In this episode of Washington Watch, Tony Perkins dives deep into the latest legislative battles on Capitol Hill, including the defense authorization bill and the contentious hearings on healthcare subsidies. Joining him are notable figures such as Congressman Warren Davidson, who provides a firsthand account of the ongoing negotiations and what these mean for the future of American policy. Additionally, learn about the latest in international diplomacy as President Trump navigates the complex peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.
SPEAKER 14 :
from the heart of our nation’s capital in Washington, D.C., bringing compelling interviews, insightful analysis, taking you beyond the headlines and soundbites into conversations with our nation’s leaders and newsmakers, all from a biblical worldview. Washington Watch with Tony Perkins starts now.
SPEAKER 16 :
Interestingly enough, the Democrat proposal, which is a three-year extension of the status quo, is an attempt to disguise the real impact of Obamacare’s spiraling health care costs. So if we do this, we extend this for three years at a cost of $83 billion, taxpayers, $83 billion to the taxpayers.
SPEAKER 08 :
That was Senate Majority Leader John Thune earlier today discussing the Obamacare subsidies. Welcome to this December 10th edition of Washington Watch. I’m your host, Tony Perkins. Thanks so much for joining us. Well, coming up, House Republicans have just moved the must-pass defense authorization bill to a final vote. Meanwhile, Capitol Hill is bracing for a major showdown over the expiring Obamacare subsidies. Ohio Congressman Warren Davidson joins us live to break it all down. And is a revolution underway in how vaccines are approved and regulated? Several recent decisions by the courts and government agencies suggest it may be. We’ll talk with Dr. Robert Malone, a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Advisory Committee. Well, the House is still grinding through votes on the must pass defense authorization bill just a day after the Rules Committee cleared the way for the NDAA to advance. House Speaker Mike Johnson is working to lock down support reportedly from five GOP holdouts. And another major fight is brewing on Capitol Hill. As we mentioned, the battle over the expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies. The Senate votes Thursday on the GOP’s replacement plan, while the House is preparing for its own action next week amid growing concerns over rising health care costs. Joining me now is Washington Stand reporter Casey Harper, who has been following today’s stories. Casey, it appears the Senate, the Republicans of the Senate, have coalesced around a health care plan. What can you tell us about this plan and how they expect it to turn out?
SPEAKER 13 :
Well, thanks, Tony. The Senate is set to vote tomorrow on two health care plans as lawmakers are up against the deadline. Premiums are on the verge of doubling for up to 24 million Americans when COVID era subsidies end this year. Democrats want to extend those subsidies for three more years. Republicans want to replace them with $1,500 direct payments for health savings accounts. Here’s what Senate Majority Leader John Thune said about the Republican proposal.
SPEAKER 16 :
Our members have decided that we’re going to vote on a Crapo-Cassidy proposal, which does the things that I mentioned. It actually does make health insurance premiums more affordable. It drives down, according to the Congressional Budget Office, premiums by double-digit levels. It delivers the benefit directly to the patient, not to the insurance company, and it does it in a way that actually saves money to the taxpayer. That is a win-win proposal.
SPEAKER 13 :
Now that Republican plan, it also blocks money from being used for abortion or so-called gender transition care. It also cuts Medicaid funds to states that cover undocumented immigrants. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that the Republican proposal is a non-starter. President Trump supports it, but as of now, Tony, neither the Democrat nor the Republican plan has the votes to pass.
SPEAKER 08 :
By the way, folks, you can weigh in on this important debate because we have staked out ground saying that nothing should advance without Hyde protections, ensuring that you as a taxpayer are not forced into the abortion business. So to join that effort, text ACA to 67742. That’s ACA, those three letters, to 67742. Casey, on another matter, I understand that there was a hearing today on Israel.
SPEAKER 13 :
What are the details about that hearing? Yeah, that’s right, Tony. So the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa held an open hearing earlier today on Judea and Samaria and how that territory shapes U.S.-Israel relations. Now, Professor Eugene Kantorovic testified at the hearing. He argued that Israel’s presence in the area is legal. He also said that if Israel chooses to create a Palestinian state, they could reject the idea of the old 1949 lines defining it. Morton A. Klein, the national president of the Zionist Organization of America, he said in his testimony that Israel has historic claims to the land. He criticized international moves to recognize a Palestinian state.
SPEAKER 12 :
Establishing a Palestinian state would send a terrible message that terrorism pays. There are 21 Arab states and one little Jewish state. That’s the yellow. It’s 600 times the size of the Arab world. We need peace. If Israel doesn’t have control of the Jewish heartland, Judea and Samaria, peace will be impossible. Again, Judea and Samaria, Jewish-Israeli land, is Jewish land legally, religiously, biblically, politically, morally.
SPEAKER 13 :
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Saar today. The meeting comes ahead of talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump on that fragile Gaza ceasefire. Netanyahu is scheduled to visit the U.S. on December 29th for talks on the next phase of that ceasefire.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, speaking of peace and ceasefire, what can you tell us about the negotiations between Ukraine and Russia and how those are progressing with the U.S. leading the way?
