The Washington Stand’s Casey Harper provides great pro-life news from the U.S. Supreme Court and offers insight into Capitol Hill developments in the House on reconciliation, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the agriculture bill. John
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 14 :
The Supreme Court opinion came out. I’ve obviously not had a time to read through that. I used to litigate these kinds of cases, so I’m looking forward to it. But I just talked to some folks who have gone through it, and they said that this is obviously the right result. They’ve determined that the last map that was drawn for Louisiana was done unconstitutionally. And we’ve been saying that consistently from the beginning. That was the obvious result. So we’ll see what effect it has.
SPEAKER 07 :
That was House Speaker Mike Johnson earlier today responding to a major Supreme Court decision striking down Louisiana’s congressional redistricting map. Welcome to this Wednesday, April 29th edition of Washington Watch. I’m Tony Perkins, your host. Thanks so much for joining us. Well, coming up, a major six to three decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejects race based redistricting. Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguinaga, who argued the case, joins us later to break it down. Plus, North Carolina Senator Ted Budd joins us to discuss the continued standoff with Iran and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s trip to Capitol Hill today. And Congressman John Rose is expected to join us live from the House floor as critical national security votes are being cast even as we speak. All of that and more straight ahead. Well, major decisions out of the U.S. Supreme Court today, in addition to the Louisiana redistricting case, the court also unanimously blocked the state of New Jersey’s attempt to force a pro-life pregnancy center to disclose its private donor list, an attempt at intimidation. Joining us now to discuss this is Washington Stand reporter Casey Harper. Casey, what details can you tell us about this ruling and its implications for donor privacy and protecting life?
SPEAKER 18 :
Thanks, Tony. A big day at the Supreme Court today. Well, it was a unanimous decision. I can tell you that 9-0, even with the liberal justices agreeing that, hey, the state of New Jersey can’t just force First Choice Women’s Resource Centers to hand over their private list of donors. Of course, the justices pointed to clear protections under the First Amendment. Now, this is a win, but it is a procedural ruling. It’s not a final ruling on the case overall. Those pregnancy centers are still facing investigation from the state. But it pushes back on the state using its power to compromise the privacy of those who make financial contributions to these nonprofits, just grabbing the donor list before you even gather evidence. But it’s also more than that. As we alluded to, critics say this was an abuse of political power. It really began in November of 2023 when New Jersey’s Democrat Attorney General at the time subpoenaed the pro-life pregnancy care centers to get those donors list. Now, they allege that the centers have violated consumer fraud laws by misleading donors or potential clients into thinking that they actually offered abortions. So that’s a big one we’re going to be following. And as I said, it’s still ongoing. But as you mentioned, it’s not the only one out of the court today. quickly another Supreme Court decision in that Louisiana case. It really pushed back on drawing electoral maps based on race. And this is going to have big implications in over a dozen other districts. And we have a clip of Senator Chuck Schumer reacting to that ruling.
SPEAKER 01 :
Earlier this morning, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court took another step towards resurrecting the Jim Crow South. Far from being a narrow decision, this MAGA court is trying to give Republicans a leg up, an illegitimate leg up, in future elections.
SPEAKER 18 :
That alarmist rhetoric that you heard from the senator there is a pretty common reaction that we’re seeing from other Democrats. But I’m sure you saw that district that was drawn in Louisiana, Tony. I think it was 200 miles long. It was pretty amazing.
SPEAKER 07 :
Very familiar with the district, Casey. Very familiar with it. The other case out of New Jersey, just want to make this point on this. This is not the first time we’ve seen liberal blue state leaders going after the donors of conservative, even pro-life organizations like this. So hopefully, maybe some of them will get the message on this and leave these private entities alone. alone. We’re going to get more on that Louisiana case a little bit later. The solicitor general of Louisiana who argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court is going to join us. All right. I mentioned at the top of the program, Casey, even right now. The House is voting on some major bills, including an extension of the FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Section 702. That is set to expire Thursday night. They’re voting on that as we speak. So give us an update on what’s happening on the House floor.
SPEAKER 18 :
Yeah, that’s right, a big vote there just a day ahead of that deadline. Now, earlier it passed out of the House Rules Committee with a 9-4 vote, and there’s a lot actually in consideration in Congress right now. We have the FISA extension, an agricultural bill, and the Senate passed a budget resolution to fund immigration enforcement. Now, this all comes after the committees met for a two-day session where there was amendments to the Farm Food and National Security Act of 2026. That was all hashed out, and the bill was sent back to the House Rules Committee. Now, the committee added an amendment to the Foreign Surveillance Powers, which is set to expire, as you said, yesterday. They’re voting on that now, but Republican leadership has a thin line here. They can only afford to lose a couple of votes, so it’ll be really interesting to see how this plays out.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. I appreciate the update on these items. I want to – I think – hold on just a second. I think – all right. We’re waiting for Congressman Rose to join us. But there’s been a – it’s been very interesting to watch this. As I mentioned, they’re voting right now on the FISA extension. But the media has been just – I guess, giddy over the fact that the Republicans are having difficulty advancing these things. But as you pointed out, the Republicans have very thin margins on this. But the House speaker continues to be able to advance these things to the amazement of many.
