In today’s episode of Washington Watch, hosted by Jody Heiss, we delve into pressing global and national issues. From the heart of the Iranian protests to President Trump’s new health care initiative, we bring you a nuanced discussion on the diverse topics making headlines. We are joined by key experts, including former crown prince of Iran, Reza Palavi, who elaborates on the ongoing crisis in Iran, and Dr. David Adesnick who offers an analysis on the broader impact on the Middle East.
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. Sitting in for Tony is today’s host, Jody Heiss.
SPEAKER 13 :
Despite the lies you’re hearing from the regime, its bloodlust has not diminished. The slaughter has not stopped. My brave compatriots, still holding the line with their broken bodies but unbreakable will, need your urgent help right now. Make no mistake, however, the Islamic Republic is close to collapse.
SPEAKER 08 :
Strong words. That was exiled former crown prince of Iran, Reza Palazi, speaking to reporters earlier today about the Iranian regime and the weeks-long protest that they’ve been trying to quell. Welcome to this January 16th edition of Washington Watch. I am your Friday host, Jody Heiss. Thank you so much for joining us. Coming up today, according to reports, the scale of protests in Iran has noticeably declined since Sunday, but the ongoing internet blackout that’s taken place there has made it extremely difficult to separate fact from fiction. We’ll get an assessment of the situation there in Iran when I’m joined by Dr. David Adesnik from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. And a little bit later on, how should Christians respond to technologies that can be both beneficial and harmful? Well, I’ll discuss this a little bit later in the program with Dr. Keith Plummer. He’s the dean of the School of Divinity at Cairn University. All this and much more straight ahead. President Donald Trump has rolled out his health care affordability plan, which he says aims to lower health care costs for Americans. And, of course, the announcement comes as affordability has been a key issue for millions in the U.S., and the White House is calling on Congress to get behind his plan. Well, joining me now is Washington Stand reporter Sarah Holliday, who’s been following today’s stories. Sarah, let’s start with this one. Can you break down for us what’s in this new plan from the president?
SPEAKER 21 :
Thank you, Jody. President Trump says that the new health care plan aims to lower insurance premiums and the cost of drugs. He said it would also maximize transparency of prices and hold insurance companies accountable. The plan also calls for ending taxpayer-funded subsidy payments to insurance companies.
SPEAKER 17 :
We’re calling it the Great Health Care Plan. Instead of putting the needs of big corporations and special interests first, our plan finally puts you first and puts more money in your pocket. The government is going to pay the money directly to you. It goes to you, and then you take the money and buy your own health care. Nobody’s ever heard of that before, and that’s the way it is.
SPEAKER 21 :
Jodi, critics claim the proposal is not complete and could raise insurance rates for people with pre-existing conditions. When asked about that in a press conference yesterday, here’s what White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt had to say.
SPEAKER 20 :
The president’s plan that he outlined today will have no impact on individuals in this country with pre-existing conditions. Obviously, that’s a continued conversation that the White House will have with Congress, but that’s not the president’s intention with the Great Health Care Plan.
SPEAKER 21 :
Lawmakers from both parties have continued to be divided over health care and have not agreed on the enhanced COVID era Obamacare subsidies that Democrats have been fighting for. Despite the division, the Trump administration expects his plan to receive bipartisan support. Currently, however, the plan lacks clear language that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortion. Pro-life groups will be working to protect taxpayers’ funds from that. Jodi.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes, we certainly will. Thank you for that, Sarah. I know in some other news, tensions continue to rise in Minnesota, where protests against ICE agents, they are still taking place. And now, Sarah, President Trump seems to be threatening to send troops to Minneapolis. And of course, all this is coming after a surge in immigration agents already there in the city. What’s the latest that you’re hearing in that situation?
SPEAKER 21 :
That’s exactly right, Jody. President Trump is now threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy military forces in Minnesota. Confrontations between residents and federal officers have become increasingly tense, following the shooting death of a woman by an ICE agent last week. And since then, anti-ICE protests have only spread further throughout other cities. The president’s threat to deploy military forces, though, came shortly after an immigration officer shot a Venezuelan man who fled the scene in his vehicle. According to DHS, the man sped off, crashed his vehicle, and then ran away on foot. Then two other Venezuelan men came out of a nearby apartment with a snow shovel and a broom handle and began hitting the officer. DHS says the officer fired shots in self-defense. Now both the Venezuelan man and the officer are in the hospital recovering. Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt called out Democratic leaders for escalating tensions between protesters and ICE agents.