SPEAKER 13 :
Sure. So Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, he said he met today with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant and other senior American officials to discuss plans for rebuilding the country, which, of course, has been destroyed by the war there. This is what President Trump said moments ago at the White House about the talks.
SPEAKER 06 :
The leaders of France, Germany and UK, all very good leaders, very good friends of mine. And we discussed Ukraine in pretty strong words. And we’ll see what happens. I mean, we’re waiting to hear answers before we progress.
SPEAKER 13 :
Now those talks centered on a key economic document. Jared Kushner and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink also took part. Zelensky, he says both sides are fully aligned on the document’s principles as Ukraine pushes forward with reconstruction, Tony.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right. Thanks so much, Casey. Appreciate the update. I want to go down to a member of Congress and get a pulse on some of the latest activity happening on Capitol Hill today. Joining me now to discuss the NDAA and more, Congressman Warren Davidson, member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Financial Services Committee. He represents the 8th Congressional District of Ohio. Congressman Davidson, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us. Tony, it’s always an honor.
SPEAKER 07 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 08 :
I know votes are ongoing there. What’s the status of the National Defense Authorization Act?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, there was a holdup on the rule, as you alluded to earlier, just getting it across the finish line. But the bill itself is going to have broad bipartisan support. But some of that Democrat support comes at a big expense, so it makes it hard for some conservatives to vote for it. You know, frankly, I intend to vote against it. But we’ll see how it goes.
SPEAKER 08 :
What are some of the sticking points with the NDAA among your Republican colleagues?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, one of the reasons that the rule had a hard time passing is leadership, when they wanted to do crypto week and do a stablecoin bill, you know, a lot of colleagues really wanted to say, first and foremost, let’s be clear, we’re not going to do a central bank digital currency. So we should be, if you want to talk about crypto, we should be leading with the fact that we are opposed to central bank digital currency. And President Trump’s executive order makes it clear that we’re not supposed to be doing that. But the Federal Reserve and central banks around the world are continuing to build out infrastructure for a central bank digital currency. And so it’s important to pass a law, an enduring law. And, you know, as you can see from the news today with the Federal Reserve, President Trump is in a pretty open feud with Jerome Powell. And, you know, That’s why a law is really important. So they didn’t include that despite promises to. So some of the people that felt like they had been promised it in particular were like, well, I can’t vote for the rule. So they worked through that. But nevertheless, it’s a good enough reason for a lot of people just on that alone to go against the bill. There’s ongoing funding for Ukraine, not a ton, 400 million. But, you know, that’s more dollars than most of us feel like we should be sending to Ukraine right now. Uh, the DEI initiatives are all kind of watered down. There is policy in there that we could point to and say, yes, this is a directional win over what the Biden administration was doing. But frankly, there are some half measures in there. Like the service academies can continue to have, uh, you know, men train with women so long as they can say, well, women are still like getting the starting slots on the team. Uh, I don’t know why any of our service academies would do that in particular, uh, to Pete Hexer, just one in court saying that, um, you know, there’s no role for transgenders in the military, so, you know, you’re out. So he won on that case before the courts, and directionally, why would people be fighting to get the service academies to do something at odds with current policy within the chain of command? And that’s generally the theme is, you know, President Trump has laid out a strong America First agenda, and he’s continuing to negotiate with Europeans and NATO member countries in particular, But this bill hamstrings the president and says you can’t decrease troop levels in Europe and you can’t decrease troop levels in South Korea. It also protects old legacy weapon systems that people want to modernize. It’s a status quo preservation bill in a lot of ways, and a lot of us ran on changing the status quo.
SPEAKER 08 :
Right, right. Some things are hard to die. But as you mentioned, you alluded to this decision yesterday by the court that the Pentagon has the right to move forward with a policy that keeps the gender confused out of the military. You’re a former Army Ranger. This has valid reasons why we don’t want individuals like this serving in our nation’s military.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, I mean, fundamentally, when people are going through this, and look, I feel bad if anybody’s really wrestling with this gender dysphoria. I mean, the right place to work that out isn’t on active duty. I mean, people are in essentially a permanent non-deployable status while they’re dealing with all this. And the military exists to be deployable. It exists to fight and win a war if called upon. And their ability to be a good deterrent depends on that. So This is a big win, I think, for policy and for clarity and for the kind of mood of who do we want to be the focus in our military. Do we want the focus to be on all these kinds of issues, or do we want the focus on warfighters being able to be strong and focused on fighting and winning? And that’s clearly where Pete Hegseth has come in, and that’s kind of the momentum that he’s built.
SPEAKER 08 :
We have just a couple minutes left, Congressman Davidson. I want to get your thoughts as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. President Trump’s decision to allow American tech company NVIDIA to sell their H200 AI chips to China, is this a reason for concern?
