In this episode of Washington Watch, host Tony Perkins leads us through a comprehensive analysis of recent national and international developments. From President Trump’s speech on military operations in Iran, the show delves into the implications of regime changes and strategic objectives, bringing in experts like David Wormsmer to provide insights. The discussions explore the geopolitical consequences and the historical references that align with current events.
SPEAKER 11 :
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 04 :
Thanks to the progress we’ve made, I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly. We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing. Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders’ death. They’re all dead.
SPEAKER 08 :
That was President Donald Trump in his address to the nation last night, giving an update on the war in Iran. Welcome to this Thursday, April 2nd edition of Washington Watch. I’m your host, Tony Perkins. Thanks for tuning in. Well, after weeks of a partial shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security, a path forward now appears to be taking shape. Virginia Congressman Ben Kline, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, joins me shortly with the latest. And President Trump, as we mentioned, addressed the nation last night, giving an update on the U.S. military operations in Iran. But did he answer the question many Americans are asking? Why are we there? And when are we coming home? I’ll discuss that with David Wormsmer, senior analyst for the Middle East Affairs at the Center for Security Policy. Well, in breaking news, President Donald Trump has dismissed Attorney General Pam Bondi. Her interim replacement is Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch. Joining me now with more on this developing story is The Washington Stand’s Casey Harper. Casey, walk us through what led up to her dismissal today.
SPEAKER 17 :
Sure thing, Tony. A lot of big shakeups in the administration. First, Kristi Noem, and now Pam Bondi out at the president’s dismissal. Now, her ousting reportedly comes after growing frustration from President Trump over her leadership, in particular her handling of Jeffrey Epstein files. I’m sure you remember that she sort of multiple times said, we’ve released all the files, only for there to be more and more. And it was just perceived that she mishandled that, and they took a lot of flak even from the right on that issue. And she was also accused of BEYOND JUST CREATING THOSE POLITICAL HEADACHES OF NOT BEING AGGRESSIVE ENOUGH IN PROSECUTING THE PRESIDENT’S ADVERSARIES, WHO HE WANTED TO FACE CRIMINAL CHARGES IN MANY INSTANCES. NOW, SOURCES ARE SAYING THAT LONG TERM, PRESIDENT TRUMP MAY TAP ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR LEE ZELDIN TO TAKE OVER AS ATTORNEY GENERAL. WE’LL SEE IF THAT COMES TRUE. BUT THE PRESIDENT HAD WELL WISHES FOR THE FORMER AG ON TRUE SOCIAL. HE PRAISED HER FOR OVERSEEING A BIG CRACKDOWN ON CRIME, WHICH IS TRUE, AND HE SAID SHE’S GOING TO BE TRANSITIONING OUT after a time of faithful service.
SPEAKER 08 :
Very interesting. I wonder if there are, as you mentioned, Kristi Noem was the first, she’s the second. Are there any other individuals we’re hearing about that may be departing this administration? Interesting question. All right. Let’s go. Let’s go to the president’s address last night. He talked to the nation about kind of giving an update on military operation in Iran. He talked about what has been successful and the objectives and says it’s going to end pretty soon. Walk us through kind of the key takeaways from his speech.
SPEAKER 17 :
I mean, I’ve been covering the president and his talk on Iran every day for weeks now, since the war began. And really, that speech was nothing new. It was more of the same talkie points and rhetoric that we’ve heard from the president, despite a lot of speculation that there would be a big announcement. It was really a rehearsal of the same talkie points. He said the U.S. has nearly accomplished its goal in Iran. They’ve crippled and really destroyed the military capabilities there, including the ballistic missiles, which have always been a big concern, and the nuclear program. which is the stated reason for the military operation in the first place. Now, he said that despite Iran being defeated, they’re going to hit Iran very hard over the next two or three weeks and send them back to the Stone Age. But that two or three weeks is an important timeline. He’s been repeatedly this week saying it’ll be two or three weeks before the war is over. So he stayed I THINK IT’S A GREAT POINT. I THINK IT’S A GREAT POINT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SPEAKER 04 :
Iran has been essentially decimated. The hard part is done, so it should be easy. And in any event, when this conflict is over, the Strait will open up naturally. It’ll just open up naturally. They’re going to want to be able to sell oil because that’s all they have to try and rebuild. It will resume the flowing, and the gas prices will rapidly come back down. Stock prices will rapidly go back up. They haven’t come down very much, frankly.
SPEAKER 17 :
Now, the president also said that those countries that are feeling the most pain from the Strait of Hormuz being closed should be the ones who are helping open it. He’s expressed a lot of frustration, in particular with NATO nations, Tony, even saying a couple times this week that he’s considering leaving NATO, which would be a huge shakeup.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, and NATO relies very heavily upon the United States for its security. So I’m sure they’re a little nervous about those statements because oftentimes he follows through. That’s right.