SPEAKER 20 :
These Democrat governors and mayors in not just Minnesota, but in states across the country are essentially, you know, they’ve referred to ICE agents who, again, are brave men and women. And I would encourage everyone in this room and I would encourage Governor Walz and other Democrats who are demeaning law enforcement to sit down and have a cup of coffee with an ICE agent or a Border Patrol agent. These are great patriotic men and women who have families, who put on the uniform every day and are following our nation’s immigration laws.
SPEAKER 21 :
It’s estimated there are close to 3,000 immigration agents in Minneapolis and across the state. As for the Insurrection Act, it has been used 30 times in U.S. history. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the president alone can determine if the act’s conditions have been met. Jodi.
SPEAKER 08 :
Thank you so much, Sarah. A lot happening in the news, and as always, we appreciate you keeping us up to speed and what’s taking place. Sarah Holliday, thank you so much. All right, I want to turn back now to the situation specifically that’s taking place in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I’d like to get a perspective straight from Capitol Hill. And joining me now to discuss this and more is Congressman Glenn Grothman. He serves on several committees, including the Oversight Committee. He represents the 6th Congressional District of Wisconsin. Congressman Grothman, welcome back to Washington Watch. Good to see you.
SPEAKER 07 :
Glad to see you, Jordy.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, I know we haven’t spoken since the new year, so let me begin by saying Happy New Year to you. And of course, thank you for joining us again on Washington Watch. Let’s start with this, Congressman Grothman. Just generally speaking, your take on what’s happening, what we’ve been seeing in Minneapolis and elsewhere in relation to all the protests against ICE.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, this is a very scary thing for the country because every country has to have an immigration law. And the United States has very generous immigration laws. It’s not reported enough that every year in this country, over 800,000 people are sworn in as new citizens. So we are very generous in allowing people from around the world to come here. But despite that generosity, there are other people who under President Biden, we’re guessing 8 to 10 million people came here who shouldn’t. Every country needs the ability to enforce their immigration laws, and some Democrat states are hostile to introducing it. They refuse to help the federal government and are providing sanctuary for people who come here illegally. It’s the end of the country if we allow this to continue. In any event, in Minnesota, in part because the mayor does not have his authority police force out assisting the ICE agents. The ICE agents have been dealt a very difficult hand. As you just heard, they’re very brave men and women. They’re doing a fantastic job. But People are resisting arrest, people are interfering with the ICE agents, and therefore they have to be arrested. I think one thing that hasn’t been said is anywhere you have law enforcement, if somebody, you are trying to arrest somebody and they refuse to go along, they will be handcuffed and taken in anyway. And I think in Minnesota, we have left-wing groups who want to be arrested. We have horrible criminals who are in this country who shouldn’t be, who have to be arrested, but understandably try to run away. And as the result, the ICE agents have to physically arrest these people, as happens in other crimes around the country every day.
SPEAKER 08 :
Right. You know, it looks to me, Congressman, that the Democrats are actually simply throwing fuel on this fire that they’ve stoked. And literally, they’re just turning people against law enforcement right now. Now, I wanted to play a clip for you from Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, what she said during a hearing, and then get your response to this. Play clip three for me, please.
SPEAKER 01 :
What we are witnessing right now is unprecedented. There is no modern president for this level of federal overreach, violence, lawlessness carried out in the name of immigration enforcement. This is not routine enforcement. This is not about public safety. This is not even about immigration. This is about political retribution.
SPEAKER 07 :
your reaction to that well it’s a preposterous thing to say we have something unprecedented going on and that we have record record number of people in this country illegally even if you’re just talking about legal by the way we are right now with the highest percent of our country in our country’s history of people who are in this country who were born abroad so like i said we’ve been very generous Now we’re trying to enforce the laws, and no president has ever been dealt a more difficult hand than Donald Trump because his predecessor allowed 8 to 10 million people here illegally. So, you know, what President Trump has to do if he’s going to maintain the United States, the country he grew up in, he’s got to take a lot of these people and remove them. He is starting with illegal immigrants who broke the law. And a thing that’s very scary to me is the number of elected officials who almost have declared war on the federal government and said you are or we’re not going to be of any assistance to you. and actually we’re going to encourage our citizens to prevent ICE from .
SPEAKER 1 :
.
SPEAKER 07 :
. Right.
SPEAKER 08 :
This is a lot like the defund the police that took place while I was there serving alongside with you. Is this yet another defund the police 2.0 type thing for the Democrats?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, similar, and just that some radical Democrats wanted to have no more police. There are all sorts of Democrats who wish we had no ICE. They don’t want to enforce our immigration laws at all. And if you’re in a conservative state, you might say, well, how does it affect me? The United States cannot survive if we continue to allow individual states and individual cities say, no, we’re not going to be removing illegal immigrants, even illegal criminals. from your state. And that’s what’s going on in Minnesota right now. Absolutely.
