The Washington Stand’s Casey Harper reports on the state visit of King Charles III and congressional committee meetings on Health and Human Services and Education. Morgan Griffith, U.S. Representative for Virginia’s 9th district, responds to King
SPEAKER 22 :
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 16 :
Honoring the British King might seem an ironic beginning to our celebration of 250 years of American independence, But in fact, no tribute could be more appropriate. Before we ever proclaimed our independence, Americans carried within us the rarest of gifts, moral courage, and it came from a small but mighty kingdom from across the sea.
SPEAKER 05 :
That was President Trump earlier today speaking about King Charles’ visit as America is celebrating 250 years of independence from Britain. Welcome to this Tuesday, April 28th edition of Washington Watch. I’m your host today, Jody Heiss, an honor to be filling in for the amazing Tony Perkins. Thank you so much for joining us. All right, coming up today, King Charles III became only the second British monarch to address the US Congress. We’ll get a reaction to his speech from Virginia Congressman Morgan Griffith in just a few moments. And then later, Peter McElvain will join us to break down what all this means for the future of the United States and the UK alliance. Plus, Congressman Chip Roy will join us to take a closer look at the FACE Act and the investigation into the Southern Poverty Law Center. So all that and much more coming your way straight ahead. King Charles III is making history on Capitol Hill today during a four-day state visit to the United States. He’s now, as I mentioned, the second British monarch ever to address the United States Congress. His speech was focused on renewing the special relationship between the U.S., And the U.K., even as global tensions between the two and political divisions are certainly testing that alliance. But the speech followed a very high-profile Oval Office visit with President Trump, where both leaders emphasized the need for unity and shared democratic values. And joining us now is Washington State reporter Casey Harper. All right, Casey, let’s jump into this one first. What’s the significance of the King’s visit and what was his basic message to Congress?
SPEAKER 18 :
Thanks, Jody. It is significant. It’s both historic, but also it comes at a significant political time. Of course, it’s a midterm election year, but the relationship between the UK and the US has been strained. But regardless, King Charles was welcomed at the White House with open arms and before Congress with a standing ovation. He addressed the joint meeting of Congress. We spoke of our shared ties as two nations with a common heritage, which was in that clip that you played. Now, he also reinforced the US-UK alliance and gave praise to NATO, which is important because President Trump has criticized NATO and the UK recently. In fact, we have a clip here of the monarch.
SPEAKER 17 :
Drawing on these values and traditions time and again, our two countries have always found ways to come together. And by Jove, Mr Speaker, when we have found that way to agree, what great change is brought about, not just for the benefit of our peoples, but of all peoples.
SPEAKER 18 :
President Trump also spoke earlier today where he struck a similar tone and tied this visit to America’s 250th birthday, and he really emphasized our shared roots with the British Empire. And I can confirm, Jody, nobody got tarred or feathered today. I had my eye out for redcoats on the streets in D.C., but didn’t spot any.
SPEAKER 05 :
No redcoats, but I tell you, the accent is amazing. It just makes you listen. It’s wonderful. Casey, if I can, let me turn to another story coming out of D.C. What do we know about the new criminal case that’s involving former FBI Director James Comey?
SPEAKER 18 :
Yeah, this is a big one, Jody. Comey has been indicted, though we don’t have the formal charges yet. Here’s a clip from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch.
SPEAKER 20 :
Today, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned an indictment against James Comey on two counts. The first count is that on or about May 15th of last year, he knowingly and willfully making a threat to take the life of and to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States. Count two, same day, May 15th, 2025, that the defendant, James Comey, knowingly and willfully transmitting in interstate commerce a communication that contained a threat to kill the President of the United States. Both of these counts carry a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.
SPEAKER 18 :
So we do have the charges there. It’s unclear if that list is going to grow or if that’s the full case. Now, we know that this comes from that 2025 social media post, which was very controversial, if you can remember it. It featured those eggshells arranged as 86-47. Of course, 47 is a reference to President Trump, the 47th president. And 86 is slang for get rid of, cancel, throw away, depending. on the context. Now, Trump allies immediately viewed that as a coded reference targeting the president, who, of course, has survived multiple assassination attempts. And they said that a top law enforcement officer like Comey should have known better. Now, he’s defended himself. He said he only intended this as a political message, not a violent threat. And he deleted it after the backlash. But there’s a long history here with Comey and the president. You remember that President Trump called Comey a dirty cop. So it’ll be interesting to see how this case unfolds, Jody.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, thank you so much, Casey, for bringing this to us, and I’m sure you’ll be keeping a pulse on it. We appreciate it very much. All right, let’s turn our attention now to Capitol Hill and discuss some of the latest activities taking place there. Joining me now is Congressman Morgan Griffith. He is the vice chairman of the all-important House Rules Committee. He represents the 9th Congressional District of Virginia. Congressman Griffith, always great to see you, my friend. Welcome back to Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 06 :
Always good to be with you.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right, let’s begin, if we can, with a visit by King Charles. I wanted to get your thoughts on his address today to Congress and then beyond that a little bit, the state of the U.S.-U.K. relations as we enter into our 250th anniversary.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, I thought that the King did a nice job. He talked about a lot of things that bring us together. He did mention a few things where there may be some disagreement, but He was mostly talking about things that unite us, like our combined heritage with rights of individuals dating back to the Magna Carta and the English common law. So I thought it was a very good speech and I thought it was very positive for our relationship with the UK.