SPEAKER 07 :
It is, in fact, a reason for concern. And one of the bills that we’ve fought for a long time is an outbound investment bill. And it’s just stuff like this. If you want to invest in chips and microprocessors or quantum computing and things like that. And directionally, yeah, that’s going to be a winner in the long run. No advice on a specific firm or a specific investment. But directionally, yeah, the market is saying this is going to be a big thing. Well, don’t do it in a way that advances China’s sector. And so the reality is, unless we make it illegal, some people are going to keep doing it. And so there are provisions that go into this Defense Authorization Act that would ban certain kinds of investment in China, but it kind of leaves it open-ended and ill-defined. And I think the language that we fought for in the Financial Services Committee in particular is very focused language and be precise about it. Things like you don’t invest in these kinds of companies and these companies in particular. So I think it’s a way for part of President Trump’s strategy to negotiate with China But on the other hand, it is a cause for concern.
SPEAKER 08 :
I mean, this is not just for video games. I mean, the military will benefit from this, the Chinese military.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, and increasingly, it isn’t just a direct, like, kinetic warfare thing that we’re dealing with with China. I mean, they’re working. You know, I was in Mexico this summer, middle of the summer, and one of the officials we were meeting with there were talking about China’s influence, whether in Mexico or all through the hemisphere. And it’s kind of like China’s like humidity. They’re everywhere. So you got to deal with them.
SPEAKER 08 :
You hear that music. We’re out of time. Congressman Warren Davidson, always great to see you. Thanks so much for joining us and Merry Christmas. Thank you.
SPEAKER 07 :
God bless you and all your listeners.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right. Thanks so much. Stick with us. We’re back after this. Hello, I’m Tony Perkins, and I want to invite you to join me for Stand on the Word, a daily journey through the Bible, 10 to 15 minutes a day. That’s all it takes. And in no time, you’ll have finished the entire Bible. And along the way, we’ll learn how to apply God’s truths to the world in which we live. As we’re about to start a new year, and as our nation is about to celebrate 250 years, there’s never been a better time for a fresh start in the Word of God. To join us, text BIBLE to 67742. That’s BIBLE to 67742.
SPEAKER 03 :
Should a Christian support Israel? That question has become one of the most emotionally charged issues of our time, both in the world and within the church. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins offers a clear biblical and prophetic answer. In his latest book, He examines Israel’s past, present, and future through the lens of Scripture, revealing why support for Israel is not rooted in politics, partisanship, or cultural sentiment, but in the unchanging promises of God. Drawing from Genesis to Revelation, Tony Perkins demonstrates that the ultimate rationale for a Christian’s support for Israel is spiritual. Should a Christian Support Israel invites believers to see beyond headlines and ideologies, returning to the foundation of God’s Word to understand His heart for His chosen people and the blessings that flow when we stand with what He has established forever. Text the word Israel to 67742 for more information.
SPEAKER 02 :
What is God’s role in government? What does the separation of church and state really mean? And how does morality shape a nation? President John Adams said our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Join Family Research Council for God and Government, a powerful series that explores the connection between biblical principles and the American government, equipping you with truth to engage in today’s most pressing debates. We’ll uncover the foundations of our nation’s history and why it’s relevant for today. Join us to defend God’s plan for government because faith and freedom were never meant to be separate. You can view the course at prayvotestand.org slash godandgovernment or on the Stand Firm app.
SPEAKER 10 :
Are you looking for a meaningful gift to share this Christmas? Family Research Council has you covered. Check out the Stand on the Word official store for gear and gifts that are thoughtfully designed to help you wear, share, and stand boldly on scripture. Check out our Christmas bundle for a $25 discount. Visit frc.org slash Bible store or text store to 67742. That’s store to 67742.
SPEAKER 08 :
Merry Christmas and welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for tuning in. Well, as we approach our nation’s 250th anniversary, I want to encourage you to actually be a part of the support of the Family Research Council in protecting the very principles that America was founded on. And through December 31st, if you decide to partner with us financially, that gift will be doubled thanks to a special challenge match, which will allow you to make twice the impact. So to take advantage of this limited time opportunity, text AMERICA. to 67742. That’s America to 67742. Again, I remind you that Washington Watch Family Research Council, we receive no government money. We’re funded strictly by folks like you across the country that care about the country. So text America to 67742. Earlier today, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky held a virtual meeting with negotiators from the Trump administration to discuss the 20-point framework for ending the Russia-Ukraine war. Also discussed were the issues of post-war reconstruction and economic recovery. the latter of which was the focus of today’s conversation, according to Zelensky. Today’s meeting was held as Ukraine works to finalize its 20-point plan framework for peace, which President Zelensky has said would be submitted to the U.S. in the near future. Joining me now to discuss this, Peter Doran. He is adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former president of the Center for European Policy Analysis. Peter, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 15 :
Thanks for having me, Tony.
SPEAKER 08 :
So what can you tell us? What do you make of today’s virtual meeting between the U.S. and Ukraine?