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah, he does. And a lot of the British and other European newspapers, that was the front page news across the country, the president saying that he might leave because YOU KNOW, THIS MAY NOT BE IN THE AMERICAN MIND, BUT IN THE EUROPEAN MIND, A RUSSIAN INVASION PUSHING THROUGH UKRAINE FURTHER INTO NATO IN MANY WAYS IS ONLY HELD BACK BY THREAT FROM THE U.S. AND IF THAT THREAT IS GONE, THEY THINK IT COULD HAPPEN.
SPEAKER 08 :
About time they start ponying up to provide their own defense. All right, the Senate has again advanced a bill to restore most of the funding to the Department of Homeland Security. It’s almost identical to the bill that the House rejected last week. But apparently now a deal would kind of clear the way to end this partial government shutdown if the House approves the bill this time. What does this deal look like? Is it likely to happen?
SPEAKER 17 :
You know, I think it probably is, but it’s going to be messy getting there. The bill accomplishes the first part of working with Democrats to fund DHS as much as possible soon. But it doesn’t provide for that important additional funding for ICE or Border Patrol, which are, you know, funded at least for now. We do have a clip from earlier this morning when the Senate voted to reject the House amendment. All in favor say aye. Aye.
SPEAKER 19 :
All opposed say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. THE MOTION IS AGREED TO.
SPEAKER 17 :
NOW ALL EYES ARE GOING TO BE ON RECONCILIATION WHERE REPUBLICANS ARE HOPING TO GET A MORE ROBUST FUNDING FOR CBP AND ICE, TONY.
SPEAKER 08 :
ALL RIGHT, CASEY. APPRECIATE THE UPDATE. INTERESTING TIMES WE LIVE IN.
SPEAKER 19 :
ABSOLUTELY.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right. We are about to connect with our first guest, but I think we may skip ahead and we’re going to go to David Wormsmer about the taking a look at the speech the president made last night and whether or not he answered really the question that’s on a lot of Americans mind. Why are we there and have we accomplished what we set out to do? Joining me now is David Wormsmer. He is a senior analyst for Middle East Affairs at the Center for Security Policy. Dr. Wormsmer, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. It’s always an honor. So your initial reaction to the president’s address last night, the key takeaways, did he address what was on Americans, on the minds of Americans?
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, I mean, the question is, was that his goal? I’m not entirely sure. But first of all, the takeaways. One, of course, is that those who expected him to announce a ceasefire or to find a quick way to disengage, I think were disappointed. He clearly is going forward, and he will go forward, at least for another two weeks, which is probably about how much will be needed to continue to exhaust all the targets from the outset we had. So first of all, I think he’s carrying this through to the end.
SPEAKER 08 :
Which is a good thing. I mean, you don’t want to stir this up and then back away. You want to finish the job.
SPEAKER 09 :
Exactly, exactly. Especially now, when you look, we have Jordan today, just now, a few hours ago, joined in and said, we have to deal with this problem fully. You have a lot of the Gulf states saying it. Obviously, Israel’s been saying it. It’s really an odd situation where everybody surrounding Iran, other than Turkey, is saying, deal with it, deal with it all the way. Now, I I share the frustration of many Americans that there should be more effort put by some of the other regional players. Israel’s obviously doing a lot of heavy lifting, but the rest are not as much. But that said, one of the main contributions that they’re giving us right now, since I’m much more skeptical about their military capabilities, is to tell the world, look, we really are dealing with such a dangerous regime. You don’t want to leave this cobra wounded in the corner. because you can ever then turn your back on it it’s an endless situation of threat so that is a big favor they’re doing us globally is to tell the world whatever your internal opposition is saying whatever frustrations you have this regime is intolerably dangerous so that’s one major thing the other thing I think the president was doing he likes to keep the iranians guessing and it’s a strategic decision, I think. The president understands, and you can tell he understands, because he has this line that he said recently, which I think is extremely perceptive of Iran, which is they’re not fighting on the battlefield that well, but they’re very good at negotiations. They fight better at negotiations. And that’s not a slam. That’s actually an identification of Iranian strategy. We know from its literature, from its history, from historical record, et cetera, the Iranians are excellent at leveraging weakness into strength, and they do so through manipulation. The problem with manipulation is having a strategy based on manipulations. You’ve got to be able to predict your enemy. You need to know what he is going to do so that you can game that and outmaneuver him. Well, if the president deliberately is trying to leave the Iranians guessing, he’s strategically paralyzing the Iranians. And I think that was another point that he was doing yesterday. As far as calming the Americans, I think the president has said somewhat yesterday, but more importantly in surrounding yesterday’s speech, that, look, we’re taking a hit. There’s no doubt. There’s a global dislocation from this. But the