SPEAKER 05 :
I think it is. It’s going to be interesting to see how we go forward from here with some of the tension. If I can, Congressman, let me let me turn to the tension. You serve on the all important rules committee. You’re, of course, the vice chairman there. And you guys are looking at a lot of different measures right now, including FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act. as well as the Senate’s budget resolution. What are some of the discussions that you’re having that you can share with us that are important right now?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, there’s no question the Democrats are in the process, and we’re still meeting as I talk with you, and the Democrats are offering amendment after amendment after amendment, trying to make sure that they embarrass Republicans in every way they can. I mean, you know, we’re We’re against children, we’re against mom and apple pie, whatever they can throw out there to say that they’re for it and we’re against it, it doesn’t really matter what. And it’s both the Farm Bill, the FISA, I mean, you name it, and they’re just throwing everything that they can get out there in the hopes that they can defeat one of us at the polls and You know, hopefully they won’t be able to, but we’ve had to take some tough votes, and we’ve also had to do some things that, you know, you might not want to do, but sometimes you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do to defeat the Democrats’ overall purpose, which is just to defeat Republican bills and to defeat Republicans in November’s elections.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, certainly one of the really important issues that you brought up is FISA. What is going to happen if the House Republicans are unable to come together on FISA? What happens then?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, it’s a 702 section, and theoretically it could go dark. I think we’ll probably reach some resolution before we get there, but it is an issue that we have to deal with and that we have to look at.
SPEAKER 05 :
So what about the Senate budget resolution that’s being received right now in the House? What do you think the future of that is?
SPEAKER 06 :
I think it has a pretty good chance. It’s fairly narrowly drawn, but we’ll have to see. A lot depends on what we get done on everything. And people are looking at all of this as kind of a package deal. So we’ll see how we come out of these various bills. But I think the budget’s going to be fine.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, that’s encouraging to hear. What about the DHS funding? I mean, that’s been a battle for a long, long time now. What do you think is the future of that, potentially before leaving town this week? Any chance of getting that funded?
SPEAKER 06 :
I don’t know that we get that resolved this week because the budget that the Senate has sent over is step one. They think that’s enough, but we had a deal with the Senate back in December, early January, and they decided to change the deal and so here we are so their deal now is we’ll do reconciliation part two and as a part of that the house is supposed to pass you know, whatever the Senate wants on DHS and ICE funding. That’s part of the problem is we want to make sure that they’re actually going to do their end of the deal. But to get there, we have to pass this budget resolution first. So we’ll do this and hopefully the Senate can act fairly quickly on getting their part of the reconciliation done, working with us, and we can get this thing finished.
SPEAKER 05 :
How much more pressure is added to the whole process when you have what took place over the weekend, another plot to assassinate the president and some of his cabinet and who knows who else? How much more pressure does that add to get funding for DHS? And I’m referring both to Republicans and Democrats.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, there’s no question that adds some time pressures that we need to get done. Right now, the president’s able to supplement some of this, but we’ll have to get it done fairly quickly and within the next couple of weeks in order to make sure we don’t have any lapses.
SPEAKER 05 :
Real quickly, before I let you go, I wanted to get your take on the latest developments on Virginia’s gendarmerie gerrymandering. I can get it out in a moment. The gerrymandering taking place in Virginia. This is just an absolute mess that’s going on there. And you certainly are tied up right in the middle of it all. I wanted to get your opinion as to what’s going on in the Supreme Court decision there.
SPEAKER 06 :
uh give us the latest there well the latest is the supreme court heard oral arguments on monday and then today they refused a democrat motion to lift the stay on the certification of the election results from last tuesday um i’m not sure you can read a whole lot into that but it does indicate that they have significant questions and that they are debating the issue very seriously because they don’t want the state board to certify the election if the process getting to the election was invalid because it was unconstitutional or illegal. I think and I hope they will get to the point where they realize that was wrong and the process was wrong and that they will strike this. But we’ll have to wait and see. But today’s ruling was somewhat hopeful.
