Tag Archive for: Federal Legislation

House Passes BBB as Conservatives Win ‘Significant Commitments’ on Life, Transgenderism

Congress has delivered President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill, but not without hours of mean-spirited Democratic delay and principled conservative negotiations that secured “major” commitments of executive action and future legislation to promote the pro-life, pro-family cause.

The House of Representatives passed President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1) by a 218-214 vote on Thursday afternoon. All House Democrats voted no, joined by two Republicans: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Massie, a libertarian-leaning Republican, opposes the bill’s high deficit and spending levels, while Fitzpatrick accused the White House of “withholding critical defense material” from Ukraine.

The bill narrowly passed the Senate Tuesday, when Vice President J.D. Vance cast the tie-breaking vote. Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) voted against the bill. It now goes to President Trump’s desk.

Democrats in both chambers tried, and failed, to prevent the bill from passing Congress by President Trump’s July 4 deadline. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) forced the Senate to read the full text of the 940-page bill aloud, which lasted nearly 16 hours. Schumer also poked at the president with a procedural motion to strip the act of its formal title, “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) stalled proceedings further on Thursday morning with an eight-hour, 44-minute-long filibuster that began at 4:53 a.m. Jeffries all-but admitted he aimed to slow the bill’s passage as a procedural irritant, saying numerous times throughout his speech, “I am going to take my sweet time,” followed by a sustained standing ovation from the small gaggle of Democratic hangers-on who stayed to listen.

“It takes a lot longer to build a lie than to tell the simple truth,” replied House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in a brief rejoinder to Jeffries’s record-breaking speech. “Scripture has been cited a lot this morning — I think mostly out of context.”

“Today was about performance for some of them,” said Johnson. “Democrats deliver performances, and Republicans deliver results.”

The narrow passage reflected the concern of pro-life conservatives, who withheld their support until obtaining promises from GOP leaders to address the pro-life, pro-family provisions stripped out by the Senate.

As fiscal conservatives, border security conservatives, and national security hawks celebrated the passage of President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill, pro-life and pro-family leaders wonder aloud why their concerns got eliminated or minimized by the legislation. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the debate’s primary focus on taxes “reminds me of Bill Clinton back in his 1992 campaign: ‘It’s the economy, Stupid.’ It’s not the economy; it is the moral foundation of a nation that matters.” Some conservatives went as far as to call the watered-down Senate version of the bill “morally bankrupt.”

The revised Senate version of the bill “does not defund transgender surgery for minors. That is a moral issue. It only cuts funding for abortion services for one year, not the 10 in the House bill. That’s morally bankrupt,” Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) told “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Wednesday night.

While many pro-life advocates — including SBA Pro-Life America and Americans United for Life — called the bill’s one-year defunding of Planned Parenthood a step forward, some former insiders say the deep-pocketed abortion industry has the resources to wait it out. “While any taxpayer money diverted away from Planned Parenthood is a good thing, defunding our nation’s largest abortion provider for just one year is not the win many of us who believe abortion is abhorrent wanted it to be,” said former Planned Parenthood director and founder of And Then There Were None, Abby Johnson, in a statement emailed to The Washington Stand. “A year is enough time for many Planned Parenthood facilities to hold out to be re-funded. Some will close, but Planned Parenthood as an organization has millions of dollars, wealthy donors, and could support those clinics if they choose.”

Planned Parenthood, which received $792.2 million in taxpayer funding in 2024, reported total net assets of $2.52 billion. “Bottom line: it’s not enough and Republicans should permanently defund the abortion giant, not just for a paltry 12 months,” said Johnson.

“A one-year defunding of Planned Parenthood is no victory; it’s a disheartening concession,” Katie Brown Xavios, national director of American Life League, told TWS. “To receive only a token punishment for those who harm women and kill the innocent is unacceptable.”

Quena González, senior director of Government Affairs at Family Research Council, called the one-year interruption “just a very short pause on defunding” on Wednesday, noting that under the revised bill, “taxpayers will still be forced to underwrite experimental gender transition procedures.”

Family Research Council backed the House version of the bill and reserved the right to score against the Senate version. Ultimately, it reconsidered after House conservatives wrung several promises out of the Trump administration and Hill leadership.

“Last night, we facilitated negotiations and conservations on key policy issues that had been removed or modified from the House version,” announced FRC President Tony Perkins on Thursday morning. “[W]e believe we will see policy outcomes that offset the changes made by the Senate.”

House Conservatives: ‘We Gained, America Gained’

Leaders of the House Freedom Caucus quickly confirmed they had obtained promises for future executive action and legislation to defund abortion and transgender procedures, as well as other policy priorities. “We got significant commitments on spending reductions outside the framework of the bill,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) told “This Week on Capitol Hill.” “We said, ‘Let’s talk about some offsets elsewhere. Let’s talk about some things the executive can do to mitigate some of the concerns about what the Senate did with our House bill,’” Harris told Perkins.

“We got a major commitment, a serious commitment on spending reduction,” as well as “a large commitment on social issues. We got an agreement that the administration will add adults to their transgender funding limitation. And we’re going to have a discussion with the administration on the egregious, cross-state trafficking in mifepristone,” he said. “We talked about looking at program integrity in food stamps and in Medicaid,” where improper payments and fraud cost “tens of billions of dollars a year.” And “on the Green New Deal/Green New Scam provisions, the administration has a pretty fair leeway to interpret some of the Senate changes” to provisions of the Biden administration’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act.

Harris also revealed the House Freedom Caucus extracted a promise from the speaker of the House to address the nation’s ever-expanding national debt. “The speaker has agreed to have another vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment, because the last one we had was in November of 2011, trillions of dollars of deficits ago,” he said.

The House Freedom Caucus left the negotiations satisfied. “Everything we did was perfectly in line with the president’s agenda. So he went along with it,” said Harris. “We gained, America gained.”

In a statement sent to The Washington Stand shortly after the vote, Rep. Self confirmed the House Freedom Caucus “moved the bill dramatically to the right on almost every front and at every stage of the process, including overnight, as a small group of us continued working with the White House to address critical policy and spending issues.”

The bill threatened to further divide the Republican Party, as many Republicans reluctantly embraced the bill as the best alternative capable of passing Congress. “People with the same principles, looking at the same facts can actually apply and analyze those facts a little bit differently and reach a little bit different conclusion,” Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas) told “Washington Watch” later on Wednesday. “This is not the end-all, be-all decision for every moral matter that we have to deal with in Congress. This is, at its core, a bill about taxes and liberty.”

Social conservatives have long seen taxes and defense spending prioritized, while promises of pro-life or pro-family action do not come to fruition. However, President Trump has repeatedly said he will govern by the motto, “Promises made, promises kept.”

In part, social conservatives in the Trump administration may be wary of submitting legislation for fear liberal Republicans will exercise their collective muscle in negotiations. Harris noted the Trump administration “didn’t want to have to send this bill back to the Senate,” where senators such as abortion-supporting Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) could assure the bill “would actually get worse.”

