Join us on Washington Watch as we delve into the legal landscape affecting parental rights in public education, the escalating trade tensions between the US and China, and the establishment of a task force to combat anti-Christian bias in government. Guests share their insights on the significant moves being made to uphold constitutional freedoms amid mounting societal challenges.
SPEAKER 13 :
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 09 :
Well, good afternoon. Welcome to this Wednesday edition of Washington Watch. I am Jody Heiss, the Senior Vice President here at the Family Research Council and President of FRC Action. Absolutely thrilled to have you joining us today and, as always, a tremendous honor to be filling in for Tony. We’ve got a lot coming your way today. The legal battle over the deportation of illegal immigrants continues with more orders from the courts. But while all of this is playing out, the Trump administration is plowing ahead as far as the law at least will allow them to go.
SPEAKER 02 :
President Trump’s saving thousands of lives every day by securing that border. And we’re going to continue, despite what the district court says, maybe we’ve got to hold off on some of the deportation operations we’re doing, but that’s not going to stop us from seeking these people out, arresting them, and taking them off the streets of the United States while we wait for the courts to decide.
SPEAKER 09 :
That was President Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan. He was speaking earlier today to reporters. And I’ll be discussing this here in just a few moments when I’m joined by Texas Congressman Keith Self. And he and I are also going to be discussing the latest in the Middle East, including remarks today by the president of the Palestinian Authority who referred to Hamas as sons of dogs. Yes, and he’s calling on them to return the hostages and to end their control of Gaza. So what can we make all of that? Well, again, I’ll be talking here in just a few moments with Congressman Self about that. And after his meeting on Monday with various CEOs of some of the top retailers like Walmart and Target and Home Depot, President Trump’s tone on the tariff battle with China seems to be a little bit more soft as well as optimistic.
SPEAKER 06 :
We’re going to be very nice. They’re going to be very nice. And we’ll see what happens. But ultimately, they have to make a deal because otherwise they’re not going to be able to deal in the United States. So we want them involved. But they have to and other countries have to make a deal. And if they don’t make a deal, we’ll set the deal.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, that was President Trump speaking to reporters yesterday. So many are asking, is the worst behind us now? And what might we expect looking ahead? Well, I’ll be discussing all of this when I’m joined a little bit later in the program by Spencer Morrison. He’s the editor-in-chief for the National Economics Editorial. And yesterday, the Justice Department hosted the inaugural meeting of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias.
SPEAKER 21 :
The First Amendment isn’t just a line in the Constitution. It’s the cornerstone of our American liberty. It guarantees every citizen the right to speak freely, worship freely, and live according to their conscience without government interference. Protecting Christians from bias is not favoritism. It’s upholding the rule of law and fulfilling the constitutional promise.
SPEAKER 09 :
Strong words. That was U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi giving her welcoming and opening remarks. I’ll be discussing the meeting and its significance a little bit later in the program when I’m joined by Michael Ferris. He’s the general counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters. He was not only at the meeting, he spoke there as well. And then we’ll close out today’s program by taking a deeper dive into yesterday’s Supreme Court oral arguments in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, which is the case that literally is asking the question as to whether or not parents have the right to be notified and to opt their children out of public school instruction on gender and sexuality if it goes against their religious beliefs.
SPEAKER 19 :
Here, they’re not asking you to change what’s taught in the classroom. They’re not asking you to change that at all. A lot of the rhetoric suggests that they were trying to do that, but that’s not what they’re trying to do. They’re only seeking to be able to walk out so that the parents don’t have their children exposed to these things that are contrary to their own beliefs.
SPEAKER 09 :
That was Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh yesterday. And a little bit later in the program, Liberty Council’s Daniel Smith will join me for an analysis. So as always, we’ve got a lot, a lot coming your way. Absolutely a packed program. You don’t want to miss any of it. But if you do, our website, of course, is TonyPerkins.com, where you can catch this as well as many other episodes and tons of resources. So keep that handy, TonyPerkins.com. All right, earlier today, Mahmoud Abbas, he’s the president of the Palestinian Authority, he called on Hamas to hand over hostages as well as the control of the Gaza Strip. He actually referred to Hamas as sons of dogs. He called for the terror group to end the matter, to end the war as a whole. But at the same time, he called for the defense of the Palestinian cause and the end of what he referred to as Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip. And all this comes after a phone call yesterday between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So what can we expect and what can we make from all of these latest developments? Well, I’m honored now to be joined by Congressman Keith Self. He’s a member of several House committees, including the Foreign Affairs Committee. He represents the 3rd Congressional District of Texas. Congressman Self, welcome back to Washington Watch. Always great to have you.