SPEAKER 18 :
Yeah, he’s done a pretty remarkable job, better than anyone thought he could, with cobbling this thin majority together time and time again, especially when there’s some who have been less than friendly, been publicly opposed to things, and then you have to go and try to get those people on your side. Now, I love that you brought up the media point, because the media has become, has, There’s no secret how antagonistic the legacy media is to the Republicans, but especially to the House speaker, Mike Johnson. And given the recent shooting attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, you think that they would sort of come around and say, hey, let’s just try to get something done here. But you’re not seeing that from the far left or the media right now.
SPEAKER 07 :
On the reconciliation, there’s going to be a parallel vote on the banking industry as well. Tell us a little bit about that because that’s created some consternation in the Senate.
SPEAKER 18 :
Yeah, I mean, there’s a few things happening in the banking industry right now. And I think one thing that’s really feeding into all this is actually the Federal Reserve vote. So we saw Federal Reserve Chairman Powell announce that he’s going to, of course, he’s stepping down May 15th for his, at the end of his term, but he’s going to stay on through 2028 on the board of governors. He’s sort of concerned about the independence of the Federal Reserve during the Trump presidency, which has been something that Democrats have been raising. Of course, President Trump’s been really critical of Powell. But that vote, the Senate committee approved it and is going to send it to the Senate floor now for a vote, which is really in doubt, actually, because Senator Tom Tillis was saying he wouldn’t vote for Kevin Warsh, who’s the new Fed nominee, unless they could get that investigation against Powell dropped. They got it dropped. And so now Warsh is going to get a vote.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. All right. We have Congressman John Rose now joining us by phone just off the House floor. He’s a member of the Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee. He represents the 6th Congressional District of Tennessee. Congressman Rose, thanks so much for taking time to join us.
SPEAKER 03 :
Good to be with you, Mr. Perkins, and thanks for having me on the show.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, I know that there’s a lot going on right now. It looks like the vote is still open on the FISA. That’s the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. What’s your sense? Is that going to pass?
SPEAKER 03 :
I think so. At this point, I see, and I’m just off the floor, and I think we’re over 20 Democrats voting yes. Obviously, they did not help with passing the rule earlier today, but obviously many of them convinced that Section 702 should be passed. I still have grave reservations about that. I feel like I have achieved some wins and some movement there in terms of safeguarding the liberties of the American people, but I’m a no and plan to stay there at this point. just feel like that we shouldn’t sacrifice our liberties and freedoms that were hard won, despite, obviously, the need for intelligence tools that are effective at helping us stop terrorism. But I think it’s just a price that’s too high to pay.
SPEAKER 07 :
Were there concessions made by the leadership to the conservatives who expressed the same concerns that you have?
SPEAKER 03 :
There have been some. I would say not what I consider to be adequate to offer real support to passage of this extension of Section 702. It is for a limited duration, but it is three years, and I think we should keep this on a very, very short leash. One of the concessions I’d ask for was to make it a year instead of three years, because I think the more often that the Intelligence Committee knows that the Congress is going to be looking at this the more careful they will be about how they use it and the abuses that would be potentially happening. But there were concessions, and I think all those concessions, some of them were integrated into the language, and some of those have been what you might call side deals that provide more oversight and more accountability. Those are the wins that we’ve gotten. But they fall short of what I would like to see, which is a warrant requirement.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, I think your point that it should be less than three years is a good point because Congress has a two-year term. It ought to coincide with Congress and their service because you’re right. I think, number one, you’ve got to make sure members of Congress are keeping those who are using these policies and these statutes accountable. You can’t do that if you don’t have a vote on those issues. So I think that point is very valid. I want to move. We have just a little over a couple of minutes left. The Department of Homeland Security, there’s this reconciliation, the skinny reconciliation. Is that going to make its way through?
SPEAKER 03 :
I think it will. And I and I don’t think that’s a perfect solution either. I think there’s some real questions about the appropriateness of funding there. departments for as long as this provision will fund DHS, which is multi-year through the rest of the Trump administration. I think that gives up, again, some of the People’s House prerogative and oversight of how the taxpayers’ money is spent. But I think you have to balance that against the insistence of the progressive Democrats to defund the police. And for goodness sakes, we’ve got to You know, we’ve got to keep DHS funded. We need to keep the president armed with the tools that he needs to do the job that he promised the American people he would do. So I think this, you know, they’ve, you know, forced our hand, so to speak, in terms of how we can make sure that we do not defund the police, which is what Democrats want to do here. They want to open our borders. And we’ve seen what kind of chaos and havoc that creates. Right. And so I think this is the this is the best path forward.
