in David Clawson, who is the director of our Center for Biblical Worldview here at the Family Research Council, because he has a new book out. today called Life After Roe, Equipping Christians in the Fight for Life Today. The book takes a comprehensive look at the pro-life issue biblically, theologically, historically, and politically. And joining me now to talk about that is the author himself, David Klaus. And David, welcome back to Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hey, great to be with you, Tony. Thank you.
SPEAKER 15 :
Now, I know this is actually a book you’ve been working on for over two years. Let me just ask you first the question of what was the motivation for you to write this book, and what do you hope readers will take away?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, absolutely, Tony. And again, I want to thank you for your gracious endorsement of the book. And I interviewed you as well, along with other major pro-life leaders. So your comments are in the sixth chapter. But I think really, Tony, the Lord put it on my heart beginning really on May 2nd, 2022. So we all remember, of course, the Dobbs decision came down on June 24th. But about six or seven weeks before then is when Justice Alito’s opinion was leaked. And I happened to be near the court, and I was probably one of the first people to gather at the court once that leaked opinion came down. And it just reminded me afresh, Tony, the spiritual warfare around this issue. And so, of course, we’ve engaged on this issue since then. And to answer the question directly, I really felt the Lord calling me to write a book that could educate, equip, and encourage. We’ve done a lot of worldview research with George Barnum, and the church is not monolithic on this issue, Tony. Only 63% of regular churchgoers identify as pro-life. About 23% identify as pro-choice, and another 15% don’t know where they stand. But what’s encouraging is that 71%, according to the study we did with George Barna, desire more training from their church. So most Christians want to learn more. So my hope is this book will educate. I also want to equip. There’s a lot of new challenges, Tony. Chemical abortion, state constitutional referendums. other issues. So I want to equip and I want to encourage. I interviewed about a dozen state lawmakers around the country who passed courageous pro-life bills in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade overturning. So that’s the goal, Tony, educate, equip, and encourage.
SPEAKER 15 :
David, why do you think pastors are, not all, I want to be very careful, but some pastors, many pastors maybe, are hesitant to preach or teach on the topic of abortion.
SPEAKER 03 :
I think mainly there’s a lot of pastors, Tony, especially younger ones, so millennial pastors, guys that I went to seminary with, don’t want to be perceived as being too political. And what’s really interesting, I mentioned that research we did with George Barna, one year after Roe was overturned, only 44% of regular churchgoers told us that they had heard a sermon or teaching on the life issue in the 12 months since Roe was overturned. Tony, that astounded me. And then the 12 months after Roe was overturned, everyone had an opinion. The NBA put out a statement. The NFL put out a statement. Everyone in America had an opinion except a lot of pastors, apparently, only 44%. And so I think there’s some fear there, Tony. I think there is some fear of man, fear of offending people. But what I’d argue in the book is the Bible is clear from cover to cover. There’s a thus saith the Lord. Now, there’s some issues, Tony, we can agree to disagree on. On the life issue, we don’t have to guess what God’s opinion is. We have Psalm 139. We have Luke chapter 1, verses 39 through 45. So my encourage to brother pastors is that they would speak the truth clearly as revealed in Scripture.
SPEAKER 15 :
Right. And I think when you look at Scripture and you go through that in the book, Our position about the sanctity of human life is not built on one passage of Scripture. We see this thread of the sanctity of human life woven throughout Scripture from beginning to end. Therefore, I mean, we see this and we can have confidence in taking this stand. And this is not a new issue for the church. I mean, you also point out in the book, in church history, what Christians have taught about abortion for 2,000 years.
SPEAKER 03 :
Tony, I’ve got to be honest, that might have been the most encouraging part of my research, spending hundreds of hours in the Library of Congress. You know, the church has been clear on this issue for 2,000 years. And why is that? Well, one is because the Bible is clear on it. But the very first moral instruction manual says, of the Didache from the first century clearly prohibits abortion. This is something that Christians ought not to have any involvement with. And really, Tony, kind of if you put every figure in church history from Christostom to Augustine to Aquinas, there’s been one unbroken succession of voices. Again, whether you’re Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, There was just unbroken teaching on this until the 20th century. What happened? That’s when theological liberalism began to rise in some denominations, in some churches, and those churches in the 1920s, 1930s began to kind of get embarrassed with the supernatural teachings of the Bible, the virgin birth, Jesus’s miracles, literal resurrection. The churches that kind of overturned the Bible in the 1920s are the churches that changed their view on sexual ethics and abortion in the 1960s, 1970s. But even today, any denomination that has a high view of Scripture is crystal clear on the teaching of Scripture on this issue, Tony.
SPEAKER 15 :
All right, David, before we run out of time here, how can folks pick up a copy of your new book?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, my understanding is you can just follow the links at TonyPerkins.com, but it’s available wherever books are sold. You can go to Lifeway.com, B&H Academics, our publisher. And for listeners and viewers of Washington Watch, really grateful for my publisher, Tony. You can use actually the code WashingtonWatch, all one word, at checkout at Lifeway’s website, and you get 40% off. So that’s just a special gift from our publisher to viewers and listeners of this program.
SPEAKER 15 :
So it is entitled Life After Roe, Equipping Christians in the Fight for Life Today. And I would encourage you to get a copy of this because this issue is not going to go away. And we need to lead. You know, people are complaining about the politicians not taking positions. The spiritual leaders, Christians, have to lead the way and the political class will follow. David, final thought. We’ve got 20 seconds left. Final thought.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, my hope is that pastors, Christian leaders, and Christian parents, this is a book for discipleship and catechesis on, I think, what is the most pressing moral issue of our day. So again, Life After Roe, equipping Christians in the fight for life today. Pray that it serves the church and the body of Christ.
SPEAKER 15 :
David Clawson, great job. Thanks so much for joining us today. Thank you, Tony. And folks, I would echo, I do believe this is the pivotal issue. I know there are many, many other issues and we talk about those other issues, but this is at the core. It is the sanctity of human life because they’re created in the image of God. You get that wrong and you’re going to end up in the wrong place. Thanks for joining us today. We’re out of time, but until next time, just keep standing.
SPEAKER 17 :
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.