SPEAKER 07 :
Thanks. Thank you, Jody. Great to be here.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, listen, I haven’t been able to tell you in person, but I hope you and your family had a wonderful Easter. And again, thanks for joining us today. So let’s start with what can we gather from President Abbas’s plea here? Is this a serious attempt for peace in Gaza and the Middle East?
SPEAKER 07 :
No, this is the expectation that Israel will defeat Hamas, and he is angling to be the leader of the Palestinians inside the West Bank and in Gaza. So that’s all this is. It’s a power play. But let me tell you, when he calls Hamas sons of dogs, from my time in the Middle East, I can guarantee you that is a brutal takedown. That is a brutal insult. So he is simply saying that I want to replace Hamas in controlling the West Bank and now the Gaza Strip. That’s all he’s saying.
SPEAKER 09 :
All right. So great, great insight there. And I thought the same thing when I saw his reference to Hamas’ sons of dogs. I mean, I know enough. I’ve been over there as well. You can’t go much lower than that. So what would it look like for there to be a leadership change in the area?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, he tells us from that statement that he expects Israel to finally defeat Hamas. Israel has gone back into the Gaza Strip. Insiders, people who have been over there, tell me it’s not being reported right now, but Israel is taking very strong measures against Hamas in Gaza Strip today. We’re not hearing a lot about it, but they are. So he expects Hamas to eventually be defeated. Now, what Israel does with the Gaza Strip, we don’t know. I believe that they will keep the corridors, both the Philadelphia corridor and the corridor through the center of Gaza. And so what the PA, the Palestinian Authority, believes that they can do is move in and actually control it. You may remember that he also said something about stopping the deportation of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. So he expects Palestinians to remain in the Gaza Strip. He simply wants to be the leader.
SPEAKER 09 :
Wow. All right. So let’s move from there to the phone conversation between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. President Trump says that the two of them are on the same side on every issue. So, I mean, they discussed a lot of things. They discussed things like trade and Iran and other things that have not been disclosed. But I would think, at least, and I love your opinion, that probably the bulk of their conversation consisted of Iran. What do you think? Absolutely.
SPEAKER 07 :
I think that’s probably what they spent the majority of their time on. And I think that was the message that they were both trying to send. President Trump will always try for peace, and he’s trying that with Iran now. But should that peace fail, you might note that the press secretary said, the spokesperson said, he is committed to Iran not getting a nuclear weapon. That’s the headline. President Trump, while he’s trying for peace, he is also committed that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. And I can guarantee you, he and Netanyahu are certainly agreed on that.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, so at the same time, I find it very interesting, and while all this is going on, the Israeli Air Force has prepared for a possible Iranian strike. I mean, they’re having some of these prepared strike practices, if you will. What do you make of all of that, and how does that impact all the discussions?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, they expect there to be some sort of conflict between Iran, Israel, and the U.S. That’s what it tells you. They are trying to do better in their defenses. They’re trying to make sure they’ve got everything right for when this happens, because they know that Iran will fire missiles at Israel. All it is is practicing for the real thing. I think that we will probably see that, because I don’t see the Ayatollah as bending, and I’m not sure that he wants peace. Remember, Iran still wants to be the big dog in the Middle East.
SPEAKER 09 :
You got a lot of folks vying for that position, for sure. If I can, Congressman Self, let me shift gears with you and talk about the deportation efforts that President Trump has been involved with, and specifically as it relates to the courts. that have stepped up and have been consistently blocking some of his efforts to deport some people who really have no business being here, some violent criminals. What do you make of the president’s comments yesterday, really going after the courts? I agree with him.
SPEAKER 07 :
I think we are totally out of whack with the Constitution. Our founder said that Article III, the judiciary, would be the weakest branch in our government. Congress is the legislative branch. We make the laws. Article 2 is the executive branch. The president runs the executive branch. He does not report to Article 3, the judiciary. And they’re making it sound like he reports to them. They can tell him what he can do. That’s entirely wrong. These are rogue judges. They need to say what they think. Two things. First of all, what Congress intended in the law that they wrote, and two, is that law constitutional? That is their duty. It is the duty of the president to execute the laws of the land as the Congress wrote them, as the rules are written by the directorates and the agencies, although I think they ought to go by the intent of Congress. But the judiciary is totally out of bounds constitutionally. The president does not report to the judges. I think that we need to realign the Constitution that the judges are the weakest branch. They simply write their opinions as to what Congress meant, and is it constitutional? The president, though, particularly in foreign policy, executes the laws of this land.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, absolutely. I’m so glad that you put that forward because I think there is a huge misunderstanding. And I agree, the courts have seemingly and increasingly stepped up into an area that they don’t have the authority to do. Now, we’ve only got about a minute left. You posted on X, and I wanted to bring this up, that some… Judges actually have been harboring some terrorists. What is that that you were referring to?