SPEAKER 08 :
Last question. Last question for you. We’ve got less than a minute. What do we do moving forward? What needs to happen?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, I think President Trump just has to educate the American public what’s going on. I think with regard to all the fraud that’s going on, we have to across the board have the states pick up more of these programs. It’s easy to say for Minnesota, I’m going to let $9 billion of fraud happen because it’s the federal government that loses the money. If the states have to pick up 20 or 30 or 40 percent of these programs, they wouldn’t be so quick to allow this fraud to happen.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good point. Thank you so much, Wisconsin Congressman Glenn Grothman. Always great to see you, my friend. Thanks for joining us today on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 07 :
Thank you, Jody.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, coming up, we’ve got much more headed your way. Next, we’ll turn to the latest in Iran. We’ll be looking at how the situation there may affect the entire Middle East, including Israel. So you don’t want to miss this. We’ve got much more coming your way, and Dr. David Adesnick will be joining me. So stay with us. He’ll be with us on the other side of the break.
SPEAKER 09 :
We have state leaders that want to keep the deadly drugs out of their states. Maybe if these abortion pills were coming by boat, the administration would change its tactics. It’s time to respect the rights of the states, and it’s time to end death by mail.
SPEAKER 21 :
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, alongside Senator Lindsey Graham, led a press conference on Capitol Hill, urging the Trump administration to end the Biden-era policies that have allowed dangerous abortion drugs to be shipped across state lines. They were joined by state attorneys general, pro-life advocates, and multiple Republican congressmen.
SPEAKER 14 :
There are more abortions today in the United States than when Roe versus Wade was the law of the land. And why is that? It’s because of the chemical abortion drug Mifeprestone. Nearly 70% of the abortions that are committed in the United States today are committed because of Mifeprestone.
SPEAKER 06 :
The federal government is allowing a chemical abortion pill to be sent through the mail that wipes out every state unborn protection law in the land.
SPEAKER 22 :
It’s harder to ship alcohol in this country than it is to ship the abortion pill.
SPEAKER 12 :
And that should never be the case. This is a drug that takes the life of every child. So there is always a death that’s involved in this drug, but is also incredibly dangerous for the mom as well. We think that we should require a doctor to be able to get access to this drug.
SPEAKER 18 :
As a doctor, I think it’s essential that there be human contact before the pill is prescribed.
SPEAKER 04 :
It’s not about a national abortion ban. It’s about validating Dobbs and preventing other states from nullifying the legislative policy choices that have been made by our states and facilitating the illegal, unethical, and dangerous drug trafficking of abortion pills into our states without any medical oversight whatsoever.
SPEAKER 06 :
We can simply fix this if we have the courage to do it. So what are all of us telling the administration? You’ve been a great pro-life president, Mr. President. It is now time to deal with this issue.
SPEAKER 14 :
We want to protect life, and we want to give voice to the American people and their right to protect life state by state, city by city, and yes, here in the United States Congress. That’s what this fight is about.
SPEAKER 21 :
Let your voice be heard. Text LIFE to 67742. Sign the petition. Tell the Trump administration to act.
SPEAKER 22 :
Looking for a trusted source of news that shares your Christian values? Turn to The Washington Stand, your ultimate destination for informed, faith-centered reporting. Our dedicated team goes beyond the headlines, delivering stories that matter most to believers. From breaking events to cultural insights, we provide clear, compassionate coverage through a biblical lens. Discover news you can trust at the Washington Stand, where faith and facts meet every day.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good afternoon. Welcome back to Washington Watch. Great to have you. I’m your Friday host, Jody Heiss. Thank you so much for tuning in with us today. All right. More than a week now has passed since the Iranian government abruptly cut off Internet access for most of the country’s population there. By the way, it’s a population of some 90 million people. And, of course, cutting off the Internet was an attempt to suppress the widespread protests that were taking place there and, in fact, spreading across the country since the end of December. As a result, it’s been difficult to actually gauge the exact situation in the Islamic Republic, and it’s very difficult to separate the lies from truth. And according at least to some of the latest accounts that supposedly have been based upon witnesses there, or at least individuals who were in touch with witnesses, the scale of the protests noticeably declined since Sunday. Although, on the other hand, there certainly remains a heavy military and security presence in different areas across the country. So how much of all this reporting can we trust? Well, joining me now to discuss this and more is Dr. David Adesnick. He’s the vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. And for two years, he served as deputy director for joint data support at the U.S. Department of Defense. of Irregular Warfare and Counterinsurgency. Dr. Adesnick, welcome back to Washington Watch. Always an honor to have you.