SPEAKER 07 :
Congressman Rose, I appreciate the the analysis here because there’s these tensions here. Congress is the they has they have the purse strings and that’s the form of accountability. But at the same time, you have to weigh, as you just pointed out, what the progressives are trying to do. And that’s not an easy position to be in as a conservative because you want Congress to exercise its authority. We just have about about a minute left. The farm bill. Where’s that stand?
SPEAKER 03 :
I think that’s the real question mark here as we navigate through this. And I’m not completely privy to what happened, but we have sent it back to the House. The leadership has sent it back to rules. The battle there is over year-round E15, which is using crop-derived alcohol. in mix in fuels. I’m certainly favoring all of the above energy policy, and this is tough times in the farm patch. So I’m sympathetic to the need to utilize the produce that our farmers create and trying to help them navigate through these tough economic times. But there seems to be an impasse there right now that I think puts the farm bill in some jeopardy.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. Congressman Rose, always great to talk with you. Thanks so much for stepping off the floor to give us the update.
SPEAKER 03 :
Thank you. Thanks for having me. Good to be with you.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. All right. Coming up, Secretary of War Pete Hexeth on Capitol Hill this week. Going to talk about it next. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 06 :
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 16 :
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 04 :
God and Government is a video-driven, Bible-based training course from Family Research Council that explores the connection between 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 08 :
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 12 :
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 02 :
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 16 :
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 04 :
View the course at frc.org slash God and government or on the Stand Firm app.
SPEAKER 06 :
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. 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 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.
SPEAKER 07 :
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Happy 250th. Happy 250th. Happy 250th. Happy 250th birthday, America. May God bless America. Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for tuning in. I want to express my appreciation for Jody for filling in for me the first part of the week. I was out in California speaking to some pastors, Southern California. Great trip out there. But I’m back in the studio today. So thanks for tuning in. All right. Looks like the House has passed the extension of the FISA surveillance authority until April of twenty twenty nine. those final votes being cast, but they’re up over 220, so that has passed. All right, Secretary of War Pete Hexeth was on Capitol Hill today before the House Armed Services Committee. This was his first public appearance before Congress since the start of Operation epic fury in Iran. He’ll be over on the Senate side tomorrow. Among the concerns that some lawmakers have expressed is the unexpected departures of top defense leaders in the Pentagon this month and military spending. Joining us now to discuss this and more is Senator Ted Budd of North Carolina, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. Senator Budd, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us. Happy 250. Good to be with you. So you’ll be in committee tomorrow with the secretary. Anything that you heard over on the House side that may prompt a little deeper digging tomorrow?
SPEAKER 17 :
Oh, there’s always great questions and we appreciate the House interaction today. We’re going to talk about some very high profile firings and people being sent to early retirement. We’re also going to ask about the requested budget increase and how they intend to best use that. I’d like to see line by line. And remember that it’s our job as representatives, whether it’s the House or the Senate, to hold them accountable, hold the administration accountable to the American people. We want to make sure that this gets at what they’re requesting and that it actually makes our country safer and more prosperous.
SPEAKER 07 :
Senator, let’s talk about that. You’re a numbers guy. One point five trillion is the budget that they’re asking for. That’s a huge it’s about a 50 percent increase in the military’s budget. What do you think about that?
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, you can go back to the 1980s and you can see the prosperity that was created by the buildup of Ronald Reagan. And then you could see what this could potentially do, because remember, we’re not buying that from abroad. We’re buying that from domestic companies. So a lot of it will go to great states, including North Carolina and to our troops. So it goes right back into the economy. But I’d also say, what’s the cost of a threat abroad? What is the cost of an adversarial China or a rogue missile from Iran aimed at the United States? We have to give our warfighters what they need to protect our country at all costs.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, and today the Secretary made reference to the increase in pay for military members. You mentioned Reagan and his buildup of the military. I was the beneficiary of those increases as a young Marine, and it made a big difference. And I think our troops, we need to make sure that they are well paid. Of course, our military is a lot better off than it was in the 1970s and 1980s, but we’ve been heavily relying on them and technology is something we have to keep up with. to your point congress has a role to play and that is a role of oversight because we’ve seen in the past when there’s been um not so good oversight there’s been bad spending bad policies
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, we want to make sure that there aren’t archaic programs of record that are being spent on that just need to go away. Make sure that when we were increasing our magazine depth, that we’re doing it on newer, better, faster, cheaper munitions, not just buying the old stuff that’s very exquisite but very expensive as well. And I think there’s a lot of new tech and new defense companies out there that we can look to that aren’t the same old, same old. Plus, we also need to focus on retention for our war fighters, our pilots. If you look at those that have gained skills in cyber command and that are using cyber in warfare on America’s behalf, You know, they’ve got a lot of offers out on the street to go to work elsewhere for a lot more money. We need to make sure that we’re paying them not just we need to pay them fairly, but we also need to give them just the support that they need with their families. And that’s also for our pilots. We have a lot of well-trained pilots that are that have opportunities to go fly for the airlines and cargo haulers. And they can make a lot more money and have more flexibility. So I’ve introduced bipartisan legislation that actually gives some of these aviators more incentives to stay in the military, more protective of their families and respectful of that. And I think that could help with our retention and save a lot of taxpayer dollars to keep some of these very talented folks working for the military.