SPEAKER 07 :
It was a minor, I think a magistrate in New Mexico, who actually was letting a known terrorist live in his house. They have gone to the range together. They fired weapons together, knowing who this person was. This is totally… almost unbelievable, unfathomable, that a district, that a judge in New Mexico would allow a known terrorist to live in his house, to take him to the range, to shoot weapons with him. This is beyond the pale. It’s beyond the pale.
SPEAKER 09 :
Congressman Keith Self of Texas, always great to have you, my friend. Thank you for joining us, as always, on Washington Watch. Keep the torch ablaze. All right, friends, coming up next, major retailers met with President Trump without possible empty shelves. Economist Spencer Morrison joins me next. Stay tuned.
SPEAKER 18 :
At Family Research Council, we believe religious freedom is a fundamental human right that all governments must protect. That’s why FRC President Tony Perkins went to Capitol Hill to testify on behalf of persecuted Christians in Nigeria. Islamist terror groups target Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria with brutal violence. Representative Chris Smith, who chaired the hearing, said 55,000 people have been killed and 21,000 abducted in the last five years alone. The congressman also stressed that 89% of Christians in the world who are martyred are from Nigeria.
SPEAKER 22 :
Yet the government of Nigeria has failed to make progress against religiously motivated persecution of Christians despite religious freedom being enshrined as an essential human right in their constitution.
SPEAKER 18 :
Tony Perkins called for the United States to send an unmistakable message.
SPEAKER 08 :
This is systematic religious violence. Nigeria must be redesignated a country of particular concern. The Biden administration’s removal of this designation was a reckless mistake that emboldened the very terrorists who are slaughtering Christians.
SPEAKER 18 :
Redesignating Nigeria will enable the U.S. government to pressure Nigerian leaders to protect vulnerable Christians.
SPEAKER 08 :
These are not just numbers. These are fathers, their mothers, their children, their families.
SPEAKER 18 :
Bishop Wilfred Anagabe risked his life to speak out, sharing firsthand accounts of the danger faced in his church district in central Nigeria.
SPEAKER 01 :
We live in fear because at any point it can be our turn to be killed. But to remain silent is to die twice. So I have chosen to speak.
SPEAKER 18 :
FRC is calling on President Trump to act now to promote religious freedom around the globe and speak up on behalf of Christians in Nigeria.
SPEAKER 10 :
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 03 :
Download the new Stand Firm app for Apple and Android phones today and join a wonderful community of fellow believers. We’ve created a special place for you to access news from a biblical perspective, read and listen to daily devotionals, pray for current events, and more. Share the Stand Firm app with your friends, family, and church members, and stand firm everywhere you go.
SPEAKER 09 :
Thank you so much for joining us today on Washington Watch. I’m Jody Heiss. An honor to be filling in today for Tony. All right. On Tuesday of this week, President Trump signaled at least that he may be willing to negotiate with China on reducing tariffs on Chinese products that are coming into America and our markets here. And the president’s comments came after he met with the CEOs of three different retailers, and they warned him of potential empty shelves markets. They warned him of potential price increases that may be coming very soon because of these tariffs. So might that meeting have softened the president’s tone on China? Or is there something more going on? Well, here to discuss this is Spencer Morrison. He’s the editor-in-chief for the National Economics Editorial and author of Reshore, How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American Dream. His ex-handle, by the way, is at Real SP Morrison. I encourage you to go check that out. Spencer, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us. Oh, it’s my pleasure to be here. Thank you very much. All right. So the Treasury Secretary has remarked that these tariffs are not sustainable. Pretty strong statements coming from him. He actually also predicted a de-escalation with China could be in the very near future. So what do you make of these comments?
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, frankly, the comments are conflicting. We heard earlier today from the White House that there would be no unilateral reduction in the tariff rates. So we’re getting different messages from different groups. But I think one thing that’s stood through all of this is President Trump’s insistence that tariffs are the way to go. And on that point, I wholeheartedly agree with the president.
SPEAKER 09 :
So what about these tariffs? Are they sustainable? Are they unsustainable? It looks like as they keep going up and up and up, like a ping pong match between the United States and China, at some point this does become unsustainable, doesn’t it?