What Is in the One Big Beautiful Bill?

As The Washington Stand reported, the surviving provisions largely carry out President Trump’s legislative agenda:

  1. The revised bill increases the child tax credit to $2,200, indexed for inflation, down from $2,500 in the House bill. Without action, the child tax credit would have returned its pre-Trump level of $1,000.
  2. The bill creates “TRUMP” savings accounts for children, indexed to the stock market like a 401(k), with a $1,000 deposit from U.S. taxpayers upon the birth of each child. The bill also furthers school choice by expanding educational savings accounts.
  3. The bill makes permanent tax advantages from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including expanded personal exemptions and incentives for business research and development. “For working families, The One, Big, Beautiful Bill prevents a looming $1,700 tax hike and instead puts more money in Americans’ pockets — including upwards of $1,300 for tipped workers and $1,400 for hourly workers working overtime. Families will see a nearly $11,000 boost in take-home pay,” House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) told TWS. “Households making under $100,000 will see a 12% tax cut compared to what they pay today. The average family of four will see nearly $11,000 more in their pockets each year. Real wages for workers will rise by as much as $7,200 a year,” Smith added on the House floor. The final bill gives qualifying senior citizens a $6,000 deduction, which the White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates will assure that 88% of seniors on Social Security have no federal income tax liability. It eliminates federal income taxes on tips up to the first $25,000, phasing out for those who earn $150,000 a year (or couples making $300,000). Taxpayers may also deduct up to $12,500 of overtime pay under the same condition; it lapses in 2028. The bill also lets people who buy cars made in America write off up to $10,000 in interest on the car’s loan.
  4. Enhancing border security. “This bill gives President Trump the tools he needs to finish securing the border by providing $175 billion in new funding. It will allow for completion of the border wall, fund ICE deportation efforts, and hire and train new border patrol agents,” agreed Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.) in a statement sent to TWS. It also taxes remittances to foreign countries. “It secures our border, funds the largest mass deportation operation in American history, and delivers the tax relief working families deserve,” Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) told TWS.
  5. Securing national defense. The bill increases defense spending by roughly $160 billion, including $25 billion for a domestic “Iron Dome” missile defense system.
  6. Student loan reform. The bill imposes a $257,500 lifetime cap on student loan borrowing and reduces provisions that allow borrowers to delay paying back their students loans.
  7. Underwriting high-tax states and cities. The Senate version of the bill increases the state and local tax (SALT) deduction to $40,000 for the next five years.
  8. Slowing our exit from the Green New Deal. The Senate bill ends tax credits or subsidies for green energy projects, such as wind and solar power favored by the Biden administration, for projects constructed within a year of the bill’s passage and that go into service by the end of 2027. But the latest bill removed a proposed excise tax on companies in those industries that use more than a specified amount of components (such as solar panels or batteries) made in China. The Senate version generally slows down the GOP’s efforts to phase out the Left’s cherished credits.
  9. Slowing SNAP reform. The Senate bill delayed reforms to the much-abused Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, program in certain states.
  10. Reforming Medicaid. Medicaid recipients capable of work and who do not have a child at home must spend 80 hours a month in paid work, community service, or schooling/vocational training. The work requirements would save taxpayers an estimated $325 billion over the next 10 years. The bill also reduces the Medicaid provider tax from 6% to 3.5% starting in the 2028 fiscal year.

Despite some well-received economic news, conservatives say the bill still spends too much money and raises the debt ceiling to $5 trillion.

Rep. Mark Harris warned, “if Washington’s overspending addiction continues, the opportunity to put our country back on a path to a sound financial future is in jeopardy. In the coming months, Republicans must use every tool at our disposal to rein in government spending. This is not the end of our work.” (Emphasis in original.) Still, he said, “The country is much better off today than it was a few days ago. There’s certainty in the average working man and woman’s pocketbook that they’re not going to get a tax increase next year” — and greater faith “that the president is watching out for them.”

Nonetheless, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) promised TWS that conservatives would not rest long before collecting the policy commitments they earned in exchange for supporting the amended legislation.

“Celebrate today,” said Roy. “Fight again tomorrow.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘What Is an American?’ Why We Remember Heroes on Our National Holiday

A Historic Week at the Supreme Court

CIA: Intelligence Community’s 2016 ‘Russian Collusion’ Claims Suffered Political Bias, Procedural Anomalies

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The 3 Most Important Votes of the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Vote-a-Rama

President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” moved closer to adoption overnight, as Senate Democrats attempted to load the bill with poison pill amendments in the “vote-a-rama.” During the lengthy amendment process, which began at 9 a.m. Monday morning and continues as of this writing, anyone may offer amendments to the 940-page bill. Senate changes have already made the bill less attractive to pro-life, pro-family conservatives. Yet the revised text also removes a controversial, 10-year moratorium on states regulating artificial intelligence.

“The president’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ is quickly losing its glamour in the Senate. The bill now appears to be a contestant in a beauty pageant for a tractor pull,” said FRC Action Chairman Tony Perkins. “The Senate version currently defunds big abortion providers like Planned Parenthood for only one year, instead of ten. That’s a huge disappointment. The first Senate version defunded gender transition procedures in Medicaid (not in Obamacare, as the House did, nor in Medicare or in the tax code, as had been proposed). But the current version will subject even that slimmed-down provision to a 60-vote threshold, meaning the provision will not pass the Senate, and Americans will continue to pay for gender transition experimentation on vulnerable individuals.”

Perkins wondered only if Senate Republican leaders were “completely out-muscled by the parliamentarian, or worse yet, didn’t try to secure the key components of the House version.” Senate GOP inaction “shows an unacceptable lack of political will.”

“Will senators fight to defund abortion providers for the maximum-allowable 10 years? Will they fight to defund gender procedures that bring trauma and life-long harm, or will they be satisfied with a show-vote on gender transition procedures?” asked Perkins.

Here are three of the most important votes that took place over the last 24 hours.

1. The Senate Continues to Defund Planned Parenthood

The Senate version of the bill reduced the 10-year defunding of Planned Parenthood to only one year. But overnight, the Senate narrowly voted down an amendment to strike down even that brief funding interlude, on a 51-49 vote. Two “pro-choice” Republicans, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voted with the Democrats to fund the nation’s largest abortion business, which committed 402,230 abortions and received $792.2 million in taxpayer funding in 2024.

“The Republicans’ bill will cut millions of women off from birth control, cancer screenings, essential preventative health care — care they will not be able to afford anywhere else,” alleged Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.). “It will take another step towards enacting the Republicans’ plan for a backdoor nationwide abortion ban. How does it do this? By defunding Planned Parenthood.” Republicans, she said, were “happy to cut off this life-saving care.”

But Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, rebutted the talking point. “Defunding Planned Parenthood is not one of them. Community Health Centers and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) provide comprehensive healthcare, and there are more of them!” she said. “Let’s fully fund real healthcare.”

“Senate Democrats just failed in their attempt to remove the meager tip (10%) that Senate Republicans were offering to the taxpayers and pro-life Americans,” said Perkins.

Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America said, “Let me be clear: Defunding Planned Parenthood for one year would be one small step that we celebrate, while we will still fight for all those at risk by the Abortion Goliath’s predatory & violent business. One giant leap would be full debarment.”

2. Senate Nixes the 10-year Moratorium on States Regulating Artificial Intelligence (AI)

On a nearly unanimous vote, the Senate adopted a bipartisan amendment from Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to eliminate the One Big Beautiful Bill’s controversial, 10-year moratorium on AI regulation. If enacted, the provision would have struck down an estimated 75 existing state laws and barred any further protections for the next decade, including laws against AI-generated child pornography.

Blackburn and Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had sought a compromise that would reduce the decade-long federal ban on state AI regulations to five years and allow states to protect children from exploitation, and safeguard people’s images and likenesses, provided those regulations did not impose an “undue or disproportionate burden” on artificial intelligence. “Find you a senator who looks at defunding gender transition procedures the way Ted Cruz looks at protecting AI,” joked Quena González, senior director of Government Affairs at Family Research Council, on social media.

But Blackburn eventually broke with Cruz, saying the proposed compromise did not do enough for “those who need these protections the most. This provision could allow Big Tech to continue to exploit kids, creators, and conservatives. Until Congress passes preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can’t block states from making laws that protect their citizens.” On the House floor, Blackburn listed a litany of AI regulations Congress had failed to pass, which states have adopted. On Friday, 17 Republican governors urged congressional leaders to strike the AI moratorium, saying it “threatens to undo all the work states have done to protect our citizens from the misuse of artificial intelligence.”

Cruz withdrew his amendment a little after 4 a.m. Tuesday, paving the way for the House to adopt Blackburn’s amendment on a strongly bipartisan basis: 99-1. Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) cast the lone no vote.

3. Democrats Extend Taxpayer-Funded Benefits to Criminal Illegal Immigrants

Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) offered an amendment that would have reduced federal Medicaid funding to states that cover illegal immigrants charged with serious crimes. Under Senate parliamentary procedure, the measure needed to clear a 60-vote threshold but passed with only 56 votes. One Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, voted against the measure. Meanwhile, five Democratic senators voted in favor: Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Catherine Cortez-Masto of Nevada, and Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock of Georgia. “Illegal aliens should be on a flight back to their home country, not on Medicaid (funded by American taxpayers)!!!” said Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas). On Monday, the Senate rejected an amendment from Blackburn that would have prevented states from allowing illegal immigrants to enroll in Medicaid.

The Senate also rebuffed numerous attempts to maintain or further extend Green New Deal tax credits and subsidies. Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) spoke in opposition to many of the measures, branding taxpayer funding of “mature industries” as “wasteful.”

House conservatives laid much of the blame for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s lost beauty at the footsteps of Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, a former Al Gore adviser. “The Senate parliamentarian over the last few days has said that a lot of our deficit reduction measures were invalid under the Byrd rule. They’ll have to be changed and modified,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) told “Washington Watch” regular guest host Jody Hice on Friday. Many have asked for the Senate to overrule the parliamentarian, something Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has repeatedly and recently refused to do. “I’ve asked for her to be fired. I don’t know why you would be the Republican leader of the Senate and have a parliamentarian who was hired by Harry Reid 12 years ago,” Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) told “Washington Watch” Monday.

House conservatives said changing the original text of the bill too much risks upsetting the key agreements that allowed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to pass the House, where Republicans also hold only a three-vote majority. “It was a very carefully negotiated compromise. And as they wander away from that, it becomes less and less likely that it’s going to succeed when it comes back out to the House,” said Harris. “We want this to succeed. We want President Trump to succeed. But the safest thing they could do is take our House bill and just pass it the way we pass it, or make some very small changes.”

“If they try to send it over to the House with a large increase in the budget deficit, then I think we’re going to have to go back to the drawing board,” warned Harris.

House leaders want the bill to meet President Trump’s deadline of July 4, making a speedy House vote likely. “I’ve been talking with [Senate Majority] Leader Thune constantly through the process and with individual senators, encouraging them to change the House product as little as possible,” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) told “This Week on Capitol Hill” Saturday.

“I will have to wait about 72 hours for the bill to lay over before we can vote. But the plan would be if it’s in shape that we could use it,” said Johnson. A prompt House vote “would also allow for the president to have a big, beautiful bill signing on Independence Day. And I certainly hope we can keep that deadline.”

As the Senate nears a final text, senators on both sides of the aisle can agree on one thing: They want the nearly day-long marathon known as “vote-a-rama,” to end. “It’s like an all-night party, but without the party,” quipped Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) in the wee hours of Tuesday morning.

“I just want to go home,” agreed Senator John Fetterman (D-Penn.). “I’ve already missed our entire trip to the beach.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Policy Has Consequences: Anti-Family Polices in Cuba Are Affecting Real People

The War of the Machines: Peter Thiel, J.R.R. Tolkien, the Antichrist, and Technology

Two Polls Reveal Public Support Is Growing for Prayer, Chaplains in Schools

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Thune Plows Ahead with Big Beautiful Deadline Despite Question Marks

Every couple of years, all eyes are suddenly trained on one of Congress’s most under-the-radar jobs: the Senate parliamentarian. For 13 years, Elizabeth MacDonough has equal parts elated and frustrated parties in their attempts to squeeze major legislation through the reconciliation process. The first-ever woman to hold the job, MacDonough has played the referee through four administrations and an array of different Senate leaders. It’s up to her to settle the bitter disputes over which parts of the Big Beautiful Bill are relevant under the rules and which aren’t. In other words, she’s the most important person to Donald Trump’s agenda that most people have never heard of.

For the last several days, the “parl,” as the position is affectionately nicknamed, has been combing through the fine print of the Senate Finance Committee’s version of the bill to see which parts do, in fact, meet the standards for this specialized budget process. As MacDonough once explained it, “We’re the neutral end of [these partisan battles, which is] very important. Yes, you need to think of that somebody who is not elected, not a party apparatchik.”

That matters, especially now, as the two sides duke it out over what belongs in the president’s signature legislation and what doesn’t. To unlock reconciliation, everything has to abide by the Byrd Rule, which keeps parties from tacking on “extraneous” provisions. Democrats flagged several pieces of the bill that they argue aren’t budget-related, which is the major criterion for surviving the Bryd Bath.

Already, MacDonough has announced some GOP casualties — Byrd droppings — that she’s ruled non-germane. Making matters interesting, some of the victims were programs or provisions that helped sweeten the deal for reluctant House members to sign on. Language that would force the states to pay a bigger share of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or restrictions on temporary restraining orders from lower courts have been struck, at least for now, along with priorities like EPA revisions, overhauls to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, regulatory powers, a mandate to sell the Post Office’s electric vehicles, and more were all struck — sending Seante Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) into a huddle to see which pieces Republicans might rework.