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, Tony, Keeves has no alternative. That was the message that President Zelensky delivered as he finalized this response to the response, we could say. This new plan, although the full details have not been revealed, the new plan almost certainly builds on what was presented to the Russians previously, and it almost certainly features added security guarantees for the Ukrainians. We don’t want to repeat a cycle where a few years from now, let’s imagine President Trump is no longer president and Vladimir Putin reinvades. Security guarantees would prevent that. And that’s what Zelensky is trying to make sure is in the final agreement.
SPEAKER 08 :
Is that reflective or a part of what President Trump described today as, quote, pretty strong words with European leaders? Was it about their responsibility to provide security for the continent?
SPEAKER 15 :
I would suppose yes, and that’s an important component that we really need to underscore here. The Europeans themselves call this a concept, the coalition of the willing. It means the United States is willing to provide Europeans with arms, but it’s going to be the Europeans who will have their own soldiers on the ground in Ukraine to help bolster Ukraine as what’s being called a steel porcupine. That’s a creature no one would want to wrestle with with European support. It’s important also here to remember that Vladimir Putin has rejected every single offer. President Trump has put down on the table while President Zelensky has accepted every offer. Putin’s idea of peace is to pretend that Ukraine has already lost this war, but that’s not the fact on the ground.
SPEAKER 08 :
I mean, that is a perfect analysis, I think, when you look at Zelensky every time has kind of accepted it. He hasn’t always been happy about it, but he has accepted it. Putin, even things that are favorable to him, he rejects outright as not being enough. But it looks like, and I’m not a big fan, quite frankly, of President Zelensky. I don’t think he’s endeared himself to a lot of people. But he does seem to be getting the short end of the stick most of the time.
SPEAKER 15 :
And that could be what has changed. So the big question was whether or not Ukraine would have to give up territory that it currently controls. This is territory that the Russians demand. The Ukrainians have been sacrificing their own sons and daughters to defend it. And to give that up without a shot being fired, it would be very difficult for Ukrainians to accept. It does look like President Zelensky has hammered out some kind of an agreement where Ukraine wouldn’t have to do that. And what we’re waiting to see now if Vladimir Putin will accept it. Again, though, if this cycle seems familiar, it’s because we’ve already been here. Vladimir Putin, I believe, will not stop fighting, will not stop attacking until he unless he is forced to stop, essentially meaning he runs out of the money he needs to fund this war, Tony.
SPEAKER 08 :
And we talked about that, Peter, last time you were on the program. That’s being fueled by the oil revenue that Russia is getting from India, China, and even European countries.
SPEAKER 15 :
And this is, I think, where the US Senate can play an important role. So Senator Lindsey Graham and Democrats have all agreed to co-sponsor a very important bill that would give President Trump more authority to apply sanctions on those countries and companies that are helping to fund this war in Ukraine. That’s needed. This bill has 84 co-sponsors, Tony. It’s almost impossible to get 84 senators to agree on anything but this is something they all have put their names to. It has yet to pass, but these are the kinds of things that President Trump will need to see from the Senate to understand the American public wants to see an end to this war, but on terms that are just, fair, and enduring for Ukrainians.
SPEAKER 08 :
Right. And not requiring American military involvement. That’s not the path to peace, I think, that the Americans want. Peter, we just have a little over a minute and a half left. What is the latest on the ground there in terms of the war between Russia and Ukraine? It doesn’t sound like Russia is backing off at all during this time of negotiations.
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, that’s an important insight you just made here, Tony, because the latest intelligence assessments that have been passed around between the Europeans and the United States consider that Ukraine is not out of this fight by a long shot. Russia wants everyone to believe the war is lost for Ukraine. It’s only a matter of time. But when you actually look at conditions on the ground, the opposite is true. The Ukrainians are staying in this fight. They are sacrificing a lot to do so. But I think it’s a big mistake for those in the West to throw up their arms and say, look, the Ukrainians can’t win this fight anyway. That’s not true. And that’s not what the assessments are saying. We should take hope in that.
SPEAKER 08 :
Peter Doran, always great to see you. I appreciate your assessment. Thanks. Thanks so much for joining us today.
SPEAKER 15 :
Thank you and Merry Christmas.
