In this episode of Washington Watch, Jody Heiss discusses the recent Supreme Court decision that struck down President Trump’s global tariffs, a pivotal component of his economic strategy. We analyze the implications of this decision with Jerry Boyer, CEO of Boyer Research, and explore its potential impact on American consumers and trade relations globally. In addition, we delve into the escalating tensions between the US and Iran with insights from Elliott Abrams, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
SPEAKER 21 :
from the heart of our nation’s capital in Washington, D.C., bringing compelling interviews, insightful analysis, taking you beyond the headlines and soundbites into conversations with our nation’s leaders and newsmakers, all from a biblical worldview. Sitting in for Tony is today’s host, Jody Heiss.
SPEAKER 20 :
The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing. And I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country. Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They’re so happy. And they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long. That I can assure you.
SPEAKER 16 :
That was President Trump earlier today reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down his global tariffs. Welcome to this February 20th edition of Washington Watch. I am your Friday host, Jody Heiss. Thank you so much for joining us today. All right. A lot coming your way, among other things. It was a six to three decision. The Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, which, of course, was a cornerstone of his economic agenda. So what does all of that mean for trade, for the markets and for the White House itself? Well, Jerry Boyer, president and CEO of Boyer Research, will be joining us a little bit later to break all that down. Plus, there’s breaking developments overseas. The Pentagon has deployed the largest U.S. naval force to the Middle East in decades, as President Trump warns Iran of possible military action if nuclear talks collapse. So is a strike imminent? Elliott Abrams, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, will give us his assessment of all of that. A partial government shutdown continues to drag on. We’re now in day seven as congressional Democrats in the White House remain deeply divided over immigration enforcement reforms. And now there are growing concerns over its impact over the agencies that are no longer receiving funding. Well, joining me now is Washington Stand reporter Casey Harper, who has been tracking all of today’s stories. Casey, what is going to be the impact for Americans and our country, for that matter, if this shutdown continues to drag on?
SPEAKER 24 :
Yeah, Jody, thanks. Well, you might want to get to the airport a little bit earlier, that’s for sure, because most TSA officers, not to mention the FEMA staff and many at Border Patrol and the U.S. Coast Guard, actually, are currently working without pay. Now, during last fall’s government shutdown, which I think went 43 days, there was an increase in TSA employees calling out of work. You can hardly blame them. And we can see travel delays and longer lines at the airport this time around if that happens again. As for Democrats and Republicans, it doesn’t look like they are going to reach a deal before the next payday is missed, though it is possible. Now, the partial government shutdown is also hindering FEMA’s efforts to reach areas that were impacted by those recent winter storms, which hit us, I know hit you, Jody. And DHS, by the way, has halted all travel for employees. So there’s a ripple effect going on. Now the partial shutdown could also impact FEMA’s ability to reimburse these states where they’re also seeing costs related to disaster relief. So a lot of different government agencies affecting Americans in many ways, Jody.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, absolutely. No way to run a government. Hopefully this will get resolved quickly. All right, Casey, also big news today, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s sweeping tariffs. What’s the latest that you’re hearing about that?
SPEAKER 24 :
Yeah, this is a bombshell six to three ruling where the justices ruled that the law President Trump used for many of his tariffs, though not all, that law, which is called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, it did not grant Trump the power that he said it did to impose those tariffs. Now, the Supreme Court’s ruling, it’s a major defeat for the Trump administration, which, by the way, has already collected about $200 billion in tariffs. Now, in a news conference today, President Trump said that the ruling was deeply disappointing and that he was ashamed. Here’s a clip.
SPEAKER 20 :
The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. They’re an automatic no, just like in Congress, they’re an automatic no. They’re against anything that makes America strong, healthy, and great again. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices.
SPEAKER 24 :
Strong words from the president. But he’s not giving up on tariffs. He said he’s just going to use different legal bases to enforce the same tariffs, including 10% global tariffs next week. Now, it’s important to note, Jody, the Supreme Court ruling didn’t address what happens to that $200 billion that’s already been collected, and that could be quite the lawsuit.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, and that’s a big question in all of this. It’s incredible how this is going to, again, we’ll watch how this unfolds. Casey, one other quick thing. The Pentagon has deployed now the largest concentration of American warships and aircraft to the Middle East in decades. The big question everyone’s asking is whether or not the U.S. is preparing to use force against Iran. Does this appear as imminent as some are thinking?
SPEAKER 24 :
Well, if you just judge, Jody, based on the sheer amount of ships that we have in the region, it sure seems like it. These are levels that we haven’t seen since the 2003 Iraq invasion. Now, President Trump acknowledged he’s considering using limited military strikes on Iran amid these nuclear talks, which so far don’t seem to have gone anywhere. Now, two U.S. officials reportedly said that options could include just targeting specific individuals in the regime, not necessarily a full-scale war where we’re hitting a bunch of military targets. They didn’t say who those individuals in the regime would be, but you could probably make some guesses based on who’s in leadership there. In fact, here’s the president on the talks with Iran today at a press conference.