long-term resolution of this is going to so fundamentally change oil markets, gas markets, raw materials markets, and so forth, that we will economically gain the whole world will economically gain, let alone the Iranian people will economically gain, in dramatic fashion coming out of this. And the president’s a businessman that has made his business to some extent on being a prime mover and a paradigm disruptor. So what he’s saying is, look, if you’re looking at the paradigm of how the economy worked before this, and you see a disruption and you say it’s going to return back to that, but we’ve just paid a huge price. That’s not the way to look at it. This is actually a trigger to a fundamental shift in oil and gas markets in the whole Middle East, and where the gas flows, how it flows, and who is able to sell gas, which Iran can only do basically at cheap rates to China right now. So I think he’s overall, he’s sending a lot of signals here. And I think when you parse it out, you begin to realize there’s a lot of thinking that actually went behind a lot of it.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, he’s very good at the negotiations and sending those messages. He made a comment last night that, of course, all the leaders are dead, so there’s a new regime, although they didn’t plan on a regime change. And that was that this one is going to be less radical, more reasonable. You made the point earlier that the Iranians are really good at negotiating and keeping people kind of off, you know, off balance, in part because they don’t fit a rational model, a rational man model. I mean, you can’t really figure them out unless you understand their ideologically driven positions. Now, we’re up against a break, David. I’m going to ask you to hold over because I want you to ask that question on the other side of this. Are they truly more reasonable or is it just another negotiating gambit just to buy more time? So we’re going to talk about that on the other side of the break. Dr. Worms, thanks so much for being with us today. All right, folks, on the other side of the break, he’s going to answer that question. And we’re going to take a deeper look at what’s happening in Iran. So don’t go away.
SPEAKER 07 :
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them.
SPEAKER 06 :
A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal That they’re endowed by their Creator.
SPEAKER 07 :
With certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Happy 250th. Happy 250th. Happy 250th. Happy 250th birthday, America. May God bless America.
SPEAKER 15 :
I think all people really need to have this type of education. Well, I can tell you that it’s been an amazing course period.
SPEAKER 14 :
I think this course is a reminder that a biblical worldview should really impact everything. It impacts our government from the federal to the state to the local. It should impact what we’re doing with our families and with our work.
SPEAKER 21 :
God and Government is a video-driven, Bible-based training course from Family Research Council that explores the connection between biblical principles and American government. In this six-session video series, FRC President Tony Perkins equips participants with a practical understanding of civil government from a biblical worldview.
SPEAKER 15 :
I would encourage all people to take it. I almost wish I would have took it earlier that I could have taught my kids this. I wish I had known these things when we were homeschooling because I think children and my adults now would just greatly be influenced by that information.
SPEAKER 13 :
So I’m an attorney, and for me, it gives me some direct practical knowledge of what I can do to try to impact my legal community, to make better legislation, to try to encourage legislators to make choices that have a biblical worldview, which is what we really want.
SPEAKER 10 :
Any pastor would benefit from taking this course because we are dual citizens, right? We are citizens of the kingdom of God, but we’re also citizens of this great land and that comes with responsibility.
SPEAKER 14 :
Even as someone who has been involved in these types of issues for a while, you’re learning little bits and pieces of new stuff all the time. But it’s also approachable enough that newer people, younger people, high school, college students, they can really glean something from this. So I would encourage everybody to take this course, whether it’s the videos, whether it’s doing it in person, bring your Bible study group through it, bring your homeschool group through it and equip yourself for these challenging days ahead.
SPEAKER 21 :
View the course at frc.org slash God and government or on the Stand Firm app.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m Tony Perkins, your host. Thanks so much for tuning in on this Thursday. We’re going to continue our conversation with Dr. David Wormser. He’s a senior analyst for the Middle East Affairs at the Center for Security Policy. David, thanks so much for sticking around through the break. I want to go right to our question. Are we overestimating the regime change, the new leaders there in Iran?
SPEAKER 09 :
On this, I do think the president might be, I think he may be doing it intentionally to sort of throw the ball in the Iranians’ court to say, listen, if you’re going to really be different, this is what I expect to see. And it’s more of a challenge than an observation of where we are with the Iranian government. But there really is no regime change because, first of all, a lot of the players were key players all along.