The blows didn’t seem to derail Thune’s timeline, though. “Breitbart News Saturday” asked the majority leader, “Are we still on track for getting the bill out of the Senate by the Fourth of July?” “We are,” Thune replied. Obviously, he pointed out, things are more complicated in the Senate with “laws and restrictions and procedures that we have to operate under that are different than the House. So some of that takes a bit longer,” he conceded, “but as we head into this next week, I’m fully confident that we’re going to be ready to roll, and we have to be,” he said. “We’ve got to deliver.”

One thing he’s learned, Thune admitted, is that “if you don’t put deadlines out there, nothing gets done, and this stuff can drag on and on endlessly. If we want to get the one big, beautiful bill done, the Senate is going to have to act, and we’re going to hopefully act in a way that will enable the House when we send it back over there to them, because they have to pass the same bill that we do.”

Apart from the parliamentarian, the biggest wrench to Trump’s signature bill is getting the House on board with the changes, which were significant. Unlike Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) chamber, the Senate’s version brings the state and local tax deduction (SALT) back to earth from $40,000 to $10,000. Anticipating the House moderates’ anger, Thune tried to tamp down the frustration by pointing out, “We understand that it’s a negotiation. Obviously, there had to be some marker in the bill to start with, but we’re prepared to have discussions with our colleagues here in the Senate and figure out a landing spot.”

Other flashpoints include bigger reforms to Medicaid, a $5 trillion debt ceiling (instead of the House’s $4 trillion), a “gentler” approach to the green energy tax credits that Joe Biden created, and more permanent tax cuts for businesses. Based on the extension of the climate change subsidies alone, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) announced that he wouldn’t vote for the package.

“Rumor is Senate plans to jam the House with its weaker, unacceptable [One Big Beautiful Bill],” Roy vented on X Tuesday. “This is not a surprise but it would be a mistake,” he warned. “The bill in its current Senate form would increase deficits, continue most Green New Scam subsidies, & otherwise fail even a basic smell test… I would not vote for it as it is.”

His Arizona colleague, Andy Harris (R-Md.), agreed. “The currently proposed Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill weakens key House priorities,” the chair of the House Freedom Caucus said. “It doesn’t do enough to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, it backtracks on Green New Scam elimination included in the House bill, and it greatly increases the deficit — taking us even further from a balanced budget.”

Thune responded to critics, stressing, “This is a process whereby everybody doesn’t get everything they want.” Others, like Senator Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), sought to highlight the pros of the bill. “I think we’re going to find more spending cuts,” he explained to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “I know that won’t break your heart. … It’s plain and simple. We’re going to make the tax cuts permanent. The SALT thing is probably one of the stickier things. But at the end of the day, this bill is going to be good enough that if you voted for it in the House before, there’s no reason for you not to vote for it this next time, because then you’re given a binary choice. Is it better to pass it or not? And at that point, I think that the House will pass it as well.”

House conservatives like Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) say they’re “hopeful” that “we’ll wind up with a product that every Republican in the House and Senate can vote for. We were close in the House.” But no one is quite sure how many congressmen will fall in line.

At the end of the day, Johnson admitted that there’s heartburn on the aspects where the two chambers aren’t on the same page. “But look,” he told Perkins on Saturday’s “This Week on Capitol Hill,” “we’re giving them the space to do what they need to do. I’m in constant communication with Leader Thune over there, my counterpart, and with individual senators who have expressed concerns or questions about why we did what we did in the House version. And so, look, I think this is going along well,” he agreed. “And I certainly hope they make as many minor modifications as possible and not major modifications, because that will make it more difficult for us to pass it, as you know.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


Like what you’re reading? Donate to The Washington Stand! From now until June 30, your gift will be doubled to fuel bold, biblically-based reporting.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Analysis: Biden Unaware of Executive Orders ‘Signed’ by Autopen

President Joe Biden issued 162 executive orders over the course of his Oval Office tenure, but according to a new report, most of them were signed by “autopen,” giving rise to concerns that unelected White House staffers may have had more say in shaping policy than the president. The report is furthering those concerns and suggesting that Biden may not have even been aware of the existence of the orders being signed in his name.

The American energy advocacy group Power the Future published the report Wednesday, examining eight Biden-era executive orders on climate change and U.S. energy policy, and found “no evidence” that Biden ever spoke about or acknowledged the existence of any of these orders. “Not in a press conference. Not in a speech. Not even a video statement,” Power the Future’s report stated. Power the Future Executive Director Daniel Turner said in a statement, “Americans deserve to know which unelected staffers or radical unnamed activists implemented sweeping change through an autopen. The Biden energy agenda destroyed the livelihoods of energy workers and fueled the record-high inflation that broke the budgets of millions of Americans.” He asked, “The question is simple, and deserves an immediate answer: what did Joe Biden know, and when did he know it?”

According to the Oversight Project, dedicated to government accountability, practically every order signed by Biden was signed via autopen, with the exception of his announcement withdrawing from the 2024 presidential election. The Oversight Project cited House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who questioned Biden on an executive order affecting liquefied natural gas (LNG) and reported that the president didn’t remember signing the order. “He looks at me, stunned, and he said, ‘I didn’t do that,’” Johnson recounted. He continued, “And I said to him, ‘Mr. President, yes you did, it was an executive order, like, you know, three weeks ago.’ And he goes, ‘No, I didn’t do that.’ … It occurred to me … he was not lying to me. He genuinely did not know what he had signed.”

“For investigators to determine whether then-President Biden actually ordered the signature of relevant legal documents, or if he even had the mental capacity to, they must first determine who controlled the autopen and what checks there were in place,” the Oversight Project wrote in a social media post. The accountability organization continued, “Given President Biden’s decision to revoke Executive Privilege for individuals advising Trump during his first Presidency, this is a knowable fact that can be determined with the correct legal process…”

The “autopen” has been the subject of significant controversy in recent years due to Biden’s excessive use of the technology. Devices have been around for centuries, allowing individuals to replicate their signature or sign multiple documents at once. Thomas Jefferson, for example, kept an early prototype, then called a “polygraph,” in the White House and another in his residence at Monticello. The device allowed a user to sign multiple documents at once but did require the signer to be present and to actively use the machine.

In the late 1930s, an automated version of the machine was developed, called the “autopen,” which would store a template of a signature that could be reproduced without the presence of the actual signer. The autopen became commercially available in the early 1940s and was quickly purchased by politicians, government officials, celebrities, and others. The first U.S. president to use an autopen was reportedly Harry Truman, although he only used the device to sign checks and answer mail. Likewise, most other presidents — such as John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, or Gerald Ford — who used an autopen relegated their use of the instrument to signing checks, correspondence, and autographs.

George W. Bush considered using the autopen to sign executive orders and legislation and even got the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) approval to do so, but still insisted on signing such documents himself, flying to Washington, D.C. to sign emergency legislation in 2005, for example. Barack Obama was the first president to use the autopen to sign legislation, giving his approval to sign Patriot Act extensions via autopen while he was visiting France in 2011, the National Defense Authorization Act while vacationing in Hawaii in 2012, and fiscal legislation in 2013.