SPEAKER 05 :
So does this go beyond at some point the state Supreme Court? Do you think this is an issue that eventually will make it to the U.S. Supreme Court?
SPEAKER 06 :
I do not. Now, there may be other issues. There’s a case out of Fairfax that may have some federal overlay, but most of this is about the process in Virginia under the Virginia Constitution and the Virginia law. So I don’t see it going to the federal court system at all. It could, I suppose, but I haven’t seen an argument that I would think was appropriate for that at this time.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, whatever happens from Virginia, this is certainly creating what appears to be a domino effect across the country that we have not seen the last of, and we’ll certainly be keeping an eye on it. As always, Congressman Morgan Griffith, thank you so much for joining us on Washington Watch. Always great to see you, my friend. Thank you, my friend. Appreciate you coming on. All righty. Appreciate it. All right, coming up next, we’re going to go further into this week’s visit to the U.S. by King Charles III. But when we come back, we are going to get a perspective from a British as to what does this mean for them and what does it mean for the U.S. and U.K. relations. So stay with us. Much more coming your way here on Washington Watch. I think all people really need to have this type of education.
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, I can tell you that it’s been an amazing course, period.
SPEAKER 09 :
I think this course is a reminder that a biblical worldview should really impact everything. It impacts our government from the federal to the state to the local. It should impact what we’re doing with our families and with our work.
SPEAKER 10 :
God and Government is a video-driven, Bible-based training course from Family Research Council that explores the connection between between biblical principles and American government. In this six-session video series, FRC President Tony Perkins equips participants with a practical understanding of civil government from a biblical worldview.
SPEAKER 20 :
I would encourage all people to take it.
SPEAKER 14 :
I almost wish I would have took it earlier that I could have taught my kids this. I wish I had known these things when we were homeschooling because I think children and my adults now would just greatly be influenced by that information.
SPEAKER 19 :
So I’m an attorney, and for me, it gives me some direct practical knowledge of what I can do to try to impact my legal community, to make better legislation, to try to encourage legislators to make choices that have a biblical worldview, which is what we really want.
SPEAKER 01 :
Any pastor would benefit from taking this course because we are dual citizens, right? We are citizens of the kingdom of God, but we’re also citizens of this great land, and that comes with responsibility.
SPEAKER 09 :
Even as someone who has been involved in these types of issues for a while, you’re learning little bits and pieces of new stuff all the time. But it’s also approachable enough that newer people, younger people, high school, college students, they can really glean something from this. So I would encourage everybody to take this course, whether it’s the videos, whether it’s doing it in person, bring your Bible study group through it, bring your homeschool group through it, and equip yourself for these challenging days ahead.
SPEAKER 10 :
View the course at frc.org slash God and government or on the Stand Firm app.
SPEAKER 07 :
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them
SPEAKER 11 :
A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal. That they’re endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.
SPEAKER 07 :
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Happy 250th. Happy 250th. Happy 250th. Happy 250th birthday, America. May God bless America.
SPEAKER 05 :
And welcome back to Washington Watch. I am Jody Heiss, an honor today to be sitting in for Tony Perkins. Thank you for joining us. All right, as I mentioned at the top of the show, King Charles III became the second British monarch to deliver remarks at the U.S. Capitol. The first to do so, in fact, was his mom, the late Queen Elizabeth II. She gave an address back in May of 1991 when then President George H.W. Bush was in the White House. And like his mother, King Charles was here visiting America on a very special milestone, our 250th year of independence. His mom, Queen Elizabeth, actually visited America for our 200th anniversary back in 1976. But in his remarks today, President Trump discussed the deep historical connections between the United States and the UK. He noted specifically, among other things, how American patriots were shaped by British ideals of justice and liberty and moral courage. So what can be said about where the two nations are now and the direction that they appear to be headed? Well, joining us now to discuss this is Peter McIlvana. He’s co-founder of Hearts of Oak, which is a freedom of speech alliance located in the UK. He also works in the office of the UK’s House of Lords. Peter, great to have you back on Washington Watch. Thank you for joining us.
SPEAKER 15 :
Great to be with you, Judy, and I’m here in Texas, which is why my usual background is not here, but always good to join you in the FRC audience.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, welcome to the United States and we’re glad to have you again on Washington Watch. Let’s start with if you can just kind of give us a a perspective, if you will, a British perspective on this week’s visit by King Charles. How how significant is this and what does it mean?