SPEAKER 08 :
Merry Christmas to you as well. Something else to add to your prayer list. I do applaud the Trump administration for seeking peace. I think we should be peacemakers. There’s something commendable about that. But as Peter pointed out, we want to make sure that the people of Ukraine who were invaded by Russia are not shortchanged. Their land’s not taken from them. I mean, there’s nothing fair about that. So be praying for a favorable outcome. Pray for an outcome that would bring peace, but one that is favorable for the victims. And there’s still a lot of children missing that Russia took. All right, when we come back, we’re going to talk vaccines. COVID, the pandemic may be over, but the debate about vaccines is not. Don’t go away. For over 4,000 years, the Jewish people have had legal, historical, and biblical ties to the land of Israel, especially the heartland of Israel, Judea and Samaria, which much of the world still calls the West Bank. To Israelis, Judea and Samaria is far more than a name. It’s the center of their ancestral homeland where nearly 80% of the Bible’s events took place. Abraham purchased property in Hebron, Jacob in Shechem, Joshua made an altar on Mount Ebal and led the Israelites into a covenant before God. On Mount Gerizim, overlooking Shechem, Jesus talked to the Samaritan woman at the well about worshiping neither on Mount Gerizim nor in Jerusalem, but in spirit and in truth. Judea and Samaria is nearly a quarter of Israel’s current land mass, not a small strip of land on the Jordan River, but a vital and strategic part of the nation’s identity. The October 7th massacre, launched from Gaza, shattered the illusion that giving away territory brings peace. Gaza, which was once seen as the cornerstone of a two-state solution, became a launch pad for terror. Today, only 21 percent of Israelis support a Palestinian state. Trust in a two-state solution has all but collapsed. The Middle East is changing. Iran’s grip is weakening. New alliances are forming. But Western countries and some U.S. officials still chase the mirage of a two-state solution. History speaks clearly. The 2005 Gaza withdrawal, backed by the U.S., led not to peace, but to a terrorist regime. Judea and Samaria are 24 times larger than Gaza, deeply woven into Israel’s geographic and spiritual fabric. To surrender them would not bring peace. It would invite conflict and existential danger. Family Research Council stands with Israel’s rightful claim to sovereignty. It’s time for America to do the same for history, for justice, and for lasting security in the Middle East. Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us today. Are we witnessing a reformation, if not a revolution, in the government’s approval of COVID, of vaccines. Now, if you’ve been watching Washington Watch for any length of time back during COVID, you know that I am not a big fan of mandated vaccines, not against vaccines, but against government mandates. Well, there have been some recent developments that suggest a positive shift might be coming as it pertains to the policies mandating vaccinations. Joining me now to discuss this, Dr. Robert Malone, co-chair of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. He’s also the founder and president of the Malone Institute, which aims to bring back integrity to the government, the biological sciences and medicine. Dr. Malone, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us today.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thanks for having me on, Tony. It was quite a week last week, wasn’t it?
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, I was going to say, a lot has happened since you and I spoke last. In fact, there was more news yesterday. A spokesman for HHS, Health and Human Services, reported that the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, is doing a thorough investigation across multiple age groups of deaths potentially related to COVID vaccines. On the heels of last month’s leaked memo from the FDA’s top vaccine regulator that linked this to the deaths of 10 children. What do we make of all this?
SPEAKER 04 :
So I have to say, number one, Tony, of course, I’m not speaking on behalf of the government. My opinions here are my own. Even though I serve on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, I have seen the actual data regarding these childhood deaths that were recorded in VAERS and their subsequent investigation. There’s actually many more deaths than just these 10, but these 10 are clearly extremely well documented and linked to the administration of the vaccine product. The fact that these deaths occurred and was not disclosed to the American people in a timely fashion may involve some criminal activity at some point in time. There will be a determination about that. I’m confident there will be hearings. I’m not allowed to disclose what I have seen in terms of the documentation concerning these really sickening events, one of which involves Ernesto Ramirez Jr. Ernesto Ramirez is the gentleman that has been touring the country insisting that his son was killed by the Pfizer jab, and there’s been a lot of denialism about that, but now He is among the 10 that are specifically being identified here. This is really just the first wave, the first cut at identifying those that have unfortunately passed away from these products that were mandated by our government. The government now denies that that’s the case, but if you’re a government worker or a military personnel, you know that that is a false narrative. Now, you asked the question, are we entering into a period of radical transparency and transformation concerning the entire vaccine enterprise? And I think the answer is yes, Tony. We took a bite out of the apple last week at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. And what we recommended to the Director of CDC, remember the ACIP does not set federal policy the director of the CDC or the acting director in the current case is the one that will accept, refuse, reject, or modify those recommendations. But the language of the recommendations is being broadly misrepresented by the likes of Elizabeth Warren, in which she asserts that the CDC is now, and specifically she names Secretary Kennedy, is taking away vaccines from people. We were extremely careful to ensure that our wording could not be interpreted as taking the ability of anybody to receive or accept a hepatitis B vaccine. But what we did do was, and this is also a misconception I heard Senator Rand Paul, frankly, still doesn’t really understand what we just recommended. We didn’t delay the first birth dose of children who have been born to hepatitis B negative mothers until two months. What we did was we said it’s suggested that those children not take the first dose until at least two months, but that it’s up to the parents to decide when and if they accept hepatitis B vaccine for their children. You point to your belief, which I share strongly, that it is inappropriate for the state to mandate medical procedures on its citizens. Particularly without informed consent, I am against mandates as you just indicated you are and I thank you for that. This is the fundamental policy shift here. Frankly, Tony, public health is driven by utilitarianism. Currently, it is in that is I’m going to say the S word. That’s a euphemism for socialism. The belief that the state has the right to mandate that you receive medical procedures, including injections. And where we’re trying to shift the dialogue back to is a focus on the physician-patient relationship and the rights of individuals to determine what medical procedures they may receive and the importance of them having truly informed consent, informed by both a comprehensive understanding of the risks and the benefits.