SPEAKER 07 :
We invest a lot in their training, so you’re absolutely right. It’s important. You mentioned concerns about the leadership. Let’s talk about that for a moment. I mean, I know you’re very supportive of the administration, supportive of the military, but are you concerned about the number of people that have been leaving at the top?
SPEAKER 17 :
I have, because what we really need to do is project at the civilian level, the civilian-led military level, the fact that we have stability. And when you have somebody that is an excellent business person brought into the Navy which had a business problem and now is gone, or you have a well-qualified leader in the Army on the military side, not the civilian side, that is now gone, we just need to ask some questions around that to say, are we solving a problem by changing out these people, or are we creating instability? And I think it’s a fair question to ask.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, I think it is a fair question for Congress to ask, and I think, again, that’s the role of Congress. Let’s talk Iran. We appear to be at a standoff now. We’ve got a ceasefire, a very tentative ceasefire, but we’re at a standoff. Anything you see on the horizon that’s going to break there?
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, I do. First of all, you have the disposition of President Trump not to want forever wars. And I think that is an excellent disposition. He wants to get in and be successful. And let’s not look at this as something that started right at 60 days ago. Let’s look at this as something that started 47 years ago with a rogue regime that’s chanted death to America and has nuclear weapon ambitions. We can never have a nuclear Iran. But President Trump wants to solve. He is about solving problems. He wants to solve this 47 year old problem. It’s taken seven presidents that have looked at it and walked away. And now you’ve got one that is finally standing up to a problem, which is chanted death to America and has their nuclear ambitions. You don’t know what that could do. Would they ever want to launch at the United States? and endanger 350 million people. We can never let that happen. So I’m grateful to President Trump. I do like what he’s doing with the blockade and the fact that it is putting a chokehold on a very rogue regime. And what we have to do, while we did put a stop to their nuclear program, their ambitions never ended, which means if there’s fissile material laying around, enriched material, they’re always going to try to dig it out, get it, rebuild their nuclear program. So we have to put the squeeze on them to the point where their nuclear ambition stops because it’s completely disconnected from their 93 million people who really probably want liberty. They do not want, they are disconnected from the IRGC. So we have hardliners and then we have the people that are being oppressed. And we need to make sure that they have a voice and that America is not under threat.
SPEAKER 07 :
And I agree with you. I think the blockade is destabilizing economically. That regime may open the door for the people there of Iran to step forward. Senator Ted Budd, I want to thank you for joining us. Always great to see you, my friend. Thanks. All right. Senator Ted Budd of North Carolina. All right. When we come back, we’re going to take a look at this landmark Supreme Court case in Louisiana. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 13 :
For I know that my Redeemer lives. Job 19, 25. God raised Jesus from the dead because it was impossible for death to teach. Hold on Him. Acts 2, 24.
SPEAKER 04 :
Join Family Research Council in standing on the Word. Visit frc.org slash Bible for free resources to help your family follow the way. Jesus, the risen Savior of the world.
SPEAKER 10 :
One Nation Under God, America’s undeniable foundation of faith.
SPEAKER 08 :
The United States Capitol, an iconic symbol of the American Republic. But few know that this building at the heart of our nation’s government was once something more, the largest church building in America. Since its inception and for decades following, several rooms throughout the Capitol, including the House and Senate chambers, were used to host church services weekly. These services were filled with individuals from all levels of government. The attendance was so pervasive that often it was standing room only. Quote, going to the Capitol on Sundays was then one of the most common things in Washington. Margaret Bayard Smith. This practice was not merely accepted, but encouraged. quote, I consider it as one of my public duties as a representative of the people to give my attendance every Sunday morning when divine service is performed in the hall. President John Quincy Adams. Housing worship at the center of our capital was a living representation of the role that biblical principles played as a cornerstone of our nation’s foundation of faith.