President Donald Trump has openly refused to use autopen signatures for executive orders and other legal documents. “We may use it, as an example, to send some young person a letter because it’s nice,” Trump told reporters in March. Contrasting his limited use of the autopen against Biden’s much broader use, Trump added, “But to sign pardons and all of the things that he signed with an autopen is disgraceful.” Trump has also suggested that pardons — and, potentially, executive orders — signed by the Biden administration via autopen may be legally “void” if the president didn’t know what he was signing or didn’t authorize its signature.

The Washington Stand asked the DOJ about potential investigations and, if applicable, prosecutions of the Biden administration’s autopen use and was told, “No comment here.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Has ‘Excellent News for Families’: FRC Analyst

Pro-family experts are touting multiple provisions of President Donald Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill” aimed at fulfilling the administration’s promises to facilitate family formation, ease adoption, and benefit homeschool students or those who attend religious schools.

The House Ways and Means Committee passed the 389-page bill on Wednesday morning by a 26-19, party-line vote. “It’s sad that every single committee Democrat voted for the largest tax hike in American history and against additional tax relief for families, farmers, and small businesses,” Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) told The Washington Stand. The bill now moves to the House Budget Committee.

In its current form, the bill contains economic provisions pro-family advocates say they have supported for years.

Increasing the Child Tax Credit

The president’s signature economic bill from his first term, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), doubled the Child Tax Credit (CTC) from $1,000 to $2,000 and raised the income families can earn as the credit phases out. Without renewal, the child tax credit would be cut in half at the end of this year. The “big beautiful bill” increases the child tax credit to $2,500 for the tax years 2025 through 2028 — the end of the Trump administration. The extra $500 CTC boost adjusts for the rampant inflation of the last Democratic administration, according to its advocates.

If Congress does not vote to maintain the increased CTC, the credit will return to $2,000; however, the bill makes that level permanent and indexes it for inflation each year, rounded to the nearest $100. The bill also requires both parents to have work-eligible Social Security numbers before claiming the credit.

“This is excellent news for families,” Quena González, senior director of Government Affairs at Family Research Council, told TWS. He singled out the bill’s proposal to increase the CTC as the fulfillment of a long-term policy goal of the organization’s. “FRC has long advocated for increasing the child tax credit. We advocated for it to be doubled the last time, and it is good to see it pegged to inflation and made permanent. In the current round of budgeting, where they’re trying to cut hundreds of billions of dollars, this is a really huge nod to the importance of family.”

Many who advocate for a pro-family tax code have singled out the child tax credit, which was created in 1997, as a way to aid struggling families while reducing the reach of government. “The relatively new child tax credit, which will slowly rise over the next several years to $1,000, should instead be immediately increased to at least $2,500 per child and indexed to inflation,” said Allan C. Carlson, then a distinguished fellow for family policy studies at FRC, during a Witherspoon Lecture more than two decades ago. Carlson has championed what he calls “a pro-family income tax” for decades.

AEI scholar Kevin Corinth made an identical proposal in February in AEI’s “Family Friendly Policies for the 119th Congress,” edited by Timothy P. Carney. “A supersized Child Tax Credit will ease the financial burdens on families raising children and those hoping to welcome new babies into the world,” agreed Patrice Onwuka of the Independent Women’s Forum.

Some of the big beautiful bill’s policies have reopened a rift on the Right, as some conservatives believe the government should make no fiscal policy promoting or discriminating against the nuclear family. Others blame tax credits for removing nearly half of all Americans from income tax rolls, shifting the tax burden onto a shrinking number of high earners.

González says the enhanced CTC will help secure America’s economic future by boosting the nation’s sagging demographics. “If you want to make the federal budget sustainable, you need a growing population to do that,” he contended. “This may be the first major policy move in that direction in years, or decades.”

Population levels are plunging globally, falling by more than half since 1950. The U.S. birthrate rose by less than 1% in 2024 to 1.626, according to provisional data released by the CDC last month, up from an historic low of 1.616 in 2023. Both levels are far below the 2.1 level needed for replacement. The pattern repeats throughout the West, where a birth dearth has stunted economic growth. “If we are unable to address our fertility crisis, the U.S. will face an existential economic crisis driven by a steep decline in fertility rates — one that could have an impact measured in the quadrillions of dollars,” wrote Jesús Fernández-Villaverde in The American Enterprise.

Child-Friendly Investment Accounts, Adoption Credits, and More

The “big beautiful bill” delivers numerous other tax policies desired by some pro-family advocates, according to a section-by-section analysis of the bill provided to The Washington Stand by the House Ways and Means Committee.

Make It Easier to Adopt a Child: One provision in the bill (Sec. 110107) gives parents a tax credit to write off up to $16,810 from their taxes in qualified adoption expenses. Under current law, the amount can be rolled over for five years. The new bill does not allow the tax to be rolled over but, beginning in 2025, it makes up to $5,000 of the credit refundable — meaning parents can receive that much money even if they do not owe taxes (have no tax liability); and the refundable amount is indexed for inflation. The credit phases out for those who have an adjusted gross income between $252,150 and $292,150. The bill also gives Native American tribal governments the same authority as states to deem an adopted child “special needs,” making the adoptive family eligible for the full $16,810 potential tax credit (Sec. 110108).

MAGA Accounts for Family Formation: The bill establishes a new category of Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement, or “MAGA accounts” (Sections 110115 and 110116). Beginning in 2026, those with children under the age of eight can contribute up to $5,000 a year (adjusted annually for inflation) to a MAGA account, which is invested in a diversified account that tracks the stock market, each year until the child turns 18. Friends, relatives, employers, and non-profits (including churches) may also make donations to these accounts and — provided the donations go to a broad class of recipients — nonprofits can make unlimited donations. For instance, a veterans organization could offer unlimited support for the children of gold star families.

For children born between 2024 and 2028 — the second Trump administration — the government will deposit $1,000 of taxpayers’ dollars into these MAGA accounts. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made a similar legislative proposal this week, introducing the Invest America Act on Monday.

When the child turns 18, he may take out up to half of its amount for college, vocational training, to start a business, or to purchase his first home. At age 25, he can withdraw the full amount for those purposes; at age 30, he can remove the full amount of the account for any reason.

The Trump administration has sought to promote family formation. “It is the task of our government to make it easier to have kids, to welcome them into the world,” Vice President J.D. Vance told the 2025 March for Life.

Encouraging School Choice and Homeschooling: The proposed “big beautiful bill” creates a new tax credit for those who contribute to charities that provide scholarships for elementary or secondary students to attend private or religious schools (Sec. 110109). It also allows parents, including homeschoolers, to withdraw funds from tax-advantaged 529 accounts to cover a broader array of educational expenses (Sec. 110110), including:

  • curriculum and curricular materials
  • books or other instructional materials
  • online educational materials
  • tutoring or educational classes outside the home
  • testing fees
  • fees for dual enrollment in an institution of higher education, and
  • educational therapies for students with disabilities.