SPEAKER 20 :
They better negotiate a fair deal. You know, the people of Iran are a lot different than the leaders of Iran. And it’s a very, very, very sad situation.
SPEAKER 24 :
Now, Iran has, the Iran Revolutionary Guard, rather, has warned they could retaliate against the U.S. if those strikes begin. And Iran, despite all the threats and the military presence in the region, they don’t seem to be willing to back down on their nuclear program, Jody.
SPEAKER 16 :
All right, Casey, as always, thank you so much for giving us the big bird’s eye view as we get started. All right, I want to turn our attention now and discuss the Democrat led partial government shutdown as we are now in day seven and frankly, no end in sight. So what could this mean for the economy if it continues to stretch out? Joining me now to discuss this and more is Congressman Mark Alford. He represents Missouri’s 4th Congressional District. He’s a member of the Appropriations Committee as well as the Subcommittee on National Security. Congressman Alford, always great to have you on Washington Watch. Thank you for joining us.
SPEAKER 15 :
Thank you. Good to be with you on No Tie Friday, Jody.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, absolutely. We all try to relax a little bit before the weekend gets here. All right. So what do you make of this stalemate between the White House and congressional Democrats as this shutdown now is in day seven?
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, look, Jody, I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. This is the stupidest shutdown in U.S. history. And it follows the 44-day longest shutdown in U.S. history, led by Chuck Schumer and his incompetence and his quest to be relevant and not be primaried in his next election. The reason this one is so stupid is because we fully funded ICE through the appropriations process. We funded all 12 appropriation bills, sent them over to the Senate. They sent all back but one, and that was the Homeland Security because of the way that ICE was doing its business in deporting illegal aliens, a mandate by the American people, 74 million of them who voted for President Trump wanted illegal aliens deported. But the Democrats didn’t like that. And so they raised a stink. They did not do what they agreed to do and that was to vote for the very bill that they negotiated so basically we funded ice through the one big beautiful bill for four years jody and uh that’s not going away ice is fully funded and so this the stink that the democrats have put up uh is for not really and it’s putting pressure now on other organizations that are funded through this Homeland Security Bill, FEMA, number one, TSA, the Coast Guard, our cybersecurity efforts here to keep us safe in the cyber world in the United States of America. Basically, the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot. They have no message, no leader, no vision, and they’re glomming on to anything they can, and their Trump derangement syndrome leading the way to try to get votes in the midterm. It’s not going to work, but people are figuring it out. Americans, even the liberals, are a lot more smarter than what these Democrats in the Senate are.
SPEAKER 16 :
It’s really fascinating to watch how all this goes down and tied up in the middle of all of this, unfortunately, is the American people and the economy. I know today, President Trump on social media actually called out last fall’s government shutdown as the reason for the slowdown in GDP growth at that time. And of course, accusing the Democrats for that. And now the Democrats are doing it all over again, as you say. So what are going to be what are and what will be some of the economic implications of all this if it continues to drag on.
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, if this goes on for an extended period, which I don’t think it will, it’s going to hurt the U.S. economy and it’s going to put the pressure on the Democrats to finally quit holding the American people hostage as they did back in November. I think this actually is going to be over after the State of the Union. I think Tuesday they want to raise a big stink on the House floor. Al Green wants to wave his cane once again at the president. They want to put up a big show for the American people to show their voters that they don’t like President Trump, they don’t like the Republicans, and they’re going to do everything they can to try to stop the MAGA movement, the America First agenda. I think once they do that, the pressure is going to be put on them by others, the airlines once again, TSA. You know, these federal workers got paid a week ago yesterday. They’re on a two-week pay cycle. They will not miss a paycheck for another week. Once that happens, the pressure will really be on. But I’m hoping and praying that the Democrats come to their senses. And after the State of the Union, for those who do not boycott it on the Democrat side and show up and make fools of themselves, maybe it’ll be over. The American people deserve much better than what they’re getting now from the Democrats.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, we certainly all hope it will be over, and the State of the Union is as good a time as any to end it. Real quickly, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s sweeping tariffs. Your thoughts on that?
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, look, one thing I’m glad of is the certainty now that this has given the president and those of us in Congress, because the Supreme Court has been sitting on this decision, a deliberation, and I think putting off making this decision for several months now. And we needed some certainty, certainty in the markets, certainty for the tariffs going forward. This is not the end of tariffs that President Trump is going to use to try to right what has been wrong for so long in trade. The trade imbalance, as you know, Jody, is deplorable. After World War II, we helped out particularly European countries with favorable trade for them so that they could rebuild their nations. They have rebuilt those nations. They are strong once again. And there’s no reason that they should be taking advantage of the United States. I thank God every day that we have a president in the White House behind that resolute desk who’s making resolute decisions trying to put America first. And the Supreme Court, particularly Justice Kavanaugh, gave the president some direction. And the president doubled down on that today from the White House, that he’s going to go a different route, imposing that 10 percent across the board tariffs. One way or another, this money will keep coming in and the balance will be there eventually for the American people.