SPEAKER 07 :
This is Washington Watch. I’m Tony Perkins, your host. Thanks so much for tuning in. The website, TonyPerkins.com. Better yet, get the Stand Firm app. That way you’ll have access to Washington Watch no matter where you are. You’ll also have access to our news and commentary from a biblical perspective, The Washington Stand. My daily devotional, Stand on the Word, all of that is available at the Stand Firm app. So go to the app store and get the Stand Firm app. All right. As we were talking about at the top of the program earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case regarding Louisiana’s congressional map, their 2024 congressional map. A federal judge had forced the state to redraw the 2022 map to include a second majority black congressional district following claims of racial discrimination. This is not new. This happened back when I was in office back in the 90s. It went away, then it came back. Well, today, in its 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the redistricting was an unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. Joining us now to further unpack this decision and its broader implications, not only for Louisiana, but potentially for the rest of the nation, is the Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguinaga. Ben, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us. Thank you, Tony. It’s good to be here. Well, congratulations. You argued this case before the Supreme Court. Were you surprised by the six to three decision?
SPEAKER 19 :
Well, you know, if you practice on the Supreme Court, you always hesitate to speculate about what the court might do. But the science or moral argument were very good back in October when the court heard re-argument in this case. I think all of the justices were struggling with how to deal with just the wild plight that we found ourselves in. We had a federal district court who told us we had to adopt a second majority black district to comply with the voting rights act. Then we had another district court tell us we violated the constitution by doing what the first district court told us to do. I think you had six justices who were sensitive to that unfortunate situation that we found ourselves in. And so, you know, this outcome I think is exactly in line with those concerns. And, um, It’s a great day for America because it means that states can no longer be forced to racially discriminate against their own citizens.
SPEAKER 07 :
Now, help me understand the court decision. It didn’t say that you still have to be sensitive to these things, but this district is like a long snake that makes its way from the top of our state almost down to the bottom, and it is gerrymandering. It’s trying to create that district. Now, you can’t try to dilute minority vote, but in this case, you had the exact opposite.
SPEAKER 19 :
That’s right. What the Supreme Court, Justice Alito, writing for the majority said is under the Supreme Court’s constitutional precedents dealing with the Equal Protection Clause, typically you’ll never allow a state to use race as a basis for government action. One narrow circumstance where the Supreme Court has said a state can do that is if the state has identified a specific instance of past intentional discrimination that that a state then tries to remedy. But that was the problem in cases under the Voting Rights Act as lower district courts had construed it was you had district courts like the one in our case that weren’t finding that we had intentionally discriminated on the basis of race. We, of course, had not. But still, those courts were reading the Voting Rights Act to say, nonetheless, a state has to use race as a basis to draw district lines to remedy intentional discrimination that does not exist. That’s a constitutional problem. And so I think the biggest takeaway from Justice Alito’s decision is he says for the court that, look, the Voting Rights Act properly construed requires a pretty strong inference of intentional discrimination before a state like Louisiana can be forced to draw a map that you and I would consider to be racial gerrymandering.
SPEAKER 07 :
So, Solicitor General, first question, what happens next in Louisiana? And two, what’s the impact on other states?
SPEAKER 19 :
You know, Diana’s purpose is, you know, if you recall the way that this litigation played out in the district court, the district court enjoined us from conducting elections under this map. And so it’s important to say, you know, elections. And so typically under Supreme Court precedents, the legislature will have the first shot to determine whether to basically remedy the issue that’s been identified by a federal court. And if the legislature chooses not to do that, then usually it’s a federal district court that has the opportunity to fix the MAPS problems in its first instance. So I think that’s the decision facing both us and the district court over the next couple of days, you’ll see Louisiana officials take action in that regard.
SPEAKER 07 :
Could this happen before the fall’s election?
SPEAKER 19 :
I think it could. And I think if you’ve seen social media today, you’ve seen many states whose leaders have said, well, this decision changes everything in the Voting Rights Act landscape, including in current pending cases where there are lower court decisions applying a now incorrect view of the law. And so I think there are a number of states that are actively considering how to bring their own maps in compliance with federal law as now dictated by the CalA decisions.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, this could be huge, not just going forward, but even in this election where we have such a narrowly divided electorate, especially when it comes to control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
SPEAKER 19 :
That’s right. And I think it’s also huge, Tony, just as a matter of first principles. If you go back all the way to our Declaration of Independence, one of the first things that the founding fathers identified as sacred, as one of the truths that we held to be self-evident, was that all men are created equal. And so, yes, this decision is huge in terms of its practical impact on our elections going forward. But it’s also huge in terms of restoring our country to those founding principles that prompted the birth of our democracy.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, you know what? And it couldn’t come at a better time than when we celebrate the 250th anniversary, rediscovering those founding principles that you just articulated. Ben, always great to see you. Thanks so much for taking time. I know a very, very busy day for you. So thanks for for joining us.