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, it is significant, and as you alluded to at the beginning of the segment there, this is only the second visit of a head of state to the US. I vividly remember Queen Elizabeth II visiting I remember the engagement with your president, George W. Bush. I was 14, but I remember it very well, strangely. And I watched the speech today of King Charles to Capitol Hill, to Congress. It was 30 minutes, 35 minutes or something. I remember the Queen was a much shorter speech whenever she gave the speech. And certainly it’s… It’s exciting to think in the UK, always a head of state going to visit an ally, and there is no greater ally that the UK have, despite the efforts maybe of our UK media and our UK politicians. But the timeless relationship between the US and the UK goes back many years. And King Charles, when he spoke, realised that. And I watched it just before we’ve come on air. And it was an intriguing speech. in many ways. One of the things I noticed, he talked about the, for many here and for myself, the Christian faith is an anchor of inspiration. And of course, King Charles is not a Christian. He didn’t claim that that Christian faith was my Christian faith. It was the Christian faith. And that is a huge distinction, I think, between Queen Elizabeth, who had a relationship with Jesus, who had her own personal faith, and talked about that, fairly regularly. And King Charles does not have that faith. So I would certainly, if I may, ask for your viewers and listeners, Judy, to please pray for the King. Pray that he encounters Christ and has that monumental experience of meeting Jesus. That would be my call to your viewers.
SPEAKER 05 :
That’s a great call and well said. It was impactful to me, the response he received from Congress when he did talk about the importance of the Christian faith. If you would, again, from a British perspective, how would you describe the relationship between the two countries?
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, I think the UK still has TDS, Trump syndrome. And the debate in the British media just days ago was, should the king cancel his speech? And this was because of what is happening in Iran. This is because President Trump does what he believes is right for the U.S. nation. And that, I guess, difficult relationship between Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, and the American president It’s common sense for that to be a difficult relationship because we in the UK have such a weak, weak prime minister and you have such a strong leader in President Trump. So it is so, there is such a gap. between the leadership that you have in the U.S. and we have in the U.K. And the U.K. realized that. There’s a lot of debate over the prime minister in the U.K., whether he should step down. And I think because of that, there was a fear and a concern of the king going, a concern with RTDS that he would endorse President Trump. I noticed… He only referred to Trump once. Even when he referred to the attack, the assassination attempt on President Trump only days ago, he couldn’t bring himself to talk about that as an attack on President Trump. He talked about that as an attack on America, I believe, and said the UK would forever stand with the US, but didn’t call it out for what it was, which was an attack on on the president trump because he is seen as a as a danger to the left’s agenda and a champion of free speech and the freedoms that we all aspire to so i i don’t know whether the us audience would have seen that i think you maybe were more caught up in the pomp and ceremony and the situation of the King and Queen Camilla addressing Congress. But I certainly as a Brit realized and noticed and took note that he didn’t refer to President Trump personally in that attack. He referred to Trump later And I think another part I noticed, he referred to Easter without any reference to Jesus. Now, Jodie, how can you refer to Easter without reference to the death and resurrection of Christ? That’s what Easter is about. So those were some of the things I noticed. But of course, I think that the king talked about his interfaith dialogue. much more than his Christian faith. Despite that, the speech went on very well. I saw Ted Cruz near the front clapping, as many others. So it is good in one respect, I think, for the relationship between the UK and the US. Sadly, I wish that the King would look to Christ in some of those references, but that was not to be the case.
SPEAKER 05 :
Thank you so much, Peter McIlvana, co-founder of Hearts of Oak. Always great to have you with us. Thank you for joining us today. Coming up next, Congressman Chip Roy will join us to discuss the SPLC and other things. So stay with us.
SPEAKER 13 :
For I know that my Redeemer lives. Job 19, 25. God raised Jesus from the dead because it was impossible for death to take hold on Him. Acts 2, 24.
SPEAKER 10 :
Join Family Research Council in standing on the Word. Visit frc.org slash Bible for free resources to help your family follow the way. Jesus, the risen Savior of the world.
SPEAKER 03 :
One Nation Under God, America’s undeniable foundation of faith.
SPEAKER 14 :
The United States Capitol, an iconic symbol of the American Republic. But few know that this building at the heart of our nation’s government was once something more, the largest church building in America. Since its inception and for decades following, several rooms throughout the Capitol, including the House and Senate chambers, were used to host church services weekly. These services were filled with individuals from all levels of government. The attendance was so pervasive that often it was standing room only. Quote, going to the Capitol on Sundays was then one of the most common things in Washington. Margaret Bayard Smith. This practice was not merely accepted, but encouraged. Quote, I consider it as one of my public duties as a representative of the people to give my attendance every Sunday morning when divine service is performed in the hall. President John Quincy Adams. Housing worship at the center of our Capitol was a living representation of the role that biblical principles played as a cornerstone of our nation’s foundation of faith.