SPEAKER 19 :
Thank you so much. It brings back memories to hear about those Pentagon days.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, we appreciate what all you did and what you continue doing right now. Let’s just start with that. What do you make of the reporting that we’re hearing right now? How much of it is true? How much is false?
SPEAKER 19 :
Well, I mean, part of the whole purpose of shutting down the Internet and cutting us off from the people of Iran is to make it impossible to know what’s true and what’s false. It’s a tactic to create a screen behind which the regime can gun down its own citizens. I think it’s broadly accurate that there has been a diminution in the intensity of protests, but a lot of things are only going to become clear over the next few days or perhaps longer.
SPEAKER 08 :
So what are you hearing? You’ve got yours on the ground in places, ways to get information. What are you hearing right now?
SPEAKER 19 :
Well, I think some people were definitely hoping for a more forceful American role. They obviously heard President Trump draw a red line and say that if the regime started killing its own people, America would act decisively. And then there seems to be some hesitation on that part in Washington. There seems to be indications that perhaps we didn’t have enough forces immediately in the region at the time or for other reasons that made it complicated. And to some degree, without that encouragement, people may not have decided they wanted to keep going and absorbing the kind of punishment the regime was giving them.
SPEAKER 08 :
So as you’ve been monitoring this and keeping a pulse on for a long time, how did these protests that are taking place now compare with past protests that we’ve seen?
SPEAKER 19 :
Well, this Islamist dictatorship has been in power for 47 years. There’s never been protests this widespread bringing in such entire swaths of the country. They’re in every province, all 31 provinces. They’re in reportedly 185 different cities, just bringing out people like never before. We’ve seen protests every few years, major ones, and these are still taking it up another notch.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, I’ve heard others say what you just said, too, that this seems different from protests we’ve seen there in the past. I want to play a clip for you and get your reaction to this. This took place earlier today at a press conference. It was held by the exiled son of the last Iranian Shah. And here’s what he had to say about the situation from his perspective. Play clip one for me.
SPEAKER 13 :
Despite the lies you’re hearing from the regime, its bloodlust has not diminished. The slaughter has not stopped. My brave compatriots, still holding the line with their broken bodies but unbreakable will, need your urgent help right now. Make no mistake, however, the Islamic Republic is close to collapse.
SPEAKER 08 :
Close to collapse. I’d like to get your reaction to that comment he made.
SPEAKER 19 :
Well, I hope so. This regime has been killing its own people, sponsoring terrorism, killing Americans for decades. You know, it’s very hard to say. These revolutions, we’ve seen many of them across this region, especially in 2011 in the Arab Spring. We’ve seen them in other parts of the world. And until the final critical moments, you don’t really know if the dictatorship will hold on or the people will manage to liberate themselves.
SPEAKER 08 :
And I guess that’s going to continue to be difficult for us to monitor with the Internet access and limited information that we’re able to get from there. Certainly there will be new ways for people to find ways to communicate, don’t you think?
SPEAKER 19 :
Yeah, and I think and it’ll also be a response from the regime. There have been some hope that things like Starlink terminals could help. It seems like they may be finding ways to disrupt those as well. I mean, there’s a constant race. If you remember back when the people of China rose up in 1989, they were often relying on fax machines, which we thought were a novel new technology to help protesters get their views out. So, you know, it’s a cat and mouse game. Each leap forward helps. It’ll be different forms of texting, different forms of encryption. And we hope we can stay one step ahead and maybe even find ways America can help people overseas.
SPEAKER 08 :
So based on what we do know, let’s go back to that. How could this situation in Iran affect the Middle East as a whole, including Israel?
SPEAKER 19 :
Well, it’s important to understand that Iran is the key driver, the key sort of, in some ways, puppet master of what they call the axis of resistance, right? Israel’s been fighting a war that was on as many as seven fronts at one time. Hamas gets major support from Iran. Hezbollah gets major support from Iran. The Houthis in Yemen get support from Iran, militias. in Iraq get support from Iran. The Assad regime, which killed hundreds of thousands of people, it ultimately fell, but it was a client of Iran. Iran is the one driving this entire group of regimes and terror groups across the region. There are some outside of its reach, right? It may partner with al-Qaeda and the others. I’m not saying it drives every last America-hating terrorist group. The point is many, many of them are being bankrolled, supported, trained by Iran.