Decreases Government Policies Encouraging Gambling: One provision modestly discourages gambling by reducing how much wagering losses a person can write off (Sec. 110014). Currently, gamblers can write off only gambling losses up to the amount of their winnings, and other gambling-related expenses in excess of the amount they won. The bill reduces all gambling-related deductions to the amount of his winnings.

González was not alone in praising those parts of the bill. “We are encouraged to see the House Ways and Means Committee increase their response to the needs of American families, especially support for young and growing families through the child tax credit and the foster and adoption tax credit,” said John Mize, CEO of Americans United for Life. “We at March for Life are grateful for the pro-life, pro-family reconciliation bill text released today,” according to a post on the annual pro-life event’s social media account. “These provisions will strengthen a longstanding family that benefits all American families,” said Concerned Women for America LAC. And ACLJ Action held that “this Child Tax Credit update sends a powerful message: We value children. We value parents. And we value the American family.”

The bill’s supporters note its overall fiscal impact, as well. “Instead of a $1,700 tax hike, working families still recovering from Biden’s inflation crisis will now receive on average a $1,300 tax cut and workers will get $3,300 more in real income back into their pockets,” said a press release the committee emailed to The Washington Stand Wednesday morning. “Permanence of the 2017 Trump tax cuts will save 6 million jobs, including 1.1 million manufacturing jobs.”

“This cornerstone of President Trump’s economic agenda will put the interests and needs of working families and small businesses ahead of Washington, bring jobs and manufacturing back to America, and usher in a new golden era of prosperity,” Rep. Smith told TWS.

How much of the bill will survive the Senate legislative process remains to be seen. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) told Fox Business on Wednesday morning the bill will see Senate action “probably sometime in the early fall.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump’s First Step Act Was a Monumental Success. His New Administration Has a Chance to Build On It.

Every April since President Donald Trump signed the first proclamation in 2018, Second Chance Month has served as an annual reminder to recognize the potential of people with criminal records to turn their lives around. The First Step Act of 2018 remains one of President Trump’s most important legacies from his first term. It has been a tremendous success by virtually any measure, and it’s part of a critical but underserved area of legislative reform.

What’s more, it was bipartisan and remains extraordinarily popular.

Polling indicates that most Americans recognize our criminal justice system needs reform — perhaps because Americans also recognize that the success or failure of our criminal justice system has direct implications for them personally.

A striking 81% of likely voters in 2024 said they’d support reforms to the criminal justice system, with the numbers almost equally high across political affiliations. More than three-quarters of Republicans signaled support. Upwards of 80% of Democrats and Independents did as well.

That’s because Americans understand that a functioning criminal justice system has little to do with ideology. It’s about ensuring the institutions we rely on to keep us safe, free, and flourishing do what they were originally created to do.

Continuing to refine and modernize our justice system not only offers Trump a widely-supported opportunity to better the nation; it’s also a chance for him to further cement his legacy as a transformational reformer of American government.

There’s already a promising roster of legislation filed in Congress that would serve as a worthy follow-up to President Trump’s successes in 2018. Take the Federal Prison Oversight Act, the Clean Slate Act, and the Safer Supervision Act as examples. All three would serve as crucial steps toward lasting, system-level reform of our criminal justice system.

The Federal Prison Oversight Act created an oversight body to inspect and regulate federal prisons — but it hasn’t gone into practical effect yet, due in part to funding issues.

Safer, more effective, more accountable federal prisons wouldn’t only benefit the prison staff and population. It would benefit us all. After all, where do incarcerated men and women go after serving their term? They return to us as neighbors. As co-workers. As fellow citizens.

As such, we must ensure that our correctional facilities are, in fact, corrective, not merely punitive.

The American criminal justice system was never meant to become a multibillion-dollar taxpayer-funded industry. And it was never meant to be a self-perpetuating parallel state. It was intended to protect the common good, mete out justice, and return citizens to their communities after they had served a rightly-determined sentence in reparation for their crime.

We should hold people accountable for their mistakes, as we owe it to victims and the public to ensure there are consequences for causing harm. But when we make the path of a law-abiding life more attainable for those who have demonstrated their commitment to rehabilitation, we create a society that is safer and more prosperous for everyone. This should ring true to all of us, regardless of political inclination.

Employment is one of the biggest challenges for those reentering society from jail or prison. Workforce training programs tailored for those returning from incarceration should be expanded and fully funded. Technology offers promising new opportunities, with one study finding that the use of a virtual reality interface to train people in prison on job interviewing contributed to more job offers and lower recidivism upon release.

Tens of millions of Americans have a criminal record, including half of those who are unemployed. Too often, that record functions as a life sentence long after their official sentence has ended. When criminal records are barriers to employment, housing, and education, millions are kept from ever fully reintegrating into society.

One way to alleviate these barriers is to institutionalize automatic record-clearing for eligible individuals through “Clean Slate” laws, which automatically expunge or seal low-level records after a certain period of time for those whose arrests don’t result in convictions or who have remained crime-free. While a dozen states — like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Utah — have enacted this policy, nationwide adoption would eliminate bureaucratic red tape preventing people from moving past their records and contributing more to society.

In addition to implementing job training programs and Clean Slate laws, Congress is also considering the Safer Supervision Act, which would help streamline and reform an overwhelmed and arcane system trying to execute and make decisions about post-incarceration supervision. The Safer Supervision Act would reduce the size of the government, reduce costs, and even reduce recidivism.

Second Chance Month is a useful tool to raise awareness, but it should be seen as the floor, not the ceiling. By implementing policies that support job-training, record-clearing, and community reintegration, we can see to it that second chances are more than just feel-good ceremonies for one month on the calendar. We as a nation — and Trump as our president — have a chance to make our justice system just again.

AUTHOR

Timothy Head

Timothy Head is the president and CEO of Unify.US and the former executive director at the Faith & Freedom Coalition.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

10 Beautiful Bills for a Better America

As Congress debates major issues regarding taxes, tariffs, and trade, it would be heartening for faith, family, and freedom Americans if it found time to pass topical bills that address other pressing concerns such as protecting unborn life, dismantling taxpayer-funded abortion, conscience protections, and more.

A number of these measures have been introduced in diverse forms in past Congresses indisposed to adopt them. Others are ideas whose time had not yet come. But in these still-early days of the 119th Congress, the two chambers of Congress, one of which had time for Senator Cory Booker’s (D-N.J.) around-the-clock oration, might well find room on their schedules to debate measures that accommodate conscience, support mothers and families, and protect an underappreciated national responsibility — the collection and analysis of social metrics.

Here are 10 measures that fit this general description, with the acknowledgement that they are only a sample of proposals that are within striking distance of adoption and worthy of congressional attention even in a crowded calendar.

Hawley Child Tax Credit Expansion

Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) champions an expansion of the child tax credit, a longtime bipartisan proposition, to $5,000 from its current value of $2,000 per child. The credit would reportedly be refundable against payroll taxes, be available during the year in which the child was conceived, and be paid out over the course of the year rather than remitted as a lump sum at tax time.