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, it’s going to be very interesting to see what happens, and I’m glad you brought up the State of the Union address. Probably it’s not on the radar of a lot of people right now, but it’s coming up next Tuesday, and that always is an extremely important time where the president lays out his agenda and so forth. And as you brought up, we certainly anticipate some pushback from the Democrats. Congressman Mark Alford, thank you always for joining us on Washington Watch. Great to have you today.
SPEAKER 15 :
Thank you, Jody.
SPEAKER 16 :
Friends coming up. The US military presence is increasing in the Middle East. Tensions likewise increasing as a result will discuss this after the break with our next guest. So stay with us. We’ll be back in just a moment.
SPEAKER 18 :
You see, America has freedom for a purpose. The question is, are we living by that purpose today? See, the founders understood we as a nation would be accountable to God for what he had granted to us. They sought freedom for a purpose, and that freedom was given to us as a nation for that same purpose, to serve God, to honor him, and to live as a people under his authority.
SPEAKER 25 :
At the 2026 National Gathering for Prayer and Repentance in Washington, D.C., members of Congress, state leaders, evangelical leaders and intercessors from across the nation united as one voice in prayer.
SPEAKER 03 :
Heavenly Father, thank you so much for this gathering. We do repent. And we ask for your continued favor and blessing over our nation, even when we don’t deserve it.
SPEAKER 28 :
I thank you that because of the shed blood and the glorious righteousness of your son, Jesus Christ, a sinner such as myself can boldly approach your throne. You said that you helped to humble, and we’re asking just now that you would help us, Lord. Amen.
SPEAKER 21 :
While our God is marching on.
SPEAKER 04 :
Glory, glory to the King.
SPEAKER 06 :
We pray that you humble us, help us to follow after you with all our hearts so that we can see righteousness exalted in this nation and this nation restored to you. We know that it’s not by our power, it’s not by our might, but it’s by your spirit.
SPEAKER 18 :
Freedom has a name. His name is Jesus. And freedom has a purpose. It is to honor and glorify you. We pray that we would return to that purpose. Amen.
SPEAKER 09 :
The book of Hebrews says that the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Stand on the Word is Family Research Council’s journey through the living and active Word of God. Follow the plan with us. Spend 10 to 15 minutes a day reading God’s Word, and over the course of two years, discover that the Bible is one big story, a story of many words, pointing to the Word, the one who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. because the Word is alive and His name is Jesus. Find our Bible reading plan and daily devotionals from Tony Perkins at frc.org slash Bible. Join us as we stand on the Word.
SPEAKER 16 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. I am your Friday host, Jody Heiss, and so honored to have you with us today. All right, all signs are seemingly indicating that a U.S. strike on Iran is imminent. And some are even saying that it could happen as early as this weekend. So, of course, all this is taking place after there was no progress made earlier this week between talks with the U.S. and Iran on Tuesday in Geneva. And at the same time, the U.S. Navy is moving more and more and more assets into Iran’s neck of the woods. So is a military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran imminent? Well, joining me now to break all of this down is Elliott Abrams. He’s a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, and he previously served as the U.S. special representative for Iran during the first Trump administration. Elliott, welcome to Washington Watch. I appreciate you joining us.
SPEAKER 12 :
My pleasure. Good to be with you.
SPEAKER 16 :
Okay, so a U.S. strike on Iran at least appears to be imminent. So with that assumption, what would be the goal of this imminent airstrikes and whatever may follow? Is war with Iran actually on the horizon, you think?
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, I think an American strike is likely. That is, it’s more than a 50-50 chance. The president says, I think rightly, we’re not going to let them have a nuclear weapon. They cannot have a nuclear weapon. Pardon me. That’s why he did a great midnight hammer strike last year. There’s some evidence they’re trying to rebuild and rebuild their very large missile program. So I wouldn’t call this a war. I think what the president may do is a one-time strike at their nuclear and their missile sites, and then hope that they’re not crazy enough to try really to strike back against us.
SPEAKER 16 :
So if they do attempt to strike back, if they’re, as you say, crazy enough to do that, how does the Iranian military measure up to our own
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, it doesn’t measure up. Nobody’s really does, but certainly not theirs. I mean, they have no air force really to speak of. They’ve got planes that we gave the Shah, you know, 45 years ago, 50 years ago. They can do damage, however, in the immediate neighborhood. We have bases in the Gulf area and we have ships now, as you pointed out, more ships. When the president did Midnight Hammer last year, they did what I’d call a phony attack on our base in Qatar. They let us know what was coming. We pulled everybody out so that no Americans were hurt. And I believe that’s what they’ll do now. They could do damage to American bases. You know, we’ve got air defenses, but they’re not 100% perfect. They could try to sink an American naval ship If they try that hard enough, they will kill Americans. And I believe the president should, and I’m willing to bet is, going to pass messages to them if he decides to strike that this is another really one and done. And we’re not trying to overthrow the government. We’re not trying to eliminate the leadership. But If they strike back by trying to kill Americans, then the game is over. And I think they’ll believe him. I think he has credibility. So I’m hopeful that even if there is a strike, they’re not going to make that terrible mistake of trying to kill Americans.