SPEAKER 1 :
you
SPEAKER 09 :
Khalibaf, Saeed Jalili. These people are grisly, really dangerous, violent people who have been at the core of the Iranian power structure all along, and part of the most radical ideological proponents of it. So I really don’t see a fundamental change yet in the regime. And I think that we look at certain things and we try to find some signs of moderation. For example, that they’re letting ships, a few ships, very few ships, but a few, through the Straits of Hormuz. I think we have to turn that upside down. This is an international waterway that belongs to the world. It is not Iranian sovereign territory. By thanking them or acknowledging moderation because they’re letting these ships through, is in their mind acknowledging their sovereignty over that territory. In other words, it’s a concession to Iran. So this is no sign of weakening. And we just passed through Passover last night. We’re in a holy week right now, and there’s Easter coming up. And, you know, our thoughts turn back to the history that’s also embedded in the Bible. And I encourage people to think, what exactly was the dynamic of Pharaoh’s surrender? If you saw, he hardened his heart all the way through until that final moment, which something of great value to him was hit, and then he broke. And then he fought, but he only broke temporarily and returned to being as dangerous a person as he was before. But the key is, with each hit, he got harder and harder. And this is totalitarian regime dynamics. This is what we’re seeing in Iran right now, that they’re really not conceding. They’re hardening their hearts. And there will be a point where we’re going to hit them somewhere, which will hurt them, and they may buckle. But we have to remember that that is the moment in which we exit. And exit in this case is get the regime, bring it down. Right. And then because if we leave them in place… It’s as if leaving Pharaoh in place with the sea continually parted, and then he would pursue you into the wilderness.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good analogy, David. I think you’re absolutely right. That’s been my concern. And I give the president the benefit of the doubt, because he’s usually right on these things, as he was messaging not only the American people, but to the Iranians as well last night in his speech. I will say that many of our administrations on both sides have gotten it wrong when it comes to the ideologically driven Middle East. And, you know, this would be like, you know, Goring taking over for Hitler. I mean, the ideology is there. As you said, what needs to happen is the ideology, the holders of the ideology have to change or we’re going to be dealing with them again in the future.
SPEAKER 09 :
Exactly, exactly. And we’re seeing the signs. I mean, we’re seeing the signs at that moment where Pharaoh lost his son. We’re seeing that happen. One key indicator here to show that they’re ideologically cracking is not moderating. And I emphasize cracking, not moderating. is that they’re trying to reclaim Persian history. This is a regime that was revolutionary Islamic that erased Iran’s Persian history. It was at war with its own history as a people. And now all of a sudden it’s trying to say, well, we’re a 6,000-year-old culture, 4,000-year-old culture, et cetera, and we’re, you know, this is an attack on 4,000 years, and 4,000 years isn’t going to go away. They’ve been attacked. This is not the 4,000-year culture. They are the instrument that’s been at war with that culture. The fact that they’re co-opting, that is how totalitarian regimes signal that they are failing in their ideological commitment, that they don’t know what to do anymore. They’re trying to scramble. That tells you that they’re beginning to enter that moment that Farrow entered after the sun was dead, which is they don’t know what to do.
SPEAKER 08 :
Continuing that analogy with Pharaoh, at a certain point as the Egyptians were being hit, everything was destroyed and the people said, isn’t this enough? Isn’t it time that we just kind of let them go? So I’m wondering if part of that cracking is not the Iranian people who are really not a part of this regime saying, all right, this is our moment.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yes, that is absolutely true, a great observation. And we’re hearing it loud and clear from so many. I mean, one can discount the opposition that is external, that is the exile groups. One can if one wants to discount them, because internally we’re hearing the same voice. Every time there’s even a crack open of the window and we get a sign of what they’re really thinking in Iran, The line that we hear over and over and over again is, this is terrifying. The bombs are scaring them. They’re seeing it all over the place. But what scares them even more is when the bombs stop, because they know this is it. Their slogan is, this is the final battle. What they mean, it’s the final victory over this regime, and they’re going for bus too. So essentially, we now have a 250-year-old nation working with a 4,000-year-old nation to free another 4,000-year-old nation. And that is really three allies that are going to be very difficult to beat if they stay the course.
SPEAKER 08 :
Can this be accomplished in the window the president laid out last night, the two to three weeks?
SPEAKER 09 :
I think two to three weeks is the point at which major operations can start winding down because, frankly, our target lists become minimal. But I would almost urge that we don’t go for a formal ceasefire if there’s a cracking. And this is the point I’m mentioning about the breaking of a totalitarian will. If there is a breaking there, I wouldn’t seize it for a ceasefire, because that commits us more than it commits Iran. Iran will start cheating then, just like Pharaoh reconsidered. Iran will reconsider and start cheating at the moment that they have the breathing room again. And we have to have the freedom of action to maintain a level of low-level continued pressure until they’re gone. So I see us winding down major operations somewhere within the two to three weeks, and then starts a longer process, perhaps of weeks. Maybe days, maybe weeks, but no more than once.