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, there’s two parts to this question. So tariffs are both an economic tool and they’re a political tool. And what President Trump seems to have been doing so far is he’s primarily been using tariffs as a political tool to get a geopolitical outcome. objective met or to pressure other markets to reduce their tariff rates or non-monetary barriers to entry. So tariffs are a political tool, and I think the president is really using them reasonably effectively. I think in the long run, though, what we need to do is impose relatively significant tariffs, but make sure that they’re predictable and that American companies who are looking to invest in America, or even foreign companies that want to invest in America, They need to know that they can count on a baseline level of tariffs. So I think a lot of what’s going on right now is the art of the deal. It’s negotiation. And I think things are going to cool off and we’re going to see a more, I won’t say sensible, but maybe a more measured response to tariffs. But part of that’s going to depend on how China reacts. A negotiation is a two-way street. So depending on how China responds to the tariff rates, we could see an escalation, we could see a de-escalation, and it’s hard to predict because things are changing day by day.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, and there’s no doubt this is a political tool, the tariffs. Obviously, it’s also an economic tool. And the president has made it very clear that one of his primary goals is to get a fair deal with China. And I believe, just like you said, I think the ultimate goal is to have something that is predictable, where the tariffs go down, but not to zero, but they go down. Is that a good strategy? Is that something you think he’s moving in the right direction?
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, I think President Trump is the last and greatest chance for American industry. The reality is that America has been running a large chronic trade deficit every year since 1974. The cumulative value of that trade deficit is over $25 trillion. $25 trillion that was invested abroad in China and Mexico and Europe. rather than in America. So that’s a tremendous amount of money and opportunity cost. On top of that, the trade deficit, we’ve been building factories abroad. Over 60,000 American factories have shut down and they moved mostly to China. And with that, American companies invested about $2 trillion in China to build the factories. On top of that, when an American company moves to China, the price of entry is actually to surrender all of their technology. American companies have to partner partner with a Chinese clone corporation that takes all of their technology, their workers get trained up. And after they’ve been doing the job and they’ve learned how to build the products, they set up their own companies. I mean, look at Huawei. Huawei is now, it’s one of the biggest smartphone producers. It’s 100% built off of stolen American technology. 100% built off of stolen tech. The value of stolen tech is about $10 trillion. So America really has funded the rise of China, and we haven’t got due compensation from it. So decoupling from China is not really, at this point, an economic luxury. It’s a question of existential threat to America.
SPEAKER 09 :
Great point. I think you’re spot on with that. And it all does depend on how China is going to respond to all of this. In fact, they came out basically, it seems as though they are expressing willingness to negotiate, but at the same time, they’re saying, stop putting so much pressure on us. So it’s going to be very interesting. Let me shift gears real quickly to the meeting President Trump had with the CEOs, and we’ve only got a short time. They warned prices going up, empty shelves.
SPEAKER 12 :
If I may just make one comment. The Chinese are lying. The Chinese are lying. They’re not going to honor any agreement. The reality is that the Chinese have broken every single international trade agreement and every provision of every trade agreement because they’ve stolen. What they’re doing is criminal. It has nothing to do with following the rules. They’re literally stealing American technology to the tune of $600 billion a year. The trade deficit with China was $300 billion last year. And on top of that, they stole $600 billion. I mean, these guys are pilfering America to the tune of a trillion dollars a year. President Trump needs to impose tariffs and he needs to deal with them not as a trade partner, but as a criminal rogue state.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, certainly that has a lot to do with what he is trying to achieve with getting a fair deal. It would involve all of the things you just mentioned, wouldn’t it? I certainly hope so.
SPEAKER 12 :
I just I think it’s very difficult. It’s tough to have a fair deal with people that don’t have any honor.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, great, great point. Well, listen, unfortunately, Spencer, our time is up. I’d love to have you back and push this a little bit further. But thank you, Spencer Morrison, editor in chief for the National Economics Editorial. Honored to have you. We appreciate it very much. My pleasure. God bless you. God bless you. All right, folks. Yesterday, the Trump Department of Justice held their first meeting on anti-Christian bias. Mike Ferris was there. He spoke and he’ll join me next.
SPEAKER 05 :
Everything we do begins as an idea. Before there can be acts of courage, there must be the belief that some things are worth sacrificing for. Before there can be marriage, there is the idea that man should not be alone. Before there was freedom, there was the idea that individuals are created equal. It’s true that all ideas have consequences, but we’re less aware that all consequences are the fruit of ideas. Before there was murder, there was hate. Before there was a Holocaust, there was the belief by some people that other people are undesirable. Our beliefs determine our behavior, and our beliefs about life’s biggest questions determine our world view. Where did I come from? Who decides what is right and wrong? What happens when I die? Our answers to these questions explain why people see the world so differently. Debates about abortion are really disagreements about where life gets its value. Debates over sexuality and gender and marriage are really disagreements about whether the rules are made by us or for us. What we think of as political debates are often much more than that. They’re disagreements about the purpose of our lives and the source of truth. As Christians, our goal must be to think biblically about everything. Our goal is to help you see beyond red and blue, left and right, to see the battle of ideas at the root of it all. Our goal is to equip Christians with a biblical worldview and help them advance and defend the faith in their families, communities, and the public square. Cultural renewal doesn’t begin with campaigns and elections. It begins with individuals turning from lies to truth. But that won’t happen if people can’t recognize a lie and don’t believe truth exists. We want to help you see the spiritual war behind the political war, the truth claims behind the press release and the forest and the trees.