SPEAKER 16 :
OK, so assuming there will be some sort of strike, whatever that may be a one one time or whatever on their nucleus facilities or missile facilities, whatever. How could a potential strike impact or affect the US and Iran talks that are underway?
SPEAKER 12 :
Well. If the talks were going well, there wouldn’t be a strike. I think they’re going nowhere. And I think it was Vice President Vance who said that they weren’t coming anywhere near respecting our red lines, which are, for example, no enrichment of uranium to build a nuclear weapon. I suspect that if there is a strike, that the president will then say to Iran, now let’s go back to the negotiating table. We didn’t want to do this. We had to do it because the negotiations were impossible with you guys. Now maybe you’ve learned the lesson. Let’s go back to the table and let’s see if we can reach a deal.
SPEAKER 16 :
Interesting. So let’s shift gears a little bit and talk about the Board of Peace. They held their first meeting, of course, yesterday, and in that pledged billions for rebuilding Gaza. So first of all, your thoughts overall on the Board of Peace. Is this organization even necessary, seeing that we already have the United Nations? But your thoughts about it.
SPEAKER 12 :
I think the president wanted a way to organize the efforts for Gaza, right? And he did that, and he appears to have raised from the Arabs about $7 billion. There are five or six countries that have said they will train Palestinian police, they will put some of their own troops in. But I don’t think the Board of Peace is going to be able to answer the fundamental question, which is Hamas. which is how do you disarm Hamas? None of these investments are going to be made in the rebuilding of Gaza or sending foreign troops if Hamas is not disarmed. Because these foreign troops from Indonesia and other places, they’re not willing to fight. They’re, you know, kind of the standard UN type. which is willing to keep parties apart if they want to be apart, but it’s not willing to fight. Only the Israelis are really willing to fight Hamas. So I don’t think the board of peace is really able yet to do what it needs to do. You know, half of Gaza is now under Israeli control. I think the Board of Peace can help organize and will organize some reconstruction, rebuilding in the area that the Israelis control. And some of those foreign troops can go in there. as well but i don’t think the board of peace is going to be able to get beyond that most difficult question which is if hamas won’t voluntarily disarm who’s going to do it and i think you know in the end you get to the israelis by the way jody i just want to answer one other thing about iran uh when i got about 30 seconds i i think they’re going to hit israel and i think if we strike iran they’re gonna turn around and hit the Israelis. And all the Israelis I know are aware of this and people are getting ready their safe rooms and bunkers. And I think that’s what’s likely to happen if we hit Iran.
SPEAKER 16 :
Wow. Thank you, Elliot Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations for your incredible insights. We appreciate it a great deal. All right, friends, don’t go anywhere. We’ve still got a lot to cover and it’s all coming straight ahead. My next guest, Jerry Boyer, will discuss the bombshell Supreme Court decision on the president’s tariffs. So stay with us. We’ve got a lot more coming your way right after the break.
SPEAKER 19 :
The family is the oldest, most tested, and most reliable unit of society. It is divinely created and sustained. And yet, there are those who are always tampering with its values and structure. That’s why we need organizations like the Family Research Council that can effectively defend and strengthen the family.
SPEAKER 21 :
Family Research Council began over 40 years ago, like all great movements of God, with prayer. Today, rooted in the heart of the nation’s capital, FRC continues to champion faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview.
SPEAKER 04 :
FRC is one of those bright lights that helps us focus on true north. And I shudder to think, had they not been here, that it could have been worse, worse, worse.
SPEAKER 22 :
The Family Research Council is key. It’s one of a handful of groups that I think will determine whether our children live in a country that enjoyed all of the freedom and all the opportunity that we enjoyed in this great land.
SPEAKER 10 :
It’s just a wonderful parachurch organization that doesn’t seek to take the place of the church, but it seeks to assist the family and the church as we try to move forward successfully, not in a defensive mode, but in an offensive mode as we seek to live our lives according to the Holy Scriptures.
SPEAKER 02 :
FRC is not going to be whooped. You know, we’re going to fight. We’re going to take a stand. And again, we don’t retreat.
SPEAKER 18 :
You will never see in front of this building here in Washington, D.C., a white flag flying. We will never step back. We will never surrender. And we will never be silent.