SPEAKER 08 :
David, thanks so much for joining us. Always appreciate your insights. Folks, stick with us. We’re going to be back with more after this. For over 4,000 years, the Jewish people have had legal, historical, and biblical ties to the land of Israel, especially the heartland of Israel, Judea and Samaria, which much of the world still calls the West Bank. To Israelis, Judea and Samaria is far more than a name. It’s the center of their ancestral homeland where nearly 80% of the Bible’s events took place. Abraham purchased property in Hebron, Jacob in Shechem, Joshua made an altar on Mount Ebal and led the Israelites into a covenant before God. On Mount Gerizim, overlooking Shechem, Jesus talked to the Samaritan woman at the well about worshiping neither on Mount Gerizim nor in Jerusalem, but in spirit and in truth. Judea and Samaria is nearly a quarter of Israel’s current landmass, not a small strip of land on the Jordan River, but a vital and strategic part of the nation’s identity. The October 7th massacre, launched from Gaza, shattered the illusion that giving away territory brings peace. Gaza, which was once seen as the cornerstone of a two-state solution, became a launchpad for terror. Today, only 21% of Israelis support a Palestinian state. Trust in a two-state solution has all but collapsed. The Middle East is changing. Iran’s grip is weakening. New alliances are forming. But Western countries and some U.S. officials still chase the mirage of a two-state solution. History speaks clearly. The 2005 Gaza withdrawal, backed by the U.S., led not to peace, but to a terrorist regime. Judea and Samaria are 24 times larger than Gaza, deeply woven into Israel’s geographic and spiritual fabric. To surrender them would not bring peace. It would invite conflict and existential danger. Family Research Council stands with Israel’s rightful claim to sovereignty. It’s time for America to do the same for history, for justice, and for lasting security in the Middle East. Welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m your host, Tony Perkins. Thanks so much for tuning in and being a part of the program. Yesterday evening, as the world watched, NASA successfully launched Artemis II, blasting off an orange and white Space Launch System rocket from Kennedy Space Center and sending four astronauts on a historic journey that will take them literally around the moon. What are they hoping to learn? And what makes this different from the shuttle program that was the mainstay of the U.S. space program for decades? Joining me now to discuss this is Sean O’Keefe. He served as the administrator of NASA in the George W. Bush administration. Sean, welcome to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, thank you, Tony. Pleasure to be with you and I appreciate the invitation.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, you know a little bit about space and the space program. Last night, this almost 700,000 mile journey began for these four astronauts. The last time astronauts traveled that far was the Apollo 17 back in 1972. Tell us the significance about this mission and what NASA hopes to accomplish.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, there’s a couple of major factors they’re trying to determine on the Artemis II launch itself. This is the first time we’ll have a crew aboard the Artemis system overall. The last one, the first Artemis that went up, was an uncrewed mission, so no humans aboard. So this will be the first opportunity to do that. Second, it’ll be the first time, as you just mentioned, that we will actually go further aboard into space and to the Moon and around it and beyond to return to the Earth before the mission is complete. That’ll be the first time that’s been accomplished in 50 years. And I think another historic feature of it is this is actually going to go about 4,500 miles further afield from the Moon itself than we’ve ever been. So this will be the longest, deepest into space mission that any human has ever witnessed. So the four crew members aboard will be making history for that reason as well. So it’s an extraordinary effort to really test out all the systems to assure that the Orion capsule itself, the part that actually is the space capsule, is going to have the full capacity to, on the next mission that’s planned here, within a year or so, to have astronauts actually land on the moon again. that that’s going to be achieved. So we’ll actually go around the dark side of the moon on this mission, see that for the first time in 50 years again, and really learn from that experience and then go further than that before actually coming home.
SPEAKER 08 :
So during your tenure as administrator of NASA, again, the space shuttle was kind of the mainstay there. For many people, space is space. But the shuttle was kind of the lower end of space. It was kind of the workhorse of taking things, launching satellites. This is much different, going much, much deeper into space. What are the challenges moving that deep into space?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, the duration of a mission is certainly not significantly longer than what we typically have done. Matter of fact, in this case, for 10 days, this is a real short mission by comparison to the six months to a year. that crews will stay aboard the International Space Station, which are 250 to 300 miles maximum off the surface of the Earth. So going out as far as the Moon, this is going to be a significantly further distance to do. But it’s still just within a day, day and a half, of actually accomplishing the objective of getting to that location. And it also sets up the opportunity to eventually re-enter and land on the moon again and establish a presence there, as opposed to what we did in the 1970s, which was We went there five times, saw it, understood it, and yet at the same time concluded this was not much more than a pretty dusty object that orbited the Earth and not much more value to that. Now we understand it’s got a lot more value to it. Helium is available there, which is an energy technology production capacity. There’s water that we’ve discovered there, which means you’ve got all the ingredients for actual creation of life. that we did not imagine were there when we were there back in the 70s for that limited trip. So we’ve learned a lot more about the lunar surface. And it incorporates one of the most significant characteristics, I think, of what is valuable in its close proximity to the Earth, is it’s got one sixth of the gravity of this planet. which means if you can get there and establish a capability to launch again from there, you’re going to get a fraction of the resistance that we’ve got right now to leave this planet. So getting off the surface of the Earth takes all the fire and fury that we see in those amazing rocket launches that burns off in eight and a half minutes. Ninety percent of what it carries in terms of fuel is burned in that eight and a half minutes. Everything else from there is what you’ve got left over. Right. It’s that much more to break the bonds of gravity of the Earth, whereas it doesn’t have that condition on the lunar surface.