SPEAKER 19 :
Yes, sir. Thank you so much, my friend.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right, again, congratulations. Ben Aguinaga, Solicitor General for the State of Louisiana. Very significant, very significant case. All right, coming up next, Dr. Al Mohler joins me. So don’t go away. We got a lot to talk about. Exodus chapter nine, verse one says, thus says the Lord God of the Hebrews, let my people go that they may serve me. You see, America has freedom for a purpose. The question is, are we living by that purpose today? In Scripture, deliverance and freedom is never an end in itself. It is a liberation unto obedience, to worship, and to a covenantal relationship. God’s demand to Pharaoh was not freedom for freedom’s sake. but freedom so his people could identify with and belong to and serve him. Freedom that is not used to serve God will not endure. One of the founders actually echoed a similar warning. Thomas Jefferson wrote, indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and his justice cannot sleep forever. 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. In this 250th anniversary year, we must ask the question, are we living by that purpose today as a nation. Lord, we thank you for the godly foundation and heritage of our states. Lord, we would return to an understanding of the freedom that you’ve granted to us, that freedom has a name. His name is Jesus. And freedom has a purpose. It is to honor and glorify you. And I pray that our nation would return to that understanding of the purpose of the freedom that you have granted to us. We thank you, Father. By faith, we pray that we would return to that purpose. In Jesus’ name we pray, amen.
SPEAKER 09 :
Looking for a trusted source of news that shares your Christian values? Turn to The Washington Stand, your ultimate destination for informed, faith-centered reporting. Our dedicated team goes beyond the headlines, delivering stories that matter most to believers. From breaking events to cultural insights, we provide clear, compassionate coverage through a biblical lens. Discover news you can trust at the Washington Stand, where faith and facts meet every day.
SPEAKER 07 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for tuning in. I’d like to take just a moment to welcome some of our newest PrayVote Stand chapters that have joined our initiative, equipping believers to engage locally, doing it from a biblical foundation, prayerfully. And we’ve actually been very encouraged by the growth We’ve seen and also the stories we’ve already heard about those chapters and how they’re engaging in their local communities. So a big warm welcome to our newest chapters, Ventura County, California, Teller County, Colorado, Teton County in Montana, Ector County in Texas, Augusta and Rockingham Counties in Virginia. So all of those new this week joining. Our goal is over the next 10 years, a pray vote stand chapter series. anchored in a church in every county in America. If you’d like to find out more, text the word chapters, that’s plural, chapters to 67742, that’s 67742, and we’ll get in touch with you and tell you how you can be involved. I mean, we believe that this will start a national renewal, building from the ground up, community by community, anchored in biblical truth. Speaking of that truth, our word for today comes from Judges chapter 2. When all that generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation arose after them who did not know the Lord nor the work which he had done in Israel. They forsook the Lord and served Baals and Asherahs. And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, so he delivered them into the hand of the plunderers who despoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies all around, so that they could no longer stand before their enemies. Wherever they went out, the hand of the Lord was against them for calamity, as the Lord had said, and as the Lord had sworn to them, and they were greatly distressed. They turned their hearts away from God to idols, and God turned his hand to protection for away from them and turned it against them. The result was that they could not stand before their enemies. They turned and they ran. When there’s spiritual compromise, moral courage to stand in the face of corruption and opposition is in short supply. To find out more about our journey through the Bible, text BIBLE to 67742. That’s BIBLE to 67742. Well, this past weekend, our nation witnessed another assassination attempt on President Donald Trump, this time at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. This marks at least the third time that we’ve seen an attempt on President Trump’s life within the last two years. Now, these attempts come at a time when political violence is on the rise and our country is deeply divided. Now, the responses have varied. Some have blamed the media and the rhetoric, the political rhetoric. The president said this underscores the need for the ballroom at the White House. But is there something deeper that we’re missing? Joining us now to discuss this and a bit more, Dr. Albert Moeller, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Moeller, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining me.
SPEAKER 05 :
Tony, as always, great to be with you.
SPEAKER 07 :
I know you’ve talked a lot about this on your daily briefing this week. You know, there’s been a lot of reactions. And then, of course, in the suspect’s manifesto, he said it was his righteous duty to target officials in the Trump administration. You know, in all of this dialogue, I mean, we’ve got heated rhetoric. What are we missing?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, I think for one thing, the secular press is missing the darkness of the human heart that gives itself over to evil. And that’s something the secular world doesn’t have a category for other than, say, pathological. But we biblically have the category of the one who follows evil to the point that they actually are serving evil. And so you look at the… at this particular would-be assassin’s agenda. He lays it all out. And by the way, one of the frightening things is, and the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal both pointed to this in recent hours, is that we’re talking about very intelligent individuals in terms of so many of these suspects. And so the secular world’s going, how could this happen? But what they lack is the category of a heart given over to evil. And it comes out with murderous intent.