SPEAKER 16 :
You’re tuned in to Washington Watch. Thank you so much for joining us. And I’m honored to be your Friday host. My name is Jody Heiss. All right. We’re all kind of standing around watching the dust settle from a U.S. Supreme Court decision. It was a 63 decision this morning against President Trump’s tariffs. And American consumers, quite frankly, are left to wonder how this might impact their pocketbooks. So is this court decision a good one or a bad one? as it relates to american consumers well joining me now to discuss this and more is economist jerry boyer he’s the ceo of boyer research sherry welcome back to washington watch great to have you thank you thanks jody great to be with you okay i i know you’re not an attorney but let me just ask you were you at all surprised by the supreme court’s decision on these tariffs
SPEAKER 14 :
No, not at all. I would have been surprised if it had gone the other direction. Because even though I’m not an attorney, I read the Constitution of the United States, which I believe firmly is not mainly restricted to attorneys. So I think we can all read the Constitution, and it’s pretty clear. Thank you. It’s pretty clear in Article 1. Article 1 is about the United States Congress, you know, the legislative branch. It’s Article 1 for a reason. It’s the one closest to the people. Taxing power is vested there. Tariffs are taxes. We have something called separation of powers in the United States. Whether you agree with the president’s tariff agenda or not you have to agree with the constitution um and presidents are not allowed to gin up taxes out of thin air or or even get rid of them out of thin air although if they’re going to do that i might be a little friendlier to that so the supreme court simply upheld the tradition of american law this thing’s a tax mr president if you want to attack if you want there to be an additional tax go over to congress and ask them for it and see if you can convince them
SPEAKER 16 :
So it’s a pretty complicated thing. Remind us of the effects that consumers have seen with the tariffs so far and what happens now that really for all intents and purposes they’ve been ruled unconstitutional.
SPEAKER 14 :
Yeah. So I’m surprised when people are surprised that prices went up after the tariffs, because that’s something it’s not just something that’s a side effect of tariffs. It’s what tariffs are designed to do. So let’s kind of go back to what let me put myself in the place of somebody who thinks Liberation Day is a great thing and we ought to have more tariffs. The rationale for a tariff is that Americans produce goods, foreigners produce some goods and services cheaper. And so what happened, that hurts the American companies and producers. And so we’re gonna put a tariff on the foreigners so that raises the price of the foreign goods to give American consumers, excuse me, to give American businesses a little breathing room so they can raise their prices too and make a profit. so the mechanism of tariffs is supposed to be to raise prices to decrease competition to help american companies in competition with foreigners now understand they’re competing for our business so it doesn’t help consumers it’s never going to help consumers and no advocate of tariffs would ever say that it would or at least any serious one it’s supposed to hurt consumers but help producers and so we shouldn’t be surprised when it raises prices raising prices is what it’s intended to do Now, you might say raises prices, but that’s a bad thing, and it helps American businesses. Fine, you can make that argument, but don’t tell me that we should be surprised when prices go up. And I would argue that there’s really one reason Donald Trump is president. It’s not most of his agenda. It was the Bidenflation. Inflation was very high under Biden. The president was supposed to bring inflation down, and it’s certainly lower than it was under Biden, but it’s higher than it should be, and tariffs are part of that. And so by removing those, the things that were most tariffed, in the past year were the things that went up most in price, like beef, for example. I think the Supreme Court just did the president a solid. By striking down these tariffs, we’re going to get some decreases in prices, and it just might help Republicans in the midterms.
SPEAKER 16 :
Really good how you broke that down for us. So what happens to the $200 billion in tariffs that have already been collected? Do we know what becomes of that money that already is in the bank, so to speak?
SPEAKER 14 :
Yeah, well, it has to be given back. And some people argue that that’s a negative because this is very strange to me. I’m a conservative Republican and my whole life I was always taught and I believe that deficits are not a matter of that we’re not taxing ourselves enough, it’s that we’re spending too much. and so raising taxes to cut deficits is not the solution okay so we raised tariffs and that made the deficit go down a little bit so what’s going to happen is the supreme court basically said hey federal government you over taxed americans give it back so they over taxed and we’re getting that back seems to me like that’s a good thing
SPEAKER 16 :
All right. So last question for you then. How does all of this affect trade deals that the president has already signed? I mean, that takes this whole thing. There’s an agreement on both sides of the table here for a new trade deal. Does this decision from the Supreme Court impact that in any way?
SPEAKER 14 :
Well, it certainly doesn’t impact it directly. Those deals are deals. Now, it might be that the other countries say, well, we did it because we thought you had tariff power, and so we gave you the deal that you wanted, and so we’re going to go back on that deal. I don’t think they’re going to do that. I think that most of the world is afraid of Donald Trump. on matters of tariffs and other matters. And I don’t mind the world respecting us a little more and seeing a president who is resolute. I don’t think it’s going to change any of those deals, and I wouldn’t want it to change any of those deals. Most of that was decreasing trade taxes across the board, and I like that. So I think, look, I… I think the president’s big, beautiful bill, which became the large, lovely law, is stimulative and it’s growth-oriented. I believe in the president’s agenda enough to believe that we don’t need protectionism to win. We already have pro-growth tax policy. We already have deregulation. We don’t need monetary stimulus. We don’t need trade taxes. Mr. President, you did it already. Take a victory lap. Let the economy run and stay off Twitter for a little while and let’s have a little stability in trade policy.