SPEAKER 09 :
Thank you so much for joining us today on Washington Watch. I’m Jody Heiss filling in today for Tony. Glad to have you. All right. Yesterday, the U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi hosted members of the president’s cabinet for an inaugural meeting of the task force to eradicate anti-Christian bias in the federal government. Now, the task force was established originally by President Trump under an executive order that he signed back in February. And yesterday in the meeting, Attorney General Bondi was joined by a number of American Christians who were targeted in spite of their peaceful positioning, standing for their beliefs. They were targeted by the previous administration because of their religious beliefs. And one of the witnesses at the task force meeting was Mike Ferris. He’s now the general counsel at the National Religious Broadcasters, which is the world’s largest association of Christian communicators. And he joins me now. Mike, welcome back to Washington Watch. Great to be with you, Jody. Thanks so much. Well, it’s great to have you. I believe last time I saw you was on the Capitol Steps in Ohio. Yet again, standing for religious liberties. Thank you so much for all that you do.
SPEAKER 14 :
It was a God moment where we ran into each other by accident.
SPEAKER 09 :
Absolutely. All right. So what brought you to the task force meeting?
SPEAKER 14 :
Well, the incident that they wanted me to focus on involved my own church. I’m an elder at Cornerstone Chapel. Gary Hamrick is our courageous and outstanding pastor. And the IRS came after our church in 2022, as a result of a sermon that Gary preached during the 2020 election. Every four years, he preaches an election sermon. And the IRS came after Cornerstone Chapel. and there were several months of investigation back and forth, and they ultimately imposed a fine. It wasn’t a very great amount of fine, but the principle was you had to keep your mouth shut and not ever do this again. Now, of course, the church made no such promise, but that was the incident I was there to talk about. I, in some respect, was standing in for our pastor, but I was the president of the Alliance Defending Freedom when this was going on, and we… We defended the church in that proceeding. So I have dual roles. I was the lawyer in the case and I’m also elder in the church. So I was able to talk about it from both sides. The irony is that during multiple campaigns, and we have video evidence of this in a lawsuit I’m doing on the Johnson Amendment, that Biden himself goes into churches and gets endorsed One pastor led the church in chanting, go Joseph, go Joseph, and others just openly endorsed him. So the real rule of the IRS is it’s illegal to support a Republican candidate. That’s the way they enforce the law up until President Trump got into office, and that’s changing.
SPEAKER 09 :
It is changing so much. It’s incredibly refreshing. And I say this, this whole issue, and you were there at Alliance Defending Freedom, but that was the issue that took me from the pastorate myself into the political arena was a fight over this Johnson Amendment. And of course, I was one of the 33 original pastors involved in that. And I just say thank you for continuing that fight. From the meeting yesterday, what were some of your takeaways? Did you feel good when all is said and done? Do you think we’re moving in the right direction?
SPEAKER 14 :
I was over the moon, Jody. I’ve been in Washington doing these kinds of issues for more than 40 years now. And I’ve been in some high-level meetings, maybe not quite as high level as that where most of the cabinet was there and the director of the FBI and all kinds of other people in important positions. But the part of the meeting that I enjoyed the most was listening to the various cabinet officers, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Secretary of Education, many others, spoke out and said, the kind of anti-Christian action that they had found that their departments had been committing under the Biden administration and what they were doing about it. And there was frank assessment of what was going on, and there was quick, decisive action being done to fix it. It was the most encouraging meeting I have ever been in in my entire political career, which is, like I said, over four decades. It was fantastic. Fantastic.
SPEAKER 09 :
I cannot tell you how encouraged I am by that. So what would you say, we’ve just got a couple of minutes, what would you say to that individual who would claim that such a task force as this somehow shows favoritism towards Christians?
SPEAKER 14 :
Well, of course, the Justice Department and others work on anti-Semitism. They work on enforcing the law in many other ways. And it was made clear yesterday that religious discrimination of any kind is illegal under our system. And they were going to enforce the law against any person who violated that principle. But the reality is the most common attacks in this country today are against Christians. And so particularly Bible believing conservative Christians or serious Catholics. And so Those are the reality on the ground. And it’s being recognized for what it’s worth. And real actions are being taken to do something about it. And so that and I had a good conversation about my lawsuit on the Johnson Amendment at the same time. So that was it was a great day. I just was really thrilled beyond thrilling.