SPEAKER 07 :
So let’s talk about that because I agree 100%. I mean, what we’re seeing is, you know, and Paul writes about this in Thessalonians. He talks about more in the end times where… evil, the evil one, the spirit of the evil one is already at work, the antichrist, but is being restrained. But that restraint is through the presence of the Holy Spirit through the church, through the body of Christ. As that weakens, as the church loses its strength because it’s not filled with the spirit, then evil is free to expand.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, absolutely. And, you know, a context here is also really just important. We understand that there’s nothing new here about evil in the human heart. There’s nothing new here about an attempted assassination of a world leader, going back to regicide in the ancient world. And, of course, attempted assassinations. And as you know, at the end of the 19th century, two presidents of the United States assassinated basically by anarchists. And so this isn’t new in American history. It’s 1963. It’s this past weekend in Washington, D.C., at least by intent. And we as Christians are the only people perhaps on earth who have the categories of a heart given over to evil. And so when restraints are taken off of society, And at least a part of that is God’s judgment. When restraint is taken off of society, more and more of this appears. And quite frankly, it takes some really hard biblical thinking to put this into perspective.
SPEAKER 07 :
It’s not new. It’s not new. You’re absolutely right. But the response seems to be a bit different. Now, I don’t remember when JF Kennedy was assassinated because I was just a few months old. But I remember my father, a Republican, you know, later told me he was going to drive to he wanted to drive to D.C. because the nation came together. There was a. There was a coming together. I do remember Ronald Reagan, the attempt on his life at the same hotel, by the way. I remember those things. But there seems to be a hardening of the American political. I don’t want to use the word soul because the nation as an entity doesn’t have a soul. The people have the soul. But there’s a hardening in our discourse that does not allow us to come together even in times of crisis.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, to make your point emphatically, just look at the fact that you have people who have tried to say from the left, oh, this is actually kind of understandable. I mean, clearly this was wrong, but it’s kind of understandable. This is where all morally sane people have to say, this is so far outside the bounds. of anything of moral acceptability, that it needs to be called out for exactly what it is. This is a threat to an entire democratic order. This is a threat to the entire rule of law. This is an intended effort to assassinate political leaders, including the president of the United States. And we don’t have to make inferences here because he wrote it out in a manifesto.
SPEAKER 07 :
But to acknowledge and accept that, we have to go back to your earlier statement. You have to accept the fact that the human heart, unredeemed, is evil and is capable of unspeakable things.
SPEAKER 05 :
That’s right. You know, there are three different things I notice in the New Testament. One is, obviously, all of sin falls short of the glory of God. Every human heart is given over to sin. But the New Testament speaks of some who give themselves to this sin. And then, of course, in Romans 1, you have God’s judgment. God gave them over to their sin. Those are haunting, haunting words. And I just have to say that we as a nation seem to be incapable of taking a serious look at this and recognizing, look, the problem here just isn’t political. The press wants to deal with this entirely in politics. Politics can’t answer this. Right.
SPEAKER 07 :
But I think… Your statement there is very, very important that when an individual or even a society gives itself over to these things, it’s different. It’s not just like one, you know, kind of falling in the ditch and doing it. It is a nation that has given itself to that. And that’s why I think there’s this there’s no. reckoning. There’s no coming together. It’s just further division. Now, I’ll have to say, Dr. Mueller, that even some of the responses on the right are not that encouraging. You know, the president himself has used this as justification for the ballroom at the White House. And I’m ambivalent on whether we need a ballroom at the White House. But security, more security. I will tell you, and it’s not new for my listeners. I detest that when I go into the airport, I have to take my shoes off as if I’m a captive. And this stuff has happened very slowly. It’s like the frog in the kettle. We have given up essential freedom for a promise of keeping us safe. And I remember Ben Franklin, maybe a little different context, but he said, you know, those who would give up essential freedoms for the promise of security deserve neither. We have to understand we cannot have enough security to keep us safe in a society that has a hardened heart that, as you said, has given themselves over to this.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, you know, we’re talking about fringe individuals here, but they’re a very real threat, as we just seen concretely last Saturday night. You know, Tony, one of the things I try to keep in mind here is that, for instance, the president talking about the ballroom, it can appear to be kind of an eccentric diversion. But, you know, I think it underlines something we need to notice that has been happening to the American presidency for the course of the last several decades. And that is the constricting of the space in which presidents even operate. And so there are people saying to the president, you’ve got to turn down this invitation. You have to turn this down because the security situation just isn’t adequate. So that’s one of the reasons why President Trump immediately jumps to the ballroom. And it is because right now, In terms of federal space, and you know this very well, you have the White House and you have the U.S. Capitol, you have the Pentagon. You get outside those envelopes and it’s a completely different security situation. And so I think it’s a very dark commentary on our age, but the fact is that the number of places… I’ll just go out on a limb. I doubt another sitting president of the United States speaks at that facility anytime soon under the current situation. As you say, President Reagan shot outside the same hotel you know, back now 40 years ago, and now an attempted assassination. And it’s just a reminder we live in a fallen world, and it’s going to be more and more exactly what you’re concerned about. It’s going to be more and more of a bunker mentality that gets forced on the government.