SPEAKER 08 :
So it can become like DFW or Atlanta Airport, where it’s a connecting place, where you can connect a flight onto Mars.
SPEAKER 05 :
Exactly right. Suddenly you need a whole lot less everything in order to get a greater distance. And yet we’re still just scratching the surface.
SPEAKER 08 :
Sean, we’re going to have to leave it there. Fascinating conversation. Thanks for joining us. Folks, stick with us.
SPEAKER 03 :
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 11 :
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 02 :
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 20 :
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 18 :
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 01 :
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 08 :
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 21 :
Should a Christian support Israel? That question has become one of the most emotionally charged issues of our time, both in the world and within the church. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins offers a clear biblical and prophetic answer. In his latest book, he examines Israel’s past, present, and future through the lens of scripture, revealing why support for Israel is not rooted in politics, partisanship, or cultural sentiment, but in the unchanging promises of God. Drawing from Genesis to Revelation, Tony Perkins demonstrates that the ultimate rationale for a Christian support for Israel is spiritual. Should a Christian support Israel invites believers to see beyond headlines and ideologies, returning to the foundation of God’s Word to understand His heart for His chosen people and the blessings that flow when we stand with what He has established forever. Text the word Israel to 67742 for more information.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m your host, Tony Perkins. Be sure and check out the website, TonyPerkins.com, or get the Stand Firm app. That way you’ll have access to Washington Watch no matter where you go. You’ll also have access to the Washington Stand, news and commentary from a biblical perspective, as well as my daily commentary, or rather my daily devotional, Stand on the Word. All of that can be found on the Stand Firm app. well our word for today comes from deuteronomy chapter 4. surely i have taught you statutes and judgments just as the lord my god commanded me that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess therefore be careful to observe them for this is your wisdom and your understanding and the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say surely this is a great nation it’s wise in its understanding For what great nation is there that has God so near to it? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you today? Only take heed to yourselves and diligently keep it yourself lest you forget and lest they depart from your heart and teach them to your children and your grandchildren. Keeping the word and the ways of God is the key to living in the promises of God. When we faithfully walk in God’s truth and pass it on, our lives become a testimony of his wisdom to the watching world. To find out more about our journey through the Bible, text Bible to 67742. That’s Bible to 67742. All right, even though Congress has been out this week for an Easter recess, the news cycle hasn’t taken a break. From the ongoing war in Iran to the funding questions surrounding homeland security to historic decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, there’s a lot to unpack from this week. So let’s take a closer look at some of the stories driving the headlines this week and what they mean. Joining me now to do just that are members of the Washington Stand team, Suzanne Bowdy, Editorial Director and Senior Writer, and Joshua Arnold, Senior Writer at the Stand. Suzanne, Joshua, thanks for joining me.
SPEAKER 16 :
Thanks, Tony.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi, Tony. Happy to be here. All right. Let’s start with the Supreme Court, because on Tuesday, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly sided with a Christian therapist in Colorado, rejecting a Colorado law that banned so-called conversion therapy. Joshua, you’ve been tracking this case. Explain the significance of this ruling.
SPEAKER 12 :
That’s right, Tony, in an eight to one decision. So all but one of the justices agreed basically with what conservatives have been protesting for a long time, that these laws, which claim to go after abusive practices such as electric shock therapy, are really just targeting speech. And the proof of that was that the lady who brought this case, a Colorado counselor, Kaylee Childs, only ever provided talk therapy. She didn’t do any sort of physical interventions at all, and yet Colorado refused to say that this law would not allow them to go after her. So what this law did is basically say if you have a young person who is confused about their gender or sexuality and they want help thinking through that, you have to force them into a same-sex attraction identity or transgender identity, you may not counsel them in the opposite direction to adhere to their biological sex or sexual orientation. And so what the court said is that was viewpoint discrimination. That was plain and simple. First Amendment cut and dried. You can’t do that. That violates the First Amendment. And so this then has ramifications for the other 20 or so states, 100 or so localities who have passed similar laws or regulations. It would help give freedom of speech to counselors in those places as well.
SPEAKER 08 :
It is outrageous. I mean, it’s kind of a one-way street. It’s kind of like one of those rodent traps. You can get in, but you can’t get out. As long as you’re wanting to go down their path of gender confusion, you’re okay. But if you want help through, you know, simply talk therapy. I mean, this is just having conversations about the underlying issues. They wouldn’t allow that, but they would allow experimental drugs and surgeries. I mean, on its face, that is crazy. But, Suzanne, as Joshua mentioned, this is going to affect several other states as well. So, I mean, this is quite significant.