SPEAKER 16 :
Jerry Boyer of the Boyer Research, thank you so much for your expertise and for breaking all this down for us. We appreciate it. All right, friends, don’t go anywhere. Dr. David Claussen will be joining me next for our weekly biblical worldview discussion. Stay with us.
SPEAKER 18 :
We have state leaders that want to keep the deadly drugs out of their states. Maybe if these abortion pills were coming by boat, the administration would change its tactics. It’s time to respect the rights of the states, and it’s time to end death by mail.
SPEAKER 13 :
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, alongside Senator Lindsey Graham, led a press conference on Capitol Hill, urging the Trump administration to end the Biden-era policies that have allowed dangerous abortion drugs to be shipped across state lines. They were joined by state attorneys general, pro-life advocates, and multiple Republican congressmen.
SPEAKER 08 :
There are more abortions today in the United States than when Roe versus Wade was the law of the land. And why is that? It’s because of the chemical abortion drug, Mifeprestone. Nearly 70% of the abortions that are committed in the United States today are committed because of Mifeprestone.
SPEAKER 11 :
The federal government is allowing a chemical abortion pill to be sent through the mail that wipes out every state unborn protection law in the land.
SPEAKER 05 :
It’s harder to ship alcohol in this country than it is to ship the abortion pill.
SPEAKER 17 :
And that should never be the case. This is a drug that takes the life of every child. So there is always a death that’s involved in this drug, but is also incredibly dangerous for the mom as well. We think that we should require a doctor to be able to get access to this drug.
SPEAKER 27 :
As a doctor, I think it’s essential that there be human contact before the pill is prescribed.
SPEAKER 23 :
It’s not about a national abortion ban. It’s about validating Dobbs and preventing other states from nullifying the legislative policy choices that have been made by our states and facilitating the illegal, unethical, and dangerous drug trafficking of abortion pills into our states without any medical oversight whatsoever.
SPEAKER 11 :
We can simply fix this if we have the courage to do it. So what are all of us telling the administration? You’ve been a great pro-life president, Mr. President. It is now time to deal with this issue.
SPEAKER 08 :
We want to protect life, and we want to give voice to the American people and their right to protect life state by state, city by city, and, yes, here in the United States Congress. That’s what this fight is about.
SPEAKER 13 :
Let your voice be heard. Text LIFE to 67742. Sign the petition. Tell the Trump administration to act.
SPEAKER 01 :
The Stand Firm app brings trusted Family Research Council resources together in one place. Stay informed with news articles from the Washington Stand, watch interviews from Washington Watch, explore courses produced by FRC, and find many other resources to equip you to engage culture and government from a biblical perspective. Download the Stand Firm app today by texting APP to 67742 or by searching for Stand Firm in your app store.
SPEAKER 16 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. I am Jody Heiss, your Friday host. Thank you so much for joining us. Before I bring in Dr. Claussen, I wanted to share with you real quickly a new initiative that FRC has going on for the purpose of equipping believers to engage locally, to engage prayerfully, to engage biblically. It’s what we’re referring to as our Pray, Vote, Stand chapters outreach. These are local gatherings, chapters, that are rooted primarily in local churches, the purpose of which is to bring believers together to pray for their communities, to pray for their government leaders, secondly, to vote for and positively influence government leaders, and thirdly, to stand boldly for biblical truth. Now, we believe that these pray, vote, stand chapters can literally alter the spiritual climate of every community where they’re located, which will in turn obviously impact the political environment in a city, in a county. a state, and potentially even our entire country as this continues to grow. So to find out more about these local chapters or how to start one yourself, simply text the word chapters, that’s plural, chapters, to 67742. We believe this can help lay a foundation for national renewal, and certainly we need that now more than ever. All right, there certainly has been no shortage of major news stories demanding our attention this week. And I want to return to a few of them that especially call for some thoughtful biblical and Christian reflection. And joining me now as he almost always does on Friday afternoons to discuss these developments is Dr. David Claussen. He’s the director of the Center for Biblical Worldview here at the Family Research Council. David, welcome back to Washington Watch. Happy Friday to you.
SPEAKER 07 :
Happy Friday. Great to be with you again, Jody.
SPEAKER 16 :
All right, so earlier this week, CBS, I want to start with this. They made a decision to pull an interview between Stephen Colbert and Senate candidate James Tallarico, and that decision by itself certainly generated a good bit of attention. But what has received far less attention is the substance of that interview itself, where there were some striking claims about Christianity and politics. And I’d like to get started, David, if I can, with a brief clip from that, and then get your response. So play clip one for me, please.
SPEAKER 26 :
Well, for 50 years, the religious right, a political movement, that is the perfect description for it. They convinced a lot of our fellow Christians that the most important issues were abortion and gay marriage. Two issues that aren’t mentioned in the Bible, two issues that Jesus never talked about.