SPEAKER 08 :
Dr. Malone, we just have 30 seconds left, but if the Secretary adopts the recommendation, when will parents see the effect of this?
SPEAKER 04 :
immediately, except in those states that are rejecting it. We have, Tony, we are in the middle of a major battle. It’s a cultural battle. And you’re familiar with that. You could say it’s a religious battle also, and we wouldn’t be off. And there are many states that are rejecting these changes and they insist still on utilitarian idea that the state has the right to determine what medical procedures you will receive.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, Dr. Malone, we got to leave it there, but thank you for being on the front lines of this battle. Folks, stick with us. We’re back with more after this.
SPEAKER 01 :
At Family Research Council, we believe religious freedom is a fundamental human right that all governments must protect. For years, Islamist militants in Nigeria have targeted Christians and other religious minority groups with brutal violence. Since 2009, 52,000 Christians have been slaughtered. A staggering 89% of Christian martyrs in the world today are from Nigeria. The first Trump administration declared Nigeria a country of particular concern, a designation reserved for countries whose governments engage in or tolerate religious freedom violations. However, this designation of Nigeria was quickly reversed by the Biden administration. Following consistent calls from FRC President Tony Perkins and other religious leaders across the U.S., President Donald Trump has responded.
SPEAKER 05 :
Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands and thousands of Christians are being killed. I am hereby making Nigeria a country of particular concern.
SPEAKER 01 :
This is a huge step forward for the protection of Christians in Nigeria, as well as religious freedom across the world. While this opens the door for the US government to pressure Nigerian leaders to protect vulnerable Christians, it is only the beginning. We must continue to pray diligently, work strategically, and stand firm for the protection of religious liberty across the globe.
SPEAKER 08 :
In times like these, we need something solid to stand on. That’s why I’m inviting you to join me on January the 1st for Stand on the Word, a daily journey through the entire Bible. Each day, we’ll read God’s Word together, discuss how to apply His truth to our lives, 15 minutes that can transform your year. Join me and thousands of others as we stand strong by standing on the Word of God. Text BIBLE to 67742. That’s BIBLE to 67742.
SPEAKER 09 :
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 08 :
Merry Christmas and welcome back to Washington Watch. Let me encourage you to visit the website. You can go to FRC.org. Also, I would encourage you to get the Stand Firm app because on the Stand Firm app, you can have access not only to Washington Watch, no matter where you go, You can get access to our news and commentary from a biblical perspective, the Washington Stand, and my morning devotional, Stand on the Word. All of that, plus many more resources for the engaged citizen, is to be found on the Stand Firm app. Our word for today comes from 2 John, chapter 1. For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ is coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves that we do not lose those things which we work for, but that we may receive a full reward. Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him, for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.” John’s warning is clear. Close the door to those who deny the truth about Jesus Christ. These deceivers were not simply mistaken teachers. They rejected the incarnation, the foundation of the gospel. If we give space to teaching that contradicts God’s Word, we risk becoming contributors to the spread of that error. So would you like to know how to apply the Bible to your daily life, to issues facing our families, our freedom, and our future? Well, that’s just one of the tangible benefits of joining me for our Stand on the Word, our journey through the Bible, a daily journey, just 10 to 15 minutes a day. It’s all it takes. I invite you to join me. Text the word Bible to 67742. That’s Bible to 67742. The Bible speaks to the world we’re living in. And let’s walk through it together. So text BIBLE to 67742 and join the journey that starts next month. Well, there has been a lot of discussion and criticism regarding President Trump’s recent decision to allow an American tech company to sell their H200 AI chip to approved customers in China. Even some key Republicans are raising concerns and alarms. I heard that earlier with Congressman Davidson. And this goes against the decades of technology restrictions that helped America maintain its edge. Now, does the U.S. stand to lose more than it will gain from this? With me now in studio to discuss this, Josh Hodges, a commissioner on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. He is also a former national security advisor to U.S. House Representative Mike Johnson and former special assistant to the president on the National Security Council. Josh, welcome to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us here in studio.
SPEAKER 11 :
Thanks for having me on.
SPEAKER 08 :
So we actually planned on having you on yesterday, but Senator Pete Ricketts, who’s a frequent guest on the show, had a measure that he was introducing regarding this, and you had to provide him some insight on this. So let’s talk about this. Why are people upset about this?
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, well, sir, you nailed it on the head. First, this does sort of raise the question of what is the United States doing in the long term to halt China’s rapid growth and advancement on the technology front? And then how’s China using that technology? And so part of the reason lots of folks are upset about this is they feel like this didn’t receive adequate sort of policy discussion that it should have received and that typically these types of decisions do receive. And frankly, it comes down to the fact that folks believe the President is getting bad information from an American company that is pursuing the bottom line over America’s national security and the law.
SPEAKER 08 :
Now, there was a provision that was going to be in the NDAA that was held out that would have prohibited this.
SPEAKER 11 :
That’s right. It was included in the Senate NDAA, the GAINS Act, and it’s a provision that would have just prioritized American companies getting access to these chips before they could be sold overseas.