SPEAKER 08 :
We don’t have time to go into this last question, so just a general, very brief bird’s eye view. What do you make of the US response to this situation so far? Are we doing the right things?
SPEAKER 19 :
Oh, I think a lot may still be undecided. We have a president who sees the strategic value of being unpredictable, and it remains so. We don’t know if he’ll do a 180-degree turn at the last moment, but there’s certainly fears that, you know, President Obama declared a red line on using chemical weapons in Syria. He didn’t hold it. Is Trump going to hold his? We don’t know.
SPEAKER 08 :
Got to stop it right there. Dr. David Adesnick, Vice President of Research at Foundation for Defense of Democracies, thank you so, so much. All right, friends, coming up next, how should Christians respond to technologies? We’ll go there.
SPEAKER 09 :
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. judean samaria is nearly a quarter of israel’s current land mass 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 launch pad 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.
SPEAKER 08 :
Thank you for joining us today on Washington Watch. I am your Friday host, Jody Heiss. So glad to have you tuning in with us. All right. Tony actually touched on this yesterday, but we want to hit on it a little bit more today. Yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing examining the impact of technology on America’s youth. And as we highlighted, this is an issue that has drawn bipartisan concern and even agreement. And still, while Congress tries to address this issue, it’s important for us, and this is why we want to keep camping out here a little bit more, it’s important for us as Christians to know how to think about this. How should Christians respond to technologies that are both beneficial and harmful? Well, joining me now to discuss this is Dr. Keith Plummer, Dean of the School of Divinity at Cairn University in Langhorne, Pennsylvania. He’s a theology professor. Dr. Plummer also regularly teaches apologetics and technology and Christian discipleship. He also hosts that university’s podcast, Defragmenting. Dr. Plummer, welcome to Washington Watch. It’s great to have you.
SPEAKER 10 :
Thank you for having me. Good to be here.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, listen, I know we can have a long conversation on this topic, so let’s just try to pack in as much as we can. Let me begin by just diving into the big question here. How should Christians respond to technologies that are both beneficial and harmful?
SPEAKER 10 :
I think it would help to have a really… in-depth biblical understanding of creation to begin with, and to recognize that when we encounter various technologies, we’re seeing the creativity, the ingenuity, the skill that God has endowed humanity with. And so I believe that technology and our inclination to use tools as we do is something that is part of creation. But we also have to be mindful of the reality of the fall and sin, and how it is that we are inclined to use various tools and very self-seeking as a way, in addition to, as opposed to a God-glorifying manner. And I think that we need to avoid two poles. One is that of demonizing technology, uncritically rejecting it, rejecting it, or the other, I say devouring, uncritically accepting. And I think that we are probably most in danger of the second. Someone who has influenced me greatly is Neil Postman. And Postman said in one of his works that the question of what a technology will undo is no less important than the question of what it will allow us to do. And it may actually be more important because it’s so infrequently asked. So I think that those are some of the things that we have to consider when we’re considering how it is or whether it is that we make use of particular technologies.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good comments there. Senator Ted Cruz actually chaired yesterday’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing, and one of his first moves as chairman, he reintroduced the Kids Off Social Media Act, which has bipartisan support here to try to help protect kids from the harmful impacts of social media. What advice do you have for parents as they try to help navigate through this digital age that we’re living in.
SPEAKER 10 :
I would be in full agreement with the witnesses in the hearing that I don’t believe the children should have smartphones until at least the age of 16. I think that parents need to find other parents who share their commitments to being conscientious about the use of technology, because this is something that requires more than just individual resolve. And people who have written much about the area, such as Jonathan Haidt and his anxious generation and others have called for the necessity of what’s called collective action, both for the sake of the parents and their encouragement, as well as for the children and them having peers whose families are also committed to some of the same things. That’s very important. And I believe that parents need to be very mindful of their own technological usage and what it is that they are modeling to their children.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good point. Okay, last question. We’ve got all sorts of the digital world. I mean, we have AI, we’ve got robotics, cybernetics, which is a merging of human and machine, all sorts of technologies. What type of resources would you recommend for people who wish to do further research and just get better acquainted with all this?
SPEAKER 10 :
I think that a very valuable resource would be a book by John Dyer, who teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary, called From the Garden to the City. And it is a book about the place of technology, and he does deal with some of those newer technologies. But he’s trying to help Christians think biblically and theologically about where technology fits within the narrative of redemption. That would be one place.
SPEAKER 08 :
Give me the name of that book again.