SPEAKER 16 :
It’s very significant. And I also think people don’t realize how much animosity Colorado has for free speech and not just free speech, but especially toward Christians and conservatives. In the past few years, we’ve seen a terrible track record of hostility toward Christians, including Jack Phillips. I think everyone is aware of the cake baker who they were trying to compel to make same sex wedding cakes. There was a case a couple of years ago involving Lori Smith, a graphic website designer who they wanted to compel to make same sex wedding websites. There was also earlier this year, two Christian health care providers sued because the state didn’t want them to say that there was such a thing as abortion pill reversals. And now you have these Christian counselors. So it is a very dangerous environment for Christian speech and conservative speech in Colorado. I think the justices got it right. I think it should have been a nine to nothing decision, which, interestingly enough, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor also thought going after Katonji Brown Jackson for her opinion. But I’m thrilled to see the court come back in Colorado. And as they’ve done with these other cases, say you are out of line with the Constitution.
SPEAKER 08 :
It’s gotten so bad for Colorado. They’ve been to the court so many times they’ve gotten slapped down. You would think that maybe the court would. remand them to remedial education on the Constitution. I mean, it’s just, it is quite stunning how often they have trampled upon the First Amendment. All right, I want to turn to Capitol Hill. The shutdown with Department of Homeland Security, partial government shutdown, is we, you know, even today we’re seeing them inching toward yet another agreement. What do we see happening there, Suzanne?
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, this was a surprise. I think most people were resigned to the fact that over Easter, we weren’t going to see a solution to reopen the government. And then yesterday, John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson dropped a bombshell statement saying that they had agreed to a compromise. And that compromise says that, okay, look, the House is going to swallow the Senate bill that they passed right before Easter that partially funds DHS. Now, that bill does not fund all of ICE. It doesn’t fund Customs and Border Protection. But the House said, okay, we will go along with that in exchange for your agreement to help us push a second reconciliation bill. As a lot of listeners and viewers know, reconciliation is that really tricky and complicated budget process that allows the Senate to pass something with a simple majority, so they don’t need 60 votes to pass it. And in that bill, what House Speaker Mike Johnson is thinking is that, you know what, we’re going to put all of the funding for DHS in reconciliation, possibly for up to three years, so that the Democrats can’t pull this stunt every time that appropriations comes up and says, we’re not going to fund ICE. Well, guess what? The House and Senate Republicans are saying, we’ll fund ICE and we’ll fund it until Trump is out of office. So it’s a very interesting two parallel tracks sort of solution. Now, it is tricky in that every time reconciliation comes up, it seems like everyone’s trying to put their pet priorities in this bill. You’re going to see people trying to put Iran war funding in, the Save America Act. So really, we’ll have to be on the watch for mission creep because that’s That won’t fly with the parliamentarian. I mean, we’re really going to have to stick to a simple reconciliation bill that accomplishes the GOP’s goals. But this is progress, I think. And it does help bring along conservatives who are concerned about the path that the Senate had chosen with only partially funding homeland security.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, they have a very narrow path to walk with only two votes that they have to work with. Joshua, what do you think created the urgency for the GOP leaders to act on this, even during the recess?
SPEAKER 12 :
I think it was the long lines at the airports, people having two, three, four hour waits just to get through TSA because of the continued shutdowns creating a continual shortage of TSA workers who either quit or called out sick so they could take a second job. IT WAS SO BAD FOR SO LONG. THEY TRIED TO GET THE DEMOCRATS TO DO SOMETHING BUT WHEN THEY REALIZED THE DEMOCRATS COULDN’T BUDGE AND THEY TRIED SOME PARTIAL SOLUTIONS, FINALLY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION RESPONDED TO PRESSURE IS WHAT THEY DID. THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS SHOWN THAT IT WILL DO. IT WILL RESPOND TO PRESSURE. WE SAW THAT EVEN TODAY WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BODNEY’S OUSTER AFTER SHE TOOK A LOT OF FLAK FROM THE MAGA CROWD OVER HER HANDLING OF THE JEFFREY EPSTEIN FILES. THAT’S WHAT THIS ADMINISTRATION WILL DO CONSISTENTLY. WE’VE SEEN IT ON ISSUE AFTER ISSUE FROM THE TARIFFS TO NOW THE DHS FUNDING AS WELL. YEAH, I THINK THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED IS THEY FELT THE felt the heat.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, Suzanne, on that front, maybe they need to feel a little heat on something else, because this week the Trump administration said that they would restore the Biden era grants for abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood. This was after all the fanfare of defunding Planned Parenthood challenged in court, as they have been on so many other things, but essentially waved a white flag. I mean, what’s going on here when you take this With the backdrop of the Biden-era policy on Mifeprestone that has caused an increase in the abortion rate in America since the overturn of Roe, I mean, are they going to respond to the outrage of pro-lifers?