SPEAKER 08 :
So let’s talk about the practical implications of this. And we’re not talking about chips that are going to be used in Game Boys. I mean, these are chips that… Basically, and I know you know more than just about the economic aspects when it comes to China, Anything we deal with China regarding, we have to assume that it is somehow going to the military.
SPEAKER 11 :
We don’t just assume it, we know it. And this not only saves the Chinese money, time, and effort that they otherwise would be having to divert their resources towards, we’re giving them tools now that they can just immediately plug in that have military applications and that is going to enable military capabilities to be better connected. Now, these are not the top chips.
SPEAKER 08 :
I think it’s the Blackwell.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yes, sir.
SPEAKER 08 :
Those are the really elite that are being held back. But by allowing these H200, what we’re allowing is them to, as you said, divert resources that they would have to have put on these lower level chips.
SPEAKER 11 :
That’s right. And again, there’s this misnomer that because they’re not the absolute best, it really doesn’t matter. They’re still five times better than the other chips that previously would have been provided to them and much better, years more advanced than what the CCP has access to right now. Some estimates say that the earliest they would have gotten this capability would have been 2027. So give us some idea of the applications. Yeah, so we know that the Chinese are using some of this technology. The immediate applications is they will take this, they will build their own stack. So there is the economic competition part. There’s the argument made that by allowing these chips to go forward, we’re going to make them dependent on the United States. That’s never been proven. That model’s been tried before.
SPEAKER 08 :
Let’s go back to the most favored nation status in the 1990s that Bill Clinton advocated for China, where we brought them in saying that our trade with them is going to change them in the way they conduct business, their human rights.
SPEAKER 11 :
Did that prove to be true? The historical record shows it did not. And it has never been proven right on any technology that we’ve provided to China. And I don’t think it’s going to be the case here either.
SPEAKER 08 :
I would argue actually the opposite, that it’s changed America more than it has changed China, that our dealings with them economically has actually seduced more American businesses even to go down this trail of providing technology that is being used against us and our allies.
SPEAKER 11 :
Absolutely. And in addition to American companies, it also sends a message to our allies who we’ve asked not to sell equipment to the Chinese related to this type of technology, to build this type of technology to the Chinese. Those allies are now going to be asking questions. If you can sell the chips directly, why can’t I sell manufacturing equipment to make this type of technology? So the first application is on the chips. It’s going to enable them to be able to replicate it faster because we know they’ll find a way to steal that IP. They’ll find a way to go back and be able to produce those chips at a much faster rate than they would have had they just been devoting their own resources to it. In addition to that, these are high-end capability chips that have higher memory, and so they’re going to have military applications if they’re plugged into those military applications. the sort of the missiles, the AI systems that are being used that the CCP wants to deploy right now to make their military more interoperable. That is something they have said they plan to do, and they’re going to use these chips to do that. And they are expanding their military rapidly. Absolutely, yes, at 20 times the speed the United States is.
SPEAKER 08 :
Let’s talk about human rights. When I was chair of the USURF Commission, very concerned about their repressive tactics against religious minorities and their use of technology. I mean, they now are tracking They’re citizens, and they’re using this. They’re using it in the churches there. In fact, some of the recent arrests of these pastors took place because they would not allow the surveillance in their churches. So they’re using this technology to repress their people, to track their people. They’re perfecting that technology and then exporting it. A lot of that technology came from the United States.
SPEAKER 11 :
They are certainly building on the backs of American capabilities and American technology. That is absolutely true. DeepSeek, everyone in D.C. and across the U.S. sort of said, oh, this is a wake-up call. The Chinese have caught up to us. That was built on the back of American capabilities. And so you’re absolutely right. They are exporting this to repressive regimes, whether it’s in Venezuela and South America or helping Russia in the war against Ukraine. It is now an established, well-understood fact that the Chinese have their tech exports have largely helped a lot of these conflicts. There’s a public reporting from last year talking about how the Chinese may have potentially helped ahead of sort of the October 7th attacks in 2023. And again, it’s varying degrees, but they are clearly behind a lot of the destabilization that’s occurred in the last two years. A lot of the fires that President Trump inherited when he came into office, the Chinese are behind the scenes on most of it.
SPEAKER 08 :
So I want to go back to one of your original statements here that the president was getting some bad advice on this. Where’s that advice coming from?
SPEAKER 11 :
It’s largely coming from one company related to this issue. And that company is, as I said before, they’re prioritizing their bottom line for their shareholders over the national security interests.