SPEAKER 10 :
From the Garden to the City.
SPEAKER 08 :
From the Garden to the City. Outstanding. By John Dyer. Thank you so much, John Dyer. Thank you so much, Dr. Keith Plummer, Dean of the School of Divinity at Cairn University. We appreciate so much your leadership on this issue, and thank you for joining us today on Washington Watch. It’s an honor to have you.
SPEAKER 10 :
You’re welcome. An honor to be your guest. Thank you.
SPEAKER 08 :
All righty. All right, friends, we’ve got a lot more to cover, particularly as it relates to taking the highlights of the news from this week and doing what we always try to do on Friday afternoons, is let’s try to break it all down and give it to you from a biblical worldview perspective. Dr. David Claussen will join me. Stay tuned.
SPEAKER 05 :
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’s 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 16 :
What is God’s role in government? What does the separation of church and state really mean? And how does morality shape a nation? President John Adams said our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Join Family Research Council for God and Government, a powerful series that explores the connection between biblical principles and the American government, equipping you with truth to engage in today’s most pressing debates. We’ll uncover the foundations of our nation’s history and why it’s relevant for today. Join us to defend God’s plan for government because faith and freedom were never meant to be separate. You can view the course at prayvotestand.org slash godandgovernment or on the Stand Firm app.
SPEAKER 05 :
The book of Hebrews says that the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Stand on the Word is Family Research Council’s journey through the living and active Word of God. Follow the plan with us. Spend 10 to 15 minutes a day reading God’s word, and over the course of two years, discover that the Bible is one big story, a story of many words pointing to the word, the one who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. because the Word is alive and His name is Jesus. Find our Bible reading plan and daily devotionals from Tony Perkins at frc.org slash Bible. Join us as we stand on the Word.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good afternoon. Welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m your Friday host, Jody Heiss. Thank you so much for tuning in with us today. Before I get into this final segment, I’ve got a couple of dates that I want to throw out to you to mark on your calendars. First, we’re only just a couple of weeks away from our National Gathering for Prayer and Repentance. That’s going to take place on February 4th. It will be at the Museum of the Bible here in Washington, D.C. This event is one of the most powerful events I’ve ever been a part of. It will bring together members of the United States Congress, state leaders, evangelical leaders, intercessors from across the nation. And we invite you to join us as well. You can get more details by visiting NGPR.org. That stands for National Gathering for prayer and repentance, ngpr.org. And then further out, another date, is our 2026 Pray, Vote, Stand Summit. It will be taking place September 23rd through 25th at Cornerstone Chapel in Leesburg, Virginia, which is just outside of Washington, D.C. And registration will be opening up soon. To learn more, visit prayvotestand.org. All right, let’s jump into this last segment. You know, after serving in Congress and being around politics for as many years as I have been, there frankly is not a whole lot that catches me by surprise. But on at least two occasions this week, like you, I was stunned. In fact, I’m still stunned as I consider a couple of exchanges that took place this week in our nation’s capital. And both of these interactions underscore the great worldview divide that confronts all of us right now. And joining me now to discuss these stories for our Biblical Worldview conversation is Dr. David Claussen, who is the director of the Center for Biblical Worldview here at FRC. David, thanks for joining me again, and as always, happy Friday to you.
SPEAKER 03 :
Happy Friday, Jody. A joy to be on the program with you again.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, let’s start with this. You know, I know you’re actually, let me actually begin here. I know you’re traveling. You’re on the road. You’re about to speak, in fact, to the church here just probably in just a few minutes. So we’ll try to rush through this segment. Tell us where you are and what you’re doing.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, Jody, I’m actually in South Lake, Texas. Just in a few moments, I’m going to be speaking at Restoration Church. It’s pastored by my dear friend, Ryan Welsh, and I’m going to do a talk on the issue of life, abortion and the value of human life, of course. with the president’s recent Hyde comments and the press conference FRC even hosted this week on chemical abortion. This is continuing to be in the news. Christians obviously need to be thinking well about this issue, most importantly, biblically about this issue. So I’m grateful that I’m going to do a session and then do a Q&A with the congregation. So grateful for the invitation and looking forward to our time together here in South Lake, Texas.
SPEAKER 08 :
Absolutely. And I see your book in the background there, Life After Roe. No one more qualified to speak on that issue than you. So we’re so proud of you and grateful that you’re there. David, a couple of stories in particular that I wanted to discuss with you. The first deals with an exchange at the U.S. Supreme Court that happened on Tuesday. And of course, Tuesday was when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the two women’s sports cases. And I know you were there at the court on Tuesday. And I’d like to play a clip from the oral argument. This is Associate Justice Katonji Brown Jackson. The context is Justice Jackson is attempting to define the term sex. And you see that she ends up using all sorts of terms like cisgender and girl assigned at birth just to try to make her point. Play clip six for me.