SPEAKER 16 :
So far, it doesn’t seem like that, Tony. This is such a disappointing outcome for pro-lifers. Now, the Trump administration will say, oh, you know, this was a Biden contract. It’s a multi-year contract. It will take a long time to litigate in court. And while we litigate in court, those dollars are still flowing to Planned Parenthood. But you and I both know that Donald Trump will go to the mat on anything that he cares about, regardless of the outcome. Just yesterday, we saw him sitting in the Supreme Court on a birthright citizenship case, where he would essentially have to rewrite the 14th Amendment for him to be successful. And yet he’s still there pursuing it because it’s something he cares about. This is an issue. This is a deep betrayal to pro-lifers who watch Trump in the first term go after Title 10, go after Planned Parenthood, restore pro-life human dignity and law. And I also want to point out here, Tony, that this is problematic for a number of reasons. Planned Parenthood is not just America’s largest abortion business. They are also the second largest distributor of gender transition hormones and puberty blockers. So there is no hide like protection for our tax dollars when they flow to a place like Planned Parenthood. Our tax dollars will be going to fund gender transitions in some cases for minors. We’re talking about 450 clinics nationwide, and according to insurance claims, about 40,000 patients visited them last year, some minors, for gender transition procedures. So this is extremely concerning. And if Trump cares about the pro-life vote, which he should heading into these midterm elections and beyond, he needs to set the record straight and come down hard on Title X and do what we expect him to do and elected him to do, which was to stand up for the unborn and for minor children.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, in addition to the funding for direct funding for Planned Parenthood with the, as I mentioned, the Biden era policy on Mifeprestone and the failure to enforce the Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of abortion related products without not being enforced, Planned Parenthood has moved to an Amazon type model where they’re they’re mailing these abortions. I mean, Your mailbox can become an abortion clinic, essentially, under the policies that the Trump administration have left in place. That’s right.
SPEAKER 16 :
It’s outrageous. Go ahead, Joshua.
SPEAKER 12 :
Yeah, one of the policies that Trump had during his first term was the Protect Life Rule, which basically forced Planned Parenthood to renounce this Title 10 funding that the Trump administration is now extending to them. Obviously, the contract was granted under Biden, but when the Trump administration came back in, it hasn’t done anything to reinstate that policy. It hasn’t taken some of the pro-life actions that it took the first time around. So the legacy of the first Trump administration really was three Supreme Court justices who were the crucial votes in the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. But since then, Trump has abandoned that legacy. He’s been running from it. He’s been afraid of it. And we haven’t seen from this administration the same sort of fight to protect the lives of the unborn. And so you have abortion in all 50 states, even those states with pro-life laws on the books, because the abortion bill can simply be crossed cross state lines without any sort of regulation at all, under regulations that were put in place under Biden, or rather regulations that were stripped away under Biden, that the Trump administration has taken no steps. It has not lifted one finger to reimplement any sort of safeguards on Mifepristone.
SPEAKER 08 :
So to your earlier point, Joshua, the only way to change that is this administration, the FDA, the DOJ responding to the pressure from voters saying, hey, what’s going on here? I mean, that sounds like that’s the only path forward because they haven’t done it on their own. That’s right. All right, before we run out of time, I want to bring up another item, briefly touching on the Johnson Amendment. That’s something we talked about a lot in this program. It was added to the tax code in 1954 by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. It restricts 501c3 organizations, including churches, from directly engaging in political campaigns. But over time, it’s created confusion and had a chilling effect on what’s even said from the pulpit. Well, earlier this week, a challenge to the Johnson Amendment, which FRC was involved in, was dismissed by a federal judge, J. Campbell Baker, on standing. But the national religious broadcasters who are leading this case say they will appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Well, this was a surprise, given that the IRS had agreed to a consent decree. The appeal to the Fifth Circuit actually could yield an even better outcome. Could it not, Suzanne?
SPEAKER 16 :
Absolutely, Tony. This has a chance to be a real precedent-setting case as opposed to just a decision or an agreement between the involved parties and a federal agency. And I know you’ve actually sat in on the Fifth Circuit. You were there for oral arguments for the Ten Commandments case. So I’m interested in your opinion of how you think the Fifth Circuit might do and how they might handle this case.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, the Fifth Circuit is the most conservative circuit in the country. I know a few of the justices that are on the court there. And I was in the room for a full panel hearing on the Ten Commandments, which turned out favorably for my home state of Louisiana. So I’m very optimistic. I think the end result here could be much better than a consent decree that only involved the parties in this case. A precedent coming out of a circuit court and potentially going on to the Supreme Court will affect the entire nation. So we could be within reach of restoring the full authority of the pulpits to speak with government blessing and not with the threat of losing their tax exemption. All right. We’re out of that’s that’s all we got time for today. But Suzanne, Joshua, I want to thank you for joining us. And I’ll very quickly give you a chance to pitch the Washington stand. How can people find out more about it?
SPEAKER 16 :
Yep. Washington stand dot com. Look for Tony Perkins commentary up right now.
SPEAKER 08 :
That’s a good plug. All right. Thanks for joining us. And folks, I want to thank you for joining us as well. And until next time, you know what to do. Pray, vote and stand.
SPEAKER 11 :
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.