SPEAKER 08 :
So is it part of, I mean, I’ve dealt with President Trump quite extensively in his first administration. But business is his lane. Yes, sir. And I think that he’s enamored by business people, successful business folks. And unfortunately, I think he leans too much into what they have to say as opposed to some of those. He doesn’t always have the respect, I think, of…
SPEAKER 11 :
He doesn’t respect the views of some of those experts on many of these issues. I was talking to a general recently, and the way he phrased this is he’s a thousandaire, not a billionaire. And so I think the general speaking for himself, and he said it’s often hard to get your point across when you’re talking about a technology where this company is supposed to know the ins and outs of all of it. But the reality here is this company views the market in China as a honeypot, a golden pot that they need access to and they want access to. And so they want to make as much money for their shareholders as possible. And unfortunately, the thing that I’ve seen play out in the last few months is as this policy discussion has moved is other smaller companies don’t want to go out against China. Nvidia and others, they don’t want to reach out to the White House because they don’t want to be seen at odds with something the president may like. And so they’re withholding valuable input that the White House really needs to receive. So I’ve been advocating to a lot of companies in the U.S., if you have demand for these and you’ve told me that you do and you’ve publicly stated that you do have a demand for it, speak up.
SPEAKER 08 :
Reach out to the White House about that. So why are they afraid to speak out? A lot of them rely on these Nvidia chips. There’s also, I see some things changing a little bit on Capitol Hill over this issue. There’s been a couple of others, but there’s some bipartisan opposition here. Yes, sir. There are Republicans that are speaking out.
SPEAKER 11 :
On that note as well, there’s an effort to just point this out as like, oh, this is just an extreme sort of hawk view. And that’s not the case at all. This is based on common sense. It’s based on the historical record, as you pointed out, on an issue that down the road is going to potentially cost men and women in uniform their lives if we get this wrong. And that’s why it’s so important. That’s why there is the bipartisanship on it.
SPEAKER 08 :
So, Josh, you may have seen this. I think it was a week before last. House Speaker Mike Johnson and his wife Kelly were doing an interview, and he was asked the question, you know, what keeps you up at night? And he said China and AI. Now, I don’t know if the comment were the two combined, but here in this case, the two are combined. Yes, sir.
SPEAKER 11 :
Does it keep you up at night? Absolutely. As you know, I was his national security advisor for about a year and eight months, and it is absolutely something that kept me up at night at the time. It still keeps me up at night, not just in the sense of what AI is capable of doing here domestically, and I do think that is a concern, but how our adversaries are planning to use AI against the American people at a social level, at an economic level, and on warfare. All three of those domains, the Chinese have active plans ongoing right now to use it against our way of life.
SPEAKER 08 :
Do you think that American policymakers are discounting the threat of China? I do.
SPEAKER 11 :
I believe it’s an area where despite the amount of attention it’s gotten over the last 10, 15 years, and this really did change. President Trump deserves a lot of credit because he really put the spotlight back on this issue, particularly with regard to the Western hemisphere and internationally. But despite the attention it’s gotten, they are still more aggressive and more active than most Americans think.
SPEAKER 08 :
My take is, and I track this more than most, is that it’s stealth. They’re not like Vladimir Putin that’s out there pounding his chest or riding a horse bareback. You know, the reality is that they’re doing this very quietly but systematically, and they have a plan and they’re working the plan.
SPEAKER 11 :
Absolutely. And so the U.S.-China Commission just came out with our annual report, and the overarching finding that we have is there is an aggressive – multi-tiered campaign against the united states internationally and within the united states to do exactly what you’re talking about quietly subvert what we’re what we what we have underway but also to embed themselves so they have these choke points so they can turn off our energy gate if they need to so that they can turn off our pharmaceutical supply chain so they can turn off which we saw in covert We saw that exactly. And a lot of people have forgotten that piece of it. The majority of American pharmaceuticals come from China. There’s a progress underway right now to sort of work with India more. Unfortunately, the thing that our report highlights is that India is getting a lot of those from China and then selling them to us. So this is a critical issue. The Chinese have an active plan across the board, whether it’s batteries, whether it’s EVs, whether it’s solar panels, telecommunications equipment, batteries. and sort of magnets even, and they have active measures underway to increase their ability to turn off these choke points. And they’ve proven they’re willing to do it. And having access to these advanced chips will only enable that effort. It’ll only make it go faster, and it’ll only put us more at risk. And so on that, there is – my hope is that – The 200s are moving forward. The president has made that decision. That is his policy decision to make. That as that happens, there are still mechanisms that can be put in place to monitor that. So NVIDIA has talked about the fact that they have the technology to monitor where these go. All it requires is adding components to the chip so we can better facilitate and track that. That needs to be done. That should be part of this conversation as it moves forward. And my hope is that that actually comes to fruition.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, we certainly can’t trust China, to be honest, about anything.
SPEAKER 11 :
And that’s what we can’t forget.
SPEAKER 08 :
Josh Hodges, I want to thank you for coming in today. Appreciate the insight and the good conversation. Thank you for the time. Great to be here. And folks, I want to thank you for joining us as well. And yet another item you can add to your prayer list. Be anxious for nothing, but by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let our requests be made known to God. I closed the program with that yesterday. But it’s true, because when we go to the Lord with all of these things, the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will guard our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. All right, until next time, I leave you with the words of the Apostle Paul when he says, you’ve done everything you can do when you’ve prayed, when you’ve prepared and taken your stand. By all means, keep standing.
SPEAKER 14 :
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.