SPEAKER 09 :
That is awesome. Mike Ferris, I wanted to, obviously, we’re going to be keeping a pulse on this. I’m sure there’s going to be more meetings in the future with all of this, and we look forward to talking with you further about it. Mike Ferris, General Counsel at the National Religious Broadcasters, thank you so much, as always, for joining us on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 14 :
Thank you, Jody.
SPEAKER 09 :
All right, friends, coming up next, we’re going to jump over to Daniel Smith with Liberty Council for his legal analysis of yesterday’s potentially landmark U.S. Supreme Court education case. You don’t want to miss it. It’ll come your way right after the break. Stay tuned.
SPEAKER 16 :
Are you ready to transform your trials into triumphs? Dive into the book of Daniel with FRC’s new study guide, Daniel, Visions and Valor, perfect for those seeking courage and wisdom from one of the Bible’s most faithful figures. This 13-day journey is ideal for small groups or individual study as part of our ongoing Stand on the Word Bible reading plan. It’s a timeless resource, ready to deepen your engagement with Scripture. Explore how Daniel’s life and God-given visions offer a blueprint for navigating challenges. Each day includes Scriptures, reflection questions, and space for notes to enhance your understanding and application. available in digital and physical formats, order your copy of Daniel, Visions and Valor today and start your journey of transformation. To order, text the word DANIEL to 67742. That’s DANIEL to 67742.
SPEAKER 04 :
What is God’s role in government? What does the separation of church and state really mean? And how does morality shape a nation? President John Adams said our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Join Family Research Council for God and Government, a powerful 13-part series that equips you with biblical truth to engage in today’s most pressing debates, from the Ten Commandments in classrooms to the immigration crisis of America. we’ll uncover the foundations of our nation’s history and why it’s relevant for today. Defend God’s plan for government because faith and freedom were never meant to be separate. New episodes available each Monday. To view the series on the Stand Firm app, text COURSE to 67742.
SPEAKER 17 :
How should Christians think about the thorny issues shaping our culture? How should Christians address deceitful ideas like transgenderism, critical theory, or assisted suicide? How can Christians navigate raising children in a broken culture, the war on gender roles, or rebuilding our once great nation? Outstanding is a podcast from The Washington Stand dedicated to these critical conversations. Outstanding seeks to tear down what our corrupt culture lifts up with an aim to take every thought and every idea captive to the obedience of Christ. Whether policies or partisan politics, whether conflict in America or conflict abroad, join us and our guests as we examine the headlines through the lens of Scripture. and explore how Christians can faithfully exalt Christ in all of life. Follow outstanding on your favorite podcast app and look for new episodes each week.
SPEAKER 09 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. I am Jody Heiss filling in today for Tony, and so honored to have you on board with us as well. All right, let me just say this before I introduce our next guest. The last segment, fascinating segment with Mike Ferris, but we were talking about the task force to eradicate anti-Christian bias. And as he stated, this is becoming more and more and more of an issue. And I want you to be aware that one of the worst perpetrators of all of this is the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center. They have a long history. of going after organizations that are faith-based, including FRC. And they continue to push their attempts to go after faith-based organizations. And we are urging the Department of Justice to sever their ties with the SPLC. And we’re asking you to join us. We have a petition. to that extent asking the DOJ to sever ties. And you can sign that petition by simply texting SPLC, SPLC to 67742. We strongly urge you to do so. Okay, also happening yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what potentially could be a pivotal case affecting parents and students in Montgomery County, Maryland. And experts argue that the case could actually have implications for parental rights nationwide. So what are these legal implications? Will the Supreme Court take a stand for parents’ rights? critically important questions. And here now to share more is Daniel Smith, who is Associate Vice President of Legal Affairs with Liberty Council. Liberty Council filed an amicus brief or a friend of the court brief in favor of the parents that sued the school board. Daniel, welcome back to Washington Watch. It’s great to have you. Jody, it’s nice to be back with you. Thank you for having me. Well, listen, let’s start with the overarching legal question that the justices were examining yesterday.
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, the case hinges on whether a public school district who has decided to put forward a radical LGBT, transgender, really just a gross and obscene curriculum targeted at pre-kindergarten to fifth grade. And what used to be available to parents in the Montgomery County School District, they took away, which was the right to opt out and the right, shockingly, to even have notice of the issues that were going to be included in these books that were targeted by their own audience definitions to target three-year-olds to five-year-olds up to fourth grade. And the content of these books was just outlandish. A group of Jewish and Muslim parents sued seeking under the First Amendment to have an opt out. And the Montgomery County School District permits opt outs for a whole host of other reasons. But when it came to this one curriculum where they wanted to radicalize the children and poison their minds, they took away the opt out and took away the option to even notify the parents.