SPEAKER 05 :
Thank you so much for joining us today on Washington Watch. I’m Jody Heiss. An honor to be filling in for Tony. All right. Earlier today, there was a House subcommittee hearing called the FACE Act and the dangers of federalizing criminal law. Now, at the heart of that hearing was the Biden administration’s weaponization of the freedom of access to clinics, entrances. That’s also known as the FACE Act. It comes all the way back from 1994. But that act has been used to target pro-life Americans.
SPEAKER 04 :
And when Washington creates these authorities and hands them to unelected bureaucrats, these tools will inevitably be weaponized. The FACE Act is a case study in exactly that problem. Like so many federal laws before it, it has become a vehicle for selective enforcement, a mechanism for political targeting, and ultimately a weapon used against conservatives and pro-life Americans.
SPEAKER 05 :
That was Congressman from Texas Chip Roy. He chaired today’s hearing at the House Judiciary Judiciary Subcommittee and he joins us now. Congressman Roy, always an honor to have you with us here on Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 04 :
Great to be with you, Jody. I’m just down the hall from the Rules Committee where I had to step out to do this interviews. Be a little background noise. I apologize.
SPEAKER 05 :
No problem. I know you’re busy. And in fact, we had Morgan Griffith on a little bit earlier and he had to step out as well. All right. Let’s talk about the hearing today. It comes just a couple of weeks after the Justice Department released a very disturbing report exposing how the Biden administration abused the FACE Act to target pro-life Americans. So what came out of the hearing today that you hope will stick with the American public?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, great. Well, first of all, we had Eva Edel, who is the survivor of from World Post World War Two, Yugoslavia, where she was in a concentration camp and sure testimony was powerful that she had come here and that she was standing up to express her views against abortion, standing in front of abortion clinics and doing so. And at worst, what would be described as misdemeanor crimes. And yet the Biden administration went after her and charged her with a violation of the FACE Act and then a conspiracy under the KKK statute to basically convict her. And then she was awaiting sentencing for up to 13 years. She’s 91 years old, Jodi. And we had her testify. Wow. about her horrific experience watching what happened to human beings in concentration camps and talk about the similarities of the abuse of federal power today in America, both against those who are protesting against it as well as the act of abortion itself. We had testimony and we discussed the extent to which this report from the Department of Justice coming on the heels of the indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Obviously, Tony testified to hearing with us on that topic and the targeting of the Family Research Council after they were put on the hate map. But the testimony that we had today that explored the Department of Justice’s report, everybody should go read it. It’s 800 pages showing that the Biden DOJ was coordinating with abortion providers, activists, leftists, and they were engaged in sharing information and doing so when they were denying Congress that same information. And so we know that they were in coordination. This is a part of the overall effort we need to do to root out the NGOs and nonprofits that are directly working with Democrats to undermine our way of life.
SPEAKER 05 :
Wow. It’s just stunning information, the more that comes out. The timing of all this comes a week or so after the Justice Department indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which you mentioned just a moment ago. That, as I understand it, came up in today’s hearing. So what do you make of the indictment to start with, and what do you hope will come from it?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, first of all, Chairman Jordan did a great job outlining the extent to which we now have evidence that the Southern Poverty Law Center was not only engaging in conspiracy, but they were very specifically creating the attacks, right? And that’s what they were doing. in their early stages and what they did in Charlottesville and that they were, you know, paying people to be there and then they were taking all of that and then fraudulently raising money on the back of it. In other words, they were, you know, trying to set the stage and set up the very thing that they were then trying to use to decry not just President Trump, but everything about Republicans and the conservative agenda. So we know that this was coordinated. We now have evidence of it. I think the indictments are the tip of the iceberg, and we need to go much further in analyzing and investigating.
SPEAKER 05 :
Wow. I know earlier today, the SPLC filed a couple of motions in federal court, ultimately accusing the Trump administration of gross misrepresentations. It sounds like really they are the ones who are guilty of gross misrepresentation. But we’ve got less than a minute to go. How would you wrap up where this thing is going and where do you hope it goes?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, I think the important part here is that the Southern Poverty Law Center is what I described, the tip of the iceberg. There are numerous organizations that have been engaged in this activity. We’ve got the president that’s obviously declared Antifa a terrorist organization. We’ve got Islamic groups that you and I have talked about before, from CARE to people affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. There’s hundreds of them throughout the state of Texas and this country. Southern Poverty Law Center is just one of many. All of the organizations that are involved with trying to make sure that as they fund these, you know, Marxist DAs and judges that they’re putting criminals on the streets, endangering our people, all of it in a coordinated movement by the Marxists that are out against our way of life. It’s actually, Jody, at the end of the day, why I’m running for attorney general is because I want to go after it. It’s a sense of duty.