SPEAKER 16 :
All right, let’s start right there, David. What’s your reaction to those comments?
SPEAKER 07 :
James Tallarico is traveling a well-trodden path that mainline Protestants have gone down for many years, and that’s learning how to invoke Scripture to baptize a left-leaning political agenda. This is something that Pete Buttigieg has been doing for years. This is something that Raphael Warnock, a senator from Georgia, has been doing. I’m not at all surprised by any of those comments, Jody. Tallarico, he’s a recent graduate from a PCUSA seminary there in Texas. Of course, the PCUSA denomination, this is a very liberal denomination. They endorsed same-sex marriage over a decade ago. And so I’m not at all surprised by those comments. Many who are kind of part of the mainline theologically liberal denominations, these are the arguments you expect to hear. What is interesting, though, that did catch my attention is later on in that interview, he goes on to talk about salvation. And he actually argued for a works-based salvation with Stephen Colbert. I found that fascinating. And so, again, even that conversation right there should tell you really all you need to know about James Tallarico. You know, I don’t think Texas voters should go to him, really, for any of their theological or biblical interpretation, because, again, it’s just kind of using Scripture to cloak a really pro-abortion, pro-LGBT agenda.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, well, let me press in a little bit more to this. Certainly the assertion that Jesus never mentioned same-sex marriage, on the surface, there’s some truth in that, that we don’t have any record of Jesus explicitly addressing that phrase. But certainly there is enormous biblical evidence instruction, all of which is written by God, by Christ. So respond to that. How should Christians respond to that argument that Jesus never mentioned anything specifically about, say, homosexuality or abortion?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, Jody, so that’s an argument I hear often. It’s one we address in our worldview workshops, actually, that the idea that Jesus never explicitly addressed homosexuality, therefore he would be completely okay with homosexuality or same-sex marriage as it’s practiced today. Three points. Number one, Jody, that’s an argument from silence. On the page of the New Testament, you don’t hear Jesus talk about bestiality or rape or incest, and yet no one would say, that Jesus would endorse those practices. So I think, first of all, this is an argument from silence. But number two, we know that Jesus believed in the binding authority of the Old Testament. In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5, verse 17, Jesus says that whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments will be least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever teaches them and does them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. He’s talking about the Old Testament law. And we know in the Old Testament law, In Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22, Leviticus chapter 20 verse 13, homosexuality is clearly prescribed and condemned. And so I think we need to realize that Jesus affirmed the binding authority of the Old Testament. And then I think thirdly, Jesus affirmed the creation pattern for marriage and sexuality. I’ll give you one text, Jody. It would be Mark chapter 10. It’s when the Pharisees asked Jesus about the question of divorce. Jesus answers them by going to Genesis 1 and 2. He specifically draws their attention to the fact that it’s male and female that God created. Again, if sexual difference was not important in marriage, Jesus would not go to Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to make this point. The verse that Jesus quotes, He says, Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother, hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. For anyone that’s interested in this issue, it’s Robert Gagnon, actually, I think, who’s written the definitive work on this. It’s called The Bible and Homosexual Practice. I commend that to folks. But I think it’s important to realize these arguments are not new, and we have answers from Scripture to answer them.
SPEAKER 16 :
Oh, a great, great response there. What about his comments on abortion as well? I know you’ve studied this extensively and have your new book out, Life After Roe. Why do you believe the senators, the candidates’ assertions miss the mark as it relates to abortion as well from a biblical perspective?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, Jody, it is not hard to make a theological argument about abortion. Just go to the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, thou shall not kill. What is abortion? It’s the intentional taking of innocent life. We have other texts, of course, Psalm 139, 13 through 16, Luke 1, verses 39 through 45, Jeremiah 1, verses 4 through 5. There is a whole litany of Scripture that we could give where God affirms the personhood of the unborn child. It’s quite easy, again, to make kind of that pro-life ethic from Scripture. But let me make one other point, Jody. I’m not surprised, again, that this state senator, who’s a recent grad from this very progressive seminary, this seminary, I looked this up right before I came on the program, Some of the student groups that you can join at this seminary include, one of them is the Queer Alliance, and another one is Seminarians for a Free Palestine. So again, I think that tells you all you need to know about this very progressive, very liberal seminary. Unfortunately, I think they’re teaching a lot of their students how to kind of put the window dressing of Christianese on some of these public policy issues. But again, all they’re doing is baptizing really a far left political agenda with the language of Christianity. And it’s severing the biblical text from its context. And it’s not something that I think is faithful to the meaning of the Bible.
SPEAKER 16 :
If I can, I’d like to shift gears with you. Of course, Minnesota has been in the news so much in recent weeks and months, and now we have a transgender state representatives there, Lee Fink, who had made some very shocking statements against age verification for pornography, which is stunning to me. Again, we’ve got a clip here that I want to put up for you and get your reaction to what he said. Play clip two for me, please.