SPEAKER 09 :
That is just stunning to me to think that we are watching this kind of stuff here in the United States. So you mentioned some Jewish and Muslim parents. Go further into that. What do we know about these parents? Who are they? What is it that is moving them to sue the school board?
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, they have sincere religious beliefs, as you can imagine, that encourage them and compel them. And it’s not just Jewish and Muslim. There’s a coalition of parents who have religious objections to a curriculum that sexualizes children. And these books are they’re set to cartoons and like a big targeted audience. But the content of them, one of them called Pride Puppy, I’ll just point out, was it sends these kids on. They go to a pride parade. And the story is about these kids who are tasked with going out and finding underwear. and leather straps and this famous drag queen and the drag king and all these other things in addition to a whole host of other books that were in the curriculum well the parents here uh some of the muslim faith some of the jewish faith and others have sincere convictions based on the bible and other of their religious texts that they don’t want their children exposed to this They want the option to opt them out of this particular curriculum so that their minds aren’t poisoned by it. The First Amendment entitles them to that right. It affords them that right. Indeed, it was the premise of our country, the right to be free, and the freedom they sought was religious freedom. So the parents have sued seeking what used to be available to them but was taken away for this curriculum just to opt their children out so that they can come continue to teach them in their religious convictions.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, so that’s very understandable where the parents are coming from, why they are upset, why they resent the fact that their rights as well as their religious beliefs are being trampled upon. So I get their argument. What, on the other hand, could the argument be from the Montgomery County Board of Education? What is their stance in all of this?
SPEAKER 15 :
Astoundingly, and this is really shocking, They say because too many parents decided to opt out, it became unworkable for them to continue with their radical curriculum. So a whole host of parents, including the religious ones who sued, but there were also others who aren’t religious, but who don’t think this type of content is appropriate for a pre-kindergartner, three-year-old, five-year-old. And so they opted out. They said, we don’t. We no longer want our children exposed to this. And at that point, because so many had objected to this obscene curriculum, the school district said, well, this is unworkable. We can’t have this many people opt out of it, so we’ll just take away the opt out. And the attorney for the school district stood up there yesterday in front of the nine justices and said that’s a the government has an interest in making sure that too many people don’t opt out. Now, For those of us on the conservative side, one has to wonder, well, we’re not targeting and being able to reach as many with our radical ideologies and indoctrinate them for the future generation. That’s really what I think their interest is. But what they said was it was unmanageable. It was unworkable to accommodate your religious beliefs, so we’re just not going to do it anymore.
SPEAKER 09 :
Wow. I’m listening to you in virtual disbelief. My first question was, how many need to opt out before they recognize that what they’re trying to push is contrary with what parents want? And even the arrogance to continue to force them to do what they don’t want to do with their children is unbelievable. So let me just ask you, let’s go back to your presence there and watching all of this in the midst of it unfolding. Recap some of the arguments that were made that either on the positive side or the negative side that you think stuck.
SPEAKER 15 :
I don’t think there were many on the supportive side. Now the court breaks down, as we often think, along ideological lines. This one shouldn’t be. I think based on the way the arguments went, the parents will prevail. And what has been recognized as the oldest fundamental right in our country, which is the right to direct the upbringing and education of your children, will be affirmed. The school district doesn’t get to poison the children. And it doesn’t matter whether you consider it a benefit or a public right or whatever. The states all have laws that compel students to be there. But just because a parent drops them off at public school, doesn’t make them a ward of the state. The state doesn’t become the parent for eight hours a day and get to indoctrinate them with whatever they want. But that’s kind of where the questioning arose. So on the, three liberal justice side they had some questions as to well what’s the problem with this curriculum it’s just teaching them that there are different types of people that there are some people who have two dads and have two moms and so why is that bad for the school to teach tolerance and to teach that there are different types of people in the community and you should be accepting of them well putting aside the fact that that’s not what the books teach it doesn’t matter What the parents said, and this goes back to Obergefell, which was the case that purported to create a right to same sex marriage, which is nowhere found in the Constitution. But even in that case, the court said there are a great many Americans who have religious beliefs that are opposed to this. And they will maintain the right to teach their children, to espouse those views, to do what the First Amendment says, which is to exercise those beliefs. It’s not just a freedom to believe it. You get to exercise it in your daily life, including teaching your children. And so what the more conservative justices were asking was, how in the world do we get around our precedent that says you have the right to direct the upbringing and education of your children And just throw that out in the public school context. It doesn’t work that way. Students don’t shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. We’ve known that for 70 years, as if we needed to know it for that long. But the Supreme Court articulated that in Tinker. It holds true today. And so that was the back and forth as to, well, shouldn’t we just allow this to go forward? And if there’s too many opt-outs, it becomes unworkable. And there are some children who are not taught. this quote unquote tolerance regime. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about indoctrination and the future generation. But that was the liberal side of the coin and the conservative side of the coin was, how in the world does this pass what we call strict scrutiny, which is the most demanding test known to constitutional law. And it compels the government to satisfy a very demanding burden when it seeks to infringe the religious beliefs of parents or religious adherents. And a lot of the conservative justices thought, there’s no way this satisfies you. You have no compelling interest in indoctrinating free kindergartners with this radical gender nonsense that defies biological reality. It defies what human nature has known since the beginning of creation. that there are two genders. We now have an executive order that says that one wouldn’t think you’d need an executive order from the White House to suggest what biological reality holds. But nevertheless, here we are. And the court said, you have no compelling interest in mandating that to these children. And so I think it went well. I think the back and forth was as expected. between the two sides, if you will. But I think ultimately the parents will prevail and their right to religious freedom will be upheld.