SPEAKER 02 :
You have the overarching classification. Everybody has to play on the team that is the same as their sex at birth. But then you have a gender identity definition that is operating within that, meaning a distinction, meaning that for cisgender girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity for transgender girls they can’t this notion that this is really just about the definition of um who we accept that you can accept separate boys and girls and we are now looking at the definition of a girl and we’re saying only people who were um girl assigned at birth qualify
SPEAKER 08 :
David, I mean, as ridiculous as Justice Jackson sounds, I think what leaps off the page here is we have a massive worldview problem. I mean, she’s got a worldview that’s embedded deeply within her comments. So let me just throw the ball your way. What stood out to you? What stands out to you in this?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, Jodi, I think it needs to be said that, of course, Justice Jackson is highly credentialed. She did her undergraduate degree at Harvard. She got her law degree from Harvard. She’s been on the federal bench now for 13 years. She was first appointed by Barack Obama. She served on the district level, the appellate level. Now she’s on the Supreme Court. She is highly credentialed. She has a lot of experience. But, Jodi, this is a textbook example of of what happens when ideology becomes your guiding light. Her fundamental commitment is entirely betrayed by her language. And I think this is an important lesson for us, Jody. Words really do matter. And the words that you use or the words that you don’t use often really betray or reveal your worldview. Just listen to the language that Justice Jackson used, cisgender. Of course, this is a term that was invented by modern queer theory, which is an offshoot of critical theory. Girl assigned at birth. I had to listen to that a couple of times. That’s clearly, though, Jody, a term that reflects gender ideology’s insistence that your sex can be different than your so-called gender identity. And so in the clips that you just played, you really do see the language of modern gender ideology being smuggled into the language of constitutional reasoning or legal theory. And I guess where I come at this, Jody, as a Christian, we understand fundamentally that God made us male and female. And that distinction is not arbitrary. It’s not socially constructed. But Jody, here’s the deal. When you sever… identity from embodied reality, you are left with absolute confusion, which is reflected in that clip. And so again, Jodi, I think that the takeaway for our viewers is that when you elevate subjective self-definition over objective truth, there are enormous consequences. And in the context of this case, there’s enormous consequences, especially for women and girls.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, absolutely. And, David, I recall when then Judge Jackson, when she was at her confirmation, when she was being confirmed, refused to define the term woman even back then. So this is not a new thing for her. It’s clear that she’s been beholden to this type of ideology for a long time. Absolutely. Are you at all worried that this trans ideology is going to win the day when it comes to these two cases? Or did you hear something in the oral arguments that the majority of the justices might seem to side with Idaho and West Virginia and common sense?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, Jody, I’m cautiously optimistic about the outcome of both of these cases. I think the overall oral arguments went really well. You are right, though, about now Justice Jackson, that this ideology didn’t appear overnight. It is deeply embedded. And of course, elections have consequences. She was put on the bench. by then President Joe Biden for a life term. So we’re going to probably have these types of clips for years to come. But as far as these two cases, we talked about it last week, Jody. They come from Idaho and West Virginia. I do think that several of the justices, even in their questions, seem genuinely concerned about fairness, about the integrity of competition, and the real tangible harms of uh that gender ideology causes female athletes um because ultimately these two cases are about whether the law can still recognize biological reality and of course the context here is sports and so even the the questioning of justice alito you know he was pressing the attorneys representing the trans activist side they couldn’t even they were tripping all over themselves even trying to define the word sex and so ultimately i’m cautiously optimistic that when the decision is handed down in june The sanity is going to prevail.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, this whole this whole stuff, it really is just stunning to realize that we’re actually here having serious in the Supreme Court over this stuff. Switching gears with you, David, I know there’s a lot we want to cover, but there was a hearing on Wednesday about chemical abortion drugs and it. was really an important hearing about the dangers that are posed by these drugs. But I want to play again a clip for you that has since gone viral. It’s an exchange between Senator Ashley Moody of Florida and the pro-abortion witness Nisha Verma. This is clip seven. Play that for me, please.
SPEAKER 04 :
Ms. Verma, can men get pregnant?
SPEAKER 15 :
Dr. Verma, I just want to make sure we’re… Dr. Verma, can men get pregnant? As a doctor, give me your opinion. As a doctor, can men get pregnant? I mean… I’ll move on to the next one.