S. 4524, Lankford Conscience Protection Act of 2024

Reintroduced most recently in June 2024, legislation like this is urgently needed in an environment where existing federal conscience protections languished unenforced in the Biden years, and states like Illinois and Washington are moving to require physicians or pregnancy centers to refer for abortions against their convictions that these actions are morally and ethically wrong. S. 4524 would have reinforced several existing federal conscience laws and grant individuals and institutions a private right of action to assert their conscience claims in federal court. The proposed law would clarify that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must investigate alleged conscience violations and can suspend federal funds for health-related services if the violators do not respect conscience.

H.R. 796, Miller Second Chance for Moms Act

Introduced on January 28, 2025 by Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.), this legislation would amend the basic federal food, drug, and cosmetics legislation to require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to mandate a warning label be placed on the abortion drug mifepristone. The warning label would advise women of the availability of an abortion pill reversal (APR) protocol that can often rescue their baby after the woman has taken the drug. It would require the secretary of HHS to create or contract with a 24/7, toll-free hotline to advise women on how to access abortion pill reversal with referrals limited solely to providers of APR.

H.R. 7, Smith No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2025

Introduced on January 22, 2025, Rep. Christopher Smith’s (R-N.J.) bill is an expanded version of previous anti-funding measures and now has 81 House of Representatives co-sponsors. The bill would make permanent the terms of the Hyde Amendment, which permits funding of abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or where a physical disorder, injury, or illness would threaten a woman’s life. It would apply to the full sweep of Hyde Amendment provisions applicable now to annual spending bills. H.R. 7 would also bar federal subsidies for the portion of health insurance premiums that pay for abortion coverage.

H.R. 271 and 272, Fischbach Defund Planned Parenthood and Protecting Life and Taxpayers Acts

These measures, introduced on January 14, 2025, would prohibit Planned Parenthood from accessing any discretionary or mandatory federal funds because of its immersion in the provision and promotion of abortion. The Protecting Life Act would require all federally-funded entities to certify that they will not carry out abortions or provide funds to any other entity that carries out abortions beyond the terms permitted by the Hyde Amendment. The Senate version of the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, S. 203, was introduced on January 23, 2025 by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and has 11 co-sponsors. In addition, a coalition of 150 pro-life groups has called on Congress to cut funding for Planned Parenthood in the upcoming budget reconciliation bill.

S. 334, Risch American Values Act

This bill carries forward pro-life foreign assistance policy. Introduced on January 30, 2025 by Senator James Risch (R-Idaho), the bill would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to ensure that no appropriated funds may be used to pay for abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to be sterilized. The bill would also bar the use of funds to pay for biomedical research related to techniques of induced abortion or coerced sterilization. The bill has a dozen co-sponsors.

H.R. 627/S. 178, Norman-Ernst Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2025

Introduced by Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) on the House side and Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) in the Senate, this is a critical piece of legislation that will ensure the demographic and some health implications of induced abortion are tracked and analyzable to the extent possible in a national, public framework. The urgency of this legislation, which would redress a half century of voluntary and incomplete national reporting, is all the greater thanks to the rapid expansion of chemical abortion conducted with little to no medical evaluation or supervision. The bill notes the disturbing facts that not a single data point regarding abortion is publicly available for all 50 states, and that three states, constituting 15% of U.S. abortion volume, share no reports at all with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

H.R. 578, Roy FACE Act Repeal Act of 2025

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) has led the fight against the much-abused Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a law that was weaponized during the Biden administration to target right-to-life demonstrators with vindictive prosecutions and harsh penalties. President Trump, as one of his initial executive actions, pardoned men and women, including grandmothers, who had been sentenced to lengthy prison terms for engaging in protests, while making little or no progress in identifying or prosecuting individuals who attacked churches and pregnancy help centers. Absent repeal of this legislation, Roy says, biased enforcement will promptly resume in a future administration. “Data my office obtained from Merrick Garland’s DOJ showed that 97% of FACE Act prosecutions from 1994-2024 were against pro-life Americans.”

H.R. 722, Burlison, Life at Conception Act

The United States has seen a recent spike in abortions, beginning before the 2022 Dobbs ruling but continuing in its wake, with one source reporting that our nation’s abortion toll has risen to more than one million abortions per year. As Congress and the states look for ways to support mothers, the fact remains that for much of the country, the legal status of the unborn is a void that must be filled. It is lawful in much of the land to dismember a child in the womb; to destroy a child in the third trimester or a human embryo because it is affected by Down syndrome or is not the preferred sex; to set aside a child born alive and deny him or her life-saving care; to use public funds to pay for and promote abortion; to leave a woman alone in a bathroom to expel the new life from her womb; or to ship abortion drugs across state lines with little or no medical support.

To address these wrongs, legislation is needed that not only delivers unprecedented levels of support for men and women to act for the good of their child, but to safeguard each and every innocent life. The Life at Conception Act, with 73 co-sponsors, faces a steep challenge in this Congress but it too would be a beautiful bill, one with the added virtue of honoring our best hope for a better future for America.

AUTHOR

Chuck Donovan

Chuck Donovan served in the Reagan White House as a senior writer and as Deputy Director of Presidential Correspondence until early 1989. He was executive vice president of Family Research Council, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and founder/president of Charlotte Lozier Institute from 2011 to 2024. He has written and spoken extensively on issues in life and family policy.

RELATED VIDEO: Let Trump Be Trump! The President is Attempting the Near Impossible!

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Johnson Races to Ready for Trump: ‘This Is an Around-the-Clock Operation Right Now’

While miles of fences and concrete barriers line the most iconic spots of the National Mall, there are other preparations underway for Donald Trump’s inauguration – well out of the public eye. As the city transforms into the best and most patriotic version of itself, Republicans are working well into the night on the most significant plans: what the first few days of the new administration will look like.

Under the Capitol dome, which is already draped in red-white-and-blue bunting, members are hurrying from meeting to meeting to cement their plans for the flurry of business that starts after Trump’s oath of office. For House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), it’s the culmination of months of work that started as early as last summer on the campaign trail, when it became obvious that the 45th president had the momentum he needed to win. The 100-days agenda is “very aggressive,” the Louisianan explained as far back as June. “Those days cannot get here soon enough,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.

Now that the time has come, the speaker is focused on one thing: undoing the damage Joe Biden did to this country’s security, economy, families, and sovereignty. “We’re going to reverse some of the crazy things that this administration did in the areas of public policy,” he previewed to Perkins on Saturday. “All of that begins this month, so we’re excited and working steadily,” Johnson explained. “This is an around-the-clock operation right now, because we have to fix everything.”

Of course, as the speaker understands better than anyone, he’ll need every Republican on the same page to get a single piece of Trump’s agenda off the ground — something that’s proven, as recently as this month, to be a monumental task. The president-elect has tried to minimize some of that tension, bringing members of the House Freedom Caucus to Mar-a-Lago over the weekend to hash out some of the differences that threatened to torpedo Johnson’s reelection as speaker.