SPEAKER 05 :
Wow. Congressman Chip Roy of the 21st Congressional District of Texas, thank you so much for joining us. I know you got to get back into the Rules Committee and we’ve got to take a break. Thank you for joining us. Always an honor to have you.
SPEAKER 04 :
God bless, Judy.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right, coming up, we’re going to shift gears and bring you some news on the education front. Some very important news, so stay with us. We’ll be back on the other side of the break.
SPEAKER 08 :
Exodus 9, verse 1 says, You see, America has freedom for a purpose. The question is, are we living by that purpose today? In Scripture, deliverance and freedom is never an end in itself. It is a liberation unto obedience, to worship, and to a covenantal relationship. God’s demand to Pharaoh was not freedom for freedom’s sake, but freedom so his people could identify with and belong to and serve him. Freedom that is not used to serve God will not endure. One of the founders actually echoed a similar warning. Thomas Jefferson wrote, Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and his justice cannot sleep forever.” See, the founders understood we as a nation would be accountable to God for what he had granted to us. They sought freedom for a purpose, and that freedom was given to us as a nation for that same purpose, to serve God, to honor Him, and to live as a people under His authority. In this 250th anniversary year, we must ask the question, are we living by that purpose today as a nation? Lord, we thank you for the godly foundation and heritage of our states. Lord, we would return to an understanding of the freedom that you’ve granted to us, that freedom has a name. His name is Jesus. And freedom has a purpose. It is to honor and glorify you. And I pray that our nation would return to that understanding. of the purpose of the freedom that you have granted to us. We thank you, Father. By faith, we pray that we would return to that purpose. In Jesus’ name we pray, amen.
SPEAKER 12 :
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 05 :
You’re tuned in to Washington Watch. Thank you so much for joining us today. I’m Jody Heiss filling in today for Tony. All right, over the past couple of years, we’ve highlighted on several occasions a very innovative Bible education program that’s being offered by LifeWise Academy. Now, in short, LifeWise provides Bible education to public school students during school hours. They do so under release time religious instruction laws. Well, there is a school district in Washington state that has been discriminating against LifeWise. And last week, a court told that district to cut it out. And joining me now to share the details of this is Holly Randall. She’s counsel at First Liberty, where she focuses on the religious liberty rights of teachers and students in the firm’s education practice group. Holly, welcome to Washington Watch. Great to have you join us again.
SPEAKER 02 :
Thanks for having me.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right. If you would, why don’t we begin? Just share with us a little bit more about LifeWise to those who may not be familiar with it.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, you gave a great intro. LifeWise is a program that offers biblical instructions to public school students during school hours. It takes place on buildings or volunteer locations, typically off campus, always off school property. And it’s a program that follows the blessing of the Supreme Court in Zorach v. Clausen, a case from 1952 where the Supreme Court laid down these sort of three discrete criteria that programs like LifeWise could follow to make biblical education during school hours consistent with the First Amendment and the United States Constitution.
SPEAKER 05 :
So what is life wise now facing the uphill battle that they’re up against in in Washington State in the school district there? What’s going on?
SPEAKER 02 :
What happened here in Washington is a case where a LifeWise program just wanted to be treated equally to other sort of secular opportunities available to students at that school. So families that wanted their children, that were directing their children to attend LifeWise during the lunch periods on once a week during school, they had to sign a permission slip, which makes sense for students to be released. But the permission slip process for students to be checked out to go to LifeWise, a religious program, looked different than that to be sent to something that was not religiously affiliated or was secular. Or LifeWise materials were being required to be sealed up and away from students. So there was an issue with accessing religious materials during the school day when they return at times when students could be reading other non-curricular materials. And so there was a number of ways that this district was just putting barriers to LifeWise’s equal treatment and operation within the school district in ways that it wasn’t subjecting secular organizations to.
SPEAKER 05 :
So it’s also my understanding that they likened LifeWise, some of them, some of the community members and so forth, likened LifeWise to the Nazi party. So, I mean, when you have that kind of rhetoric, that kind of tag placed on an organization, you know, Like LifeWise. I mean, this is an incredible organization and ministry that they are providing. But when that kind of tag is placed on them, what happens? And specifically, what did maybe school board members do? What did the district leadership do when that kind of terminology was used?