SPEAKER 05 :
ags in many states are very clear about that they’re almost jubilant about being able to use these laws to ban young people from accessing content that could be educational if they are queer and you are principal you have lgbt students in your school and we also knew know that they’re not receiving sex education for queer kids we know that prurient interest could be for many people the very existence of transgender kids.
SPEAKER 16 :
All right. How do you respond to that?
SPEAKER 07 :
When I first saw that clip, I was so confused. Of course, the person making those arguments, Representative Finke, this is someone who identifies as transgender, so this is someone whom I’m often on the other side of an issue. But at that hearing yesterday, that clip that you just played, Jody, that is where the lawmaker is literally making an argument against a bipartisan age verification law that would protect minor children from pornography. And so I was so surprised how anyone could argue for this. I actually called two of my friends from Minnesota, Rebecca Delahunt, who does the policy for the Minnesota Family Council, and Renee Carlson, who leads the True North Legal advocacy group that’s related to the Family Policy Council. And Becca explained to me that it is true that the bill in question, it’s House File 1434, All it does is require certain porn sites to verify the ages of its users before granting access to the content. It’s that straightforward. And Becca also pointed out that the Senate companion bill has three Republican co-sponsors and two Democrat co-sponsors. So again, it has bipartisan support, but again, Representative Finke evidently believes, Jody, that watching pornography is something that transgender and queer-identifying young people should have access to pornography in the name of sex education. One other point I’d make on this is, again, the context of this comes after the Paxton case that the Supreme Court heard last summer. The Supreme Court upheld a challenge to a similar Texas law that again simply required pornography sites to verify the ages of those who are trying to access these sites. In her testimony yesterday, Renee Carlson, she noted that many of the objections that Representative Finke and opponents of this bill are making about this, they were already raised at the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has already made a decision on this and so again the question isn’t whether this bill should be legal it’s whether shielding kids from a predatory industry is the right public policy question so Jodi I think this should be an easy decision 25 states in the country have already passed these bills with bipartisan support, and I just think it’s disturbing that anyone would want to hold up a law like this and make the claim that, well, gender-confused kids actually needs access to pornography. It’s a horrendous argument, and hopefully the good people of Minnesota will pass this law.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, and you mentioned, I mean, really what this is all about is protecting kids. And along those lines, I know Chloe Cole this week, she’s an advocate for protecting kids against the harms of gender transition procedures. But she got some good news this week. Have you been tracking that?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, Jody, really briefly, Chloe Cole is going to get her day in court April 5th, 2027. Of course, Chloe is someone who identified as transgender as a minor. She was put on puberty blockers at age, I think, 12, got a double mastectomy at age 15. She is detransitioned to identify as the beautiful young lady that she is. and she’s gonna have her day in court. And so this, of course, follows on the heels of just a couple of weeks ago, where the first settlement of a $2 million settlement was given to a D. Transitioner who sued her doctor and psychologist. We’re going to see more of this. And again, I think this is the return of sanity on this issue. And I wish Chloe Cole great success in this suit.
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, it’s just an effort to return to the biblical, God-centered, created pattern that he has made. Let me ask you real quickly, our time’s running out, but we’ve talked a lot about this with others, and it’s all over the news. President Trump is considering a potential strike on Iran. I know we have talked about war theory, just war theory in the past. Anything you want to add to what potentially might be taking place here and how Christians ought to be thinking about this?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, very briefly, Jody. I know the Christian just war theory is a rich tradition, goes back to Augustine and Aquinas and others, provides criteria for when a war is just to engage. So there’s criteria that need to be in place, that it’s a just authority, it’s proportional. And then when you’re in war that there’s certain criteria that you abide by my prayer and hope is that President Trump Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and others are going to be thinking clearly about this. I know this is complicated We’re not privy to the information they have but here’s my challenge to Christians across the country again. This is widely reported Let’s be in prayer for the commander-in-chief. Let’s be in in prayer for the Secretary of War as they’re weighing their decisions. Now, let’s be in prayer for the people of Iran, and in particular the underground church in Iran. Very difficult times, very difficult circumstances we’re living in. I think this is a great thing for us to be praying through the weekend as the leaders kind of weigh what they’re going to do on this important issue, Jody.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, absolutely, and especially in light of the fact that some are saying that a strike could potentially take place sometime this weekend. Of course, none of us know whether that will happen or not, but there’s a lot happening. Dr. David Claussen, as always, thank you so much for joining us for our weekly Biblical Worldview segment. All right, friends, that wraps up this edition and yet another week of Washington Watch. Have a fantastic weekend, and Washington Watch will be with you again next week.
SPEAKER 21 :
Washington Watch with Tony Perkins is brought to you by Family Research Council. To support our efforts to advance faith, family, and freedom, please text GIVE to 67742. That’s GIVE to 67742. Portions of the show discussing candidates are brought to you by Family Research Council Action. For more information, please visit TonyPerkins.com.