SPEAKER 09 :
Excellent news. Daniel Smith, Liberty Council, I want to thank you so much for sharing your legal analysis in all of this. Absolutely fascinating, extremely important case. Thank you for joining us today on Washington Watch. You bet. I want to switch over now to Sam McCarthy. He is a writer for the Washington Stand, and I can’t move on or conclude the day without, of course, we’ve talked about it, but the passing of the Pope and where we go from here. Sam, thank you for joining us on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 11 :
Jody, thanks very much for having me. It’s really good to be on the show again.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, you’re welcome, and thank you. All right, so the Pope, as we all know, passed away on Monday morning. The Catholic Church now will begin the process of trying to determine who the next Pope is going to be. It’s a papal conclave scheduled to begin, I think, here in a couple of weeks. Kind of bring us up to speed, Sam. What’s the process going to look like? How is this going to begin to unfold?
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, well, right now the Catholic Church is in a period of nine days of official mourning and prayer for Pope Francis. His funeral is slated to be at the end of this week. Following the funeral, there’s a couple of days of preparations that go into this. There’s the convening of the College of Cardinals. A lot of the cardinals have already begun to arrive. cardinals are the ones who enter into the papal conclave and they elect the next pope typically from amongst their own members but uh officially it can actually be any baptized adult male catholic um so theoretically could be me um not likely but um so that process typically starts about 15 days after the death of the pope because there’s that period of prayer and mourning it’s a few days of preparation where the cardinals one of the interesting things is that pope francis didn’t really convene the college of cardinals over the past like decade essentially uh so a lot of these guys especially the new ones don’t know each other they haven’t sat down and had conversations with each other their only exposure to each other if any has been through news and media reports um so there’s not a lot that they actually know about each other so these preparatory days will be crucial or they actually go into the conclave they seal themselves in the sistine chapel it’s just the cardinals and they debate they take votes and you need two-thirds uh majority vote in order to be elected the next pope
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, let me ask you this, and we’ve only got about a minute or so left. The politics involved, you’re actually writing a piece right now about this, the politics and the papal conclave. Tell us a little bit about that. What’s involved politically, if we can say it that way?
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, so I think one of the interesting things that you see with a lot of news outlets, especially right now covering this, and I think part of this is because Pope Francis was, you know, God rest his soul, he was rather ideological in some of his decisions, some of his administrative choices. some of his, especially his off-the-cuff statement, were somewhat ideological. And so a lot of people are framing this almost in terms of American politics, with this left-right dichotomy, when really it transcends the left-right dichotomy And it can’t really be classified in the terms of, say, an American presidential election. So that’s I just think that it’s important to understand that this isn’t going to be, you know, one Republican and a Democrat cardinal facing off against each other. It’s a much more nuanced and complex and really transcendental process than that.
SPEAKER 09 :
It really is. And listen, we all know there’s going to be a lot of key issues, responsibilities that the next pope will have, and they do have to grapple with. Sam McCarthy, thanks so much for taking time to join us today on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 11 :
Thanks, Cody.
SPEAKER 09 :
All right, friends, that wraps up this edition. Hope you have a fantastic rest of your day, and we’ll see you tomorrow right here on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 13 :
Washington Watch with Tony Perkins is brought to you by Family Research Council and is entirely listener supported. Portions of the show discussing candidates are brought to you by Family Research Council Action. For more information on anything you heard today or to find out how you can partner with us in our ongoing efforts to promote faith, family and freedom, visit TonyPerkins.com.