SPEAKER 02 :
You’ve zeroed in on exactly what the judge did in this order. So First Liberty Institute brought a lawsuit on behalf of LifeWise, raising some of these exact concerns to the courts, the likening to Nazi party members or statements that board members made during school board meetings about having animus towards LifeWise Academy. And so we brought those to the court’s attention and the court said, Essentially, making these statements and adopting discriminatory policies is evidence that you’re showing hostility toward a religious organization, and that’s what violates the United States Constitution. And that was part of the judge’s reasoning for issuing what’s called a preliminary injunction stating, LifeWise is likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that they’re being treated unequally and discriminated against. So it’s a great lesson and a great warning to members of public bodies that you can’t sort of use your platform as a school board member or a city councilman to make discriminatory or hostile statements against religious organizations.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right, so take that a little bit further with us. Talk about the decision from the court last week.
SPEAKER 02 :
The court went through and issued what we called a preliminary injunction, like I mentioned, saying LifeWise is likely to succeed on the claims they were bringing about participation in community resource fair. So the court told us while litigation is ongoing, LifeWise could not be excluded from participation in benefits fairs or public fairs that the school is offering to provide resources to the community. It told us that the permission slip policies must look a lot different than they do now. It must be consistent with the way that secular organizations are allowed to release students to school. And it just gave a lot of great reasoning about the way that discriminatory statements against religious organizations coupled with discriminatory policies can mean that the government is acting with hostility in a way that the First Amendment does not allow.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, and the First Amendment at the end of the day is what all this is about. I’ve watched so many religious liberty cases over the years and followed so many of them. And it seems to me, Holly, that at the end of the day, we win the vast majority of times when we show up. and challenge the discrimination that’s been inflicted against whoever it was for their religious liberty. Do you suspect that is going to be the case here as well?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, I applaud LifeWise for understanding as a religious organization and our parent plaintiffs as religious parents to understand that they have rights and they don’t just have to sort of accept what the government says is true. School districts confuse issues of religion and education all of the time. Our jurisprudence has vastly changed in this area, massively increasing freedom and free exercise rights that religious organizations and religious students and teachers have. So I applaud LifeWise and I would encourage others that may be listening, if they feel like they have been discriminated against, in a school environment because their religion to reach out to first liberty at firstliberty.org we love representing people that are facing these kind of circumstances and teaching and educating the public about what the first amendment truly means
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, and First Liberty Institute has been a major instrument in the protecting of those freedoms. And I want to thank you and applaud the work that you and First Liberty do in that regard. Let me go down this final path with you, the impact that this case may have. Do you see this case as potentially being one that has national impact, something that is a message that is sent to other public school districts and school officials that there’s a line in the sand that you simply can’t cross over? Do you think that’s what we’re going to see here?
SPEAKER 02 :
It is certainly going to be persuasive authority to those districts who have school board members that may say statements publicly expressing animus or hostility. The statements of this board member were listed in full in block quotes in the judge’s order. making it very clear that those statements had something to do with this order being issued against them. And so I think it’s certainly going to send a message to school board members and school districts across the country that you don’t have free reign to just sort of go about saying whatever you want about religious organizations and then using that motivation to enact discriminatory policies. And so I’m hopeful for the impact that this order will have. I am thankful that LifeWise had the courage to stand up and say, I think that my rights are being violated here and we need to do something about that. And so I just encourage others, go to firstliberty.org if you face something like this and hopefully we can make sure that your rights are just protected as well.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, and I just second that and put an exclamation point on it for anyone watching or listening right now. If you are experiencing this type of discrimination, firstliberty.org is a great place to start. All right, Holly, Randall, thank you so much for the incredible work that you and your colleagues do at First Liberty. And thank you so much for joining us again here on Washington Watch. Okay, while we’re on the topic of education, I want to turn now to a recent watchdog report that is putting the spotlight on teachers unions and specifically how so many of these teachers unions are just simply spending members dues and their fees on political activism, spending it on left-wing social causes. Well, joining me now to discuss this further is Nikki Neely. She’s president and founder of Presidents Defending Education, Parents Defending Education. They are the ones who actually released this report. Nikki, welcome to Washington Watch. Thank you for joining us.
SPEAKER 21 :
Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER 05 :
This is a very important issue here. So just a 30,000 foot view. What did you find?