SPEAKER 07 :
I mean, I am very selective in the meetings I go to in certain places because I just, I detest, The security. Now, look, my background is security. I was a police officer for the Marine Corps. I worked in anti-terrorism. I know all of those things. I mean, I understand it. I understand the need for it. But I also know that it is getting, as you said, it’s intensifying and we’re not addressing the underlying issue. And that is the security. The evil that we’re allowing to be perpetrated and in many ways fostering in the environments they have in education, in our media, in our culture, in the rejection of God and his truth. And we expect a different outcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, it’s a continued slide, isn’t it? Just to make your point, it’s a continued slide. And more and more becomes possible, it becomes possible, then it becomes probable, then it becomes actual. And that’s what we’re seeing. We’re reaping some actuality of seeds that have been, you know, sown for generations. But as Christians, as Christians, should we accept that? Well, of course we don’t accept it, but we don’t control the culture. But we do control, for instance, what happens in our own churches. We control the raising of our own children in Christian homes. We have limited political options, to be honest. Right.
SPEAKER 07 :
But I don’t think we should be comfortable with it. I don’t think – I try to maintain a Christian character when I go through TSA. But, I mean, look, when I was a police officer, when you take someone to prison, the first thing you do is you take off their shoes and you – There’s reasons for that. In fact, in the Old Testament, when they took captives, they took their shoes so they couldn’t run. It limited their mobility. It’s just the whole idea that we’ve allowed ourselves to live in a culture that restricts our freedoms because we have to to be secure.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, it is a trade-off, isn’t it? This is sometimes referred to as the police dilemma or the law dilemma, because as soon as something happens, someone says there should have been a law to prevent this. The law is then put into place, and then the law prevents much more than what was supposed to be prevented. And so that’s exactly what you’re talking about with TSA and all the rest. Once you had the attacks of 9-11, people said, well, you know, there should have been policies in place to prevent this, policies and procedures and all that. But you can’t just do that. You have to do it comprehensively. And the next thing you know, people are saying these are onerous. And the next thing you know, someone says, well, there’s now this attack, so we need to do this. You know, I don’t have a perfect answer for this. I share your frustration. But I also just think of one of the principles of war, which is that every time you take an action that actually succeeds in, say, diverting an aggressor, people say it was an action unnecessary. So that’s very difficult, part of what President Trump’s facing in the Persian Gulf right now. But it’s something very real.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, Dr. Moeller, let’s look at this from that spiritual perspective we were talking about. We’re unlike any other nation, the freedoms that we’ve enjoyed as a country. And the freedom for people to come in and out of here who don’t like us, want to destroy us, like you mentioned 9-11. But, you know, I believe God’s hand of protection has been upon this nation. And he has protected us as we look to him, just as he promised the children of Israel in the Old Testament. If they would look to him and put him first, they wouldn’t have to worry about their enemies. He would take care of them. I think part of this is a reflection of the spiritual state of America that puts us at greater risk.
SPEAKER 05 :
No, you’re absolutely right. And think about this. Think about a sane society that would take previous evidence as enough to take someone out of public circulation. And instead, we have a situation in which we have people on the streets. Think of the subway attacks in New York City, places like that, where there are people on the streets who under any sane society would not be on the streets. But this is another problem in terms of our system of law. So much of it’s been turned into therapy. And I can just predict that’s going to happen in this case. There are going to be people who are going to be making psychotherapeutic arguments about this assailant. And I think you can just bet on it.
SPEAKER 07 :
because we’ve lost a standard of right and wrong, which we can only have if we will look to transcendent biblical truth, which the founders did, and which historically we have. Dr. Al Mohler, always great to have you stop by. Great to have a conversation and appreciate you quite a bit. Thankful for you, Tony. Glad to be with you. All right, Dr. Al Mohler. Look, this is one of those things we need to be praying about. I just don’t think we should ever accept evil as a norm and a response, a physical only response. I mean, we’ve got to see the spiritual behind it. and be praying and believing and working to see the change in hearts and minds that will lead to a change in our culture. All right, it’s all the time we have for today, but keep praying, keep voting, and keep standing.
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.