SPEAKER 08 :
I’m speechless. Do you have a reaction? Help me out here. I have nothing to say.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, Jody, I really appreciate how when Senator Moody from my home state of Florida asked the question, you know, she says Miss Verma, and of course the doctor corrects her, wants to use the honorific title of doctor, and then proceeds to stumble over a question that a first grader could answer. Jody, the answer to that question, can men get pregnant, is an emphatic no. There’s no previous generation that would have wavered on this question. But again, Jody, this is an example where ideology overrides science. Ideology overrides common sense here. I do think this ideology in some sense, Jody, is beginning to wane. I think a lot of progressives got this lesson in the 2024 election. But Jody, just today, I saw Ben Shapiro interviewing Governor Gavin Newsom, who of course is going to be running for the Democratic nomination in 2028. And he kind of was all over the place on this question. And so I think we’re going to continue to see those on the political left and progressives stumble over this because they are so beholden and so committed to ideology. Jodi, this doctor, she teaches at a medical school. She’s board certified. She is not unintelligent. You can see her squirm. And then later, Josh Hawley also asked questions and kind of put her on the spot. But again, even highly intelligent people look utterly unintelligent when they are so beholden to ideology. And I think this is where you see the underlining worldview. It’s inescapable.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, you mentioned Josh Hawley. I actually have this clip here. So let’s go ahead and play clip eight for our audience to hear this as well.
SPEAKER 14 :
Do you think that men can get pregnant?
SPEAKER 15 :
I hesitated there because I wasn’t sure where the conversation was going or what the goal was. I mean, I do take care of patients with different identities. I take care of many women. I take care of people with different identities. And so that’s where I paused. I think I wasn’t sure where you were going with that.
SPEAKER 14 :
Well, the goal is just the truth. So can men get pregnant?
SPEAKER 15 :
Again, the reason I paused there is I’m not really sure what the goal of the question is.
SPEAKER 14 :
The goal is just to establish a biological reality. You just said a moment ago that science and evidence should control, not politics. So let’s just test that proposition. Can men get pregnant?
SPEAKER 15 :
I take care of people with many identities, but I take care of many women that can get pregnant. I do take care of people that don’t identify as women.
SPEAKER 14 :
Can men get pregnant?
SPEAKER 15 :
Again, as I’m saying…
SPEAKER 08 :
That is just unbelievable. You know, David, so let me just continue down the path that Senator Hawley was going. It is frightening. It is frightening when ideology becomes more important than science. And look, I know you’re about to speak at a church, and I know you’ve got to run here. But when you think about these stories from the Supreme Court and at the U.S. Senate, how should Christians respond to this?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, Jody, we shouldn’t be surprised. You know, Scripture tells us that when societies reject God’s truth, confusion and chaos inevitably follows. And so I think we respond with conviction. We, of course, respond with compassion. But again, compassion doesn’t mean that we don’t speak the truth clearly. And so I think we need to do that. What Senator Hawley did there, just the laser focus, repeating his question several times, which again is exposing the underlining ideology. And I do think the pendulum is shifting on this issue because of exchanges just like this. So as Christians, Jody, Ephesians 4.15, we speak the truth in love. And I think that’s the way forward for those of us who are Christians and committed to reality.
SPEAKER 08 :
Absolutely. David, I know you got to go. A final question here. I couldn’t let you go without acknowledging, recognizing today is National Religious Freedom Day, and I know you’ve written several op-eds on religious freedom. Just wrap us up here, the importance of religious freedom and what you would say to our listeners and audience with this.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, Jody, since 1993, we’ve had the National Religious Freedom Day, and this is a law on the books, and the president each year issues a proclamation. It commemorates the passage in 1786, actually, of Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Really important. Religious freedom, Jody, we’ve talked about it before, religious freedom. It means that you can believe what you want to in terms of theology and doctrine, and you’re free to order your life according to those deepest convictions. We have a long history in this country of supporting religious freedom. Obviously, it continues to be under attack. But on a day like this, we need to just remind ourselves why believers and unbelievers should be able to unite and say our religious freedom in this country is worth preserving.
SPEAKER 08 :
Amen. Amen. Thank you so much, Dr. David Claussen, Director of the Center for Biblical Worldview here at FRC. May the good hand of God be upon you, my brother, as you go speak there at Restoration Church in South Lake, Texas, on the issue of life. Thank you, as always, for joining us today. Friends, that’s all for this week and today. Have a wonderful weekend. We’ll see you next week here on Washington Watch.
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.