SPEAKER 21 :
Yes, my coworker went through national unions and state unions reports that they have to file. Unions are basically a highly regulated industry, but they have to disclose where all their spending went to. And so we looked at everything that the NEA, AFT, their state affiliates have been spending. And we were shocked because I think many people, when they think of unions, they think, okay, they’re advocating on behalf of teachers for an easier workday, more professional support. And we found out that much of the money, a billion dollars between the state and the national entities, has been spent on left-wing progressive causes, which, I mean, not every teacher is a Randy Weingarten. Many of them are just average people, right? They’re grandmothers, they’re parents, they’re people who share your values and my values. And to know that their money is being directed to organizations that push for transgender equality, for abortion, for highly political engagement in supporting candidates that you and I probably don’t really like is something I think that would take a lot of people by surprise.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I agree with you. And I think just the fact that you’re describing this is probably shocking to many who are watching and listening to us right now. You know, the old saying goes something along the lines of, show me your budget and I’ll show you what you value. And that, I would think, certainly would apply here. Don’t you think? I mean, this kind of money being spent goes to the heart of what the teacher union value.
SPEAKER 21 :
Absolutely. Yeah, so it is opposing school choice clearly because they want to trap poor children in failing schools. It is supporting candidates that will approve their collective bargaining agreements. But again, it is many of these astonishing social issues that I think, you know, it’s not even, you know, you look at issues like women in sports where that’s an 80-20 issue across political parties. And so to be backing some of these transgender initiatives, I think, is something that is particularly galling because, you know, for those of us who have daughters, we don’t want men in sports. We don’t want, you know, boys in our girls’ locker rooms. But that is something that the union, I mean, both through their spending as well as their activism, when you look at the various conferences and trainings and materials that they send to their members, something that they have staked, they’ve really staked the farm on.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, so let’s go back to original purposes. It sounds as though teachers unions have left their way. What is the purpose of a teachers union? What is it that they are supposed to do versus what they are currently doing?
SPEAKER 21 :
Yeah, I think you know teachers unions, much like you know many unions were initially started to provide employees in this case teachers, although unions now cover lots of positions beyond just teachers to make sure that they were not subject to undo or unfair working conditions or anything like that. And so you know it was the length of the workday, the amount of support they have, time off, etc. Although now I mean not only through this report, but through other research we’ve done, we have found that unions are now getting Things like pushing anti-ice rhetoric, encouraging school shutdowns like we’re seeing come out of the Chicago teachers unions, serving as superhighways for misinformation on issues like anti-Semitism. And so really pushing a lot of this hatred and bigotry that is making its way into classrooms, Well, at the same time, I think it’s so funny. A couple of years ago, the National Education Association, during one of their summer annual meetings, they did not vote to refocus the union’s efforts on student excellence, but they did vote on things like Ukraine and Palestine. And so, again, that is where their hearts are. That’s where money is going to. And that has nothing to do with classroom excellence or teacher support.
SPEAKER 05 :
I think it’s so important to highlight this type of thing. So what do you say to those who would say that at the end of the day, all you’re doing is attacking teachers when you go after the teachers unions?
SPEAKER 21 :
No, I work with a number of former educators and we feel tremendously sorry for a lot of these teachers who are trapped in these systems, whose money is being weaponized against them. And they’re kept in the dark for a lot of this spending. We wanted to get this information out there. So the teachers who are members of these unions know their money has been weaponized. And so are they better off keeping their few hundred dollars per paycheck and spending it on their own political candidates they support, getting their own set of insurance that they might be interested in, or frankly, just leaving the union or looking maybe into other kinds of employment at private schools, parochial schools that might better align with their values? Because the teachers unions of today are clearly not the teachers unions from 50 years ago. And that in and of itself, I think, is something that’s really fascinating. We feel bad for these teachers, the fact that this money has been taken from their paychecks, and they’re being bullied by their colleagues as a result of this.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, so course correction, final question. What needs to happen to change directions with our nation’s public schools?
SPEAKER 21 :
So many things need to happen to change direction. You know, while we want many families to go and pursue choice options, private schools, parochial schools, etc., we don’t want to close public schools because there are many children that are just in those schools and will stay in them for any one of a number of reasons. So we want those schools to actually provide children with the knowledge and the tools that they need to thrive. I think that means getting unions out of the business of governing schools. We have seen unions running school board members who will vote in line with their priorities. But it really means, I think, recentering education, putting power back into the hands of families. You know, school board elections are very important, but also having a state board of education and a state superintendent that is responsive to family needs and not to union needs.
SPEAKER 05 :
Thank you so much, Nikki Neely, president and founder of Parents Defending Education. Fascinating study. Thank you so much for breaking it down for us. All right, that wraps up this edition of Washington Watch. Thank you so much for joining us. Hope you have a fantastic evening. Washington Watch will continue the rest of the week. Join us. Thanks.
SPEAKER 22 :
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.