“Unity was a huge part of the meeting,” one of the Republicans confirmed. “I think that kind of team-building [and] camaraderie is really important,” Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) explained to Politico, “because we have a heavy lift in front of us.” Despite the bitter debates the fiscal hawks have had with leadership of late, Donalds reiterated, “It was really much more a fun, enjoyable dinner than a deep policy session.”

Congressman Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) explained to Perkins on Tuesday’s show, “We talked for several hours, as a matter of fact, late into the evening. But it was on border security. It was on crime. It’s how, quite frankly, the Biden administration has used the weapon of the pen [with] executive orders to attack and invade our country and undermine every working American day in and day out.”

One of the recurring themes has also been reconciliation — the process that allows Republicans to move two budget-related bills through the Senate with a simple majority instead of the usual 60 votes it takes to end debate on a proposal. Part of it, Ogles admitted, “is nerdy procedural stuff.” But to make the drastic changes Trump and the American people demand, it’s a crucial piece of the puzzle moving into next week. Right now, there’s disagreement among the GOP over whether the party should bundle all of their major policy goals like tax cuts and border security into one “big, beautiful bill,” as Trump is urging, or two. But there’s also legitimate concern that the president-elect’s strategy might open the door to more spending waste.

Several GOP members of the Senate and House Freedom Caucus are urging the White House to split the priorities into two reconciliation bills (which is the maximum number a majority can advance each fiscal year) so that nothing sneaks into the legislation that derails them.

“You know, Donald Trump is strategic,” Ogles pointed out. “I think he wants to deliver some quick wins for the American people. The election was a mandate to secure the border, to, again, attack crime, to get these folks [who] are illegally. We know we have murderers here. We know we have terrorists here. We need to go find them. We need to deport them. We need to get them out of our country. And so with that, I think organically there’s the opportunity or perhaps even the likelihood that this could end up being two separate bills, because the larger [it is] … the more complicated it becomes, and the more difficult it will be to pass and the longer it will take to pass.” He suggested that if Trump delivers “a smaller bill, then follow[s] up with tax policy,” it will be easier to get done. “We can make sure Donald Trump has a successful 100 days and delivers a secure border for the American people.”

The speaker, who’s been careful to follow Trump’s lead, emphasized that Republicans might disagree on the process, but they do agree on the “overall objectives.” “The debate has been about the sequencing,” he explained to Perkins. “And when we say one large reconciliation bill, that is the best chance that we have to get all of these initiatives done.” As he explained, the House has less room for error than the Senate. “We have a smaller margin. For the first time in U.S. history, there are more Republicans by way of margin in the Senate than there [are] in the House. So they can lose three votes on any given measure, and I can only lose one or two.” In other words, he said, “I have 150 more personalities to deal with and get on the same page.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has a similar problem — but fewer cats to herd. What matters, the speaker insisted, is that he and Thune have a great relationship. “We’ve been talking about this very thoughtfully and deliberately. There’s a handful of [Republican] senators — I wouldn’t say all of them — [who] are very adamant that we ought to do two bills in the House. We believe one bill is the best way.”

The reason, he went on, is simple. “[W]hat they want to do is take some of the border measures and maybe defense spending and do that right out of the blocks very early in January and then leave the larger piece, which is the tax extension of the tax cuts and some of the other very complicated things that we’ve got to do, on a larger package. The problem is, if you take the border and defense spending off of the larger package, those things are very popular among Republicans. And that’s kind of the anchor to get the harder things done. So there’s a risk in splitting them up. I’ve explained that to President Trump in detail. And as of today, now, I think he very much agrees with what I’m saying. And I think he told that to the senators when he met with them this week.”

Ogles and his colleagues do understand the need to get something substantial done in the first 100 days. “And so, understanding how the sausage gets made up here by putting border security with some strategic cuts together in a package, again addressing the debt ceiling, we can move quickly — much more quickly than we can if everything is in there,” he countered. “And then, quite frankly, once you have one ‘big, beautiful bill,’ it ends up typically getting filled up with a bunch of nonsense and pork,” which the hardline conservatives won’t tolerate. But again, the Tennessee congressman underscored, “I think we’ve got to cut where we can cut. Look, we can’t cut our way out of this mess. We’re going to have to grow our way out of this mess. But every cut, every penny, every dollar matters.”

One thing that both sides can agree on is that “we’ve got to change the way this town operates,” Ogles insisted. “[O]ne of the successes we had with this when Mike Johnson was elected — and I was one of the individuals that helped whip those final votes and get him across the finish line — is that you can’t do suspension bills the last day right before you fly out. Because what ends up happening is they put some junk bill together. They sweeten it for the Democrats, and they pass it with a majority of Democrat votes. You can’t do that anymore,” he argued. “You can only do a suspension bill on a Monday or Tuesday.”

Again, he acknowledged, “It’s nerdy. Most people don’t understand why that’s important. But what it does is it stops this town from running over the American people. And so, day in and day out, what we’re trying to do is fix how this place operates.” And yes, “One big, beautiful bill might seem great, but when you understand everything that gets thrown in there, it’s really counterintuitive to the mandate that the American people delivered to Donald Trump and to Congress to fix this country.”

Whatever form the reconciliation strategy takes, Johnson reminded viewers, “We work in the greatest deliberative body in, really, the history of the world. And we get the opportunity [in] the extraordinary moment in history that we’re in, to hold that thing together. … And I can tell you, the Republicans in the House and the Senate are very excited right now.”

At the end of the day, the speaker underscored, “God is the one that raises up those in authority. Scripture is very clear about that. And so with that great responsibility, there are a lot of things that come along with that. And so, I’m encouraging my colleagues to remember that, to keep our perspective. We don’t grasp these gavels or hold on to these titles with any sense of pride or anything else. This is a this is a moment of service. And it is a sacrifice,” and no matter what happens, “we ought to regard it that way.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Clear and Real Threat’: Johnson Backs SAVE Act to End Non-Citizens Voting in U.S. Elections

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives will vote on a bill to reverse “the ease with which illegal aliens can register and vote in our elections, including in every single swing state,” said Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) on a video conference call attended by The Washington Stand.

The House will vote on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which requires states to verify that only U.S. citizens can register or vote in U.S. elections. The bill requires applicants to show proof of citizenship and grants states access to federal databases that can verify citizenship. It also orders the Department of Homeland Security to determine whether to initiate removal proceedings if a non-citizen unlawfully attempts to register to vote.

The bill attempts to fix a problem created by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), often dubbed the “Motor-Voter Law.” The bill, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, requires officials to offer to register those who apply for a driver’s license. While federal law says only U.S. citizens should register, a 2013 Supreme Court opinion held that “the NVRA forbids [s]tates to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the [f]ederal [f]orm.”

The form asks applicants to swear on penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens — but requires no proof whatsoever.

“In effect, this law, the NVRA, requires states to use the honors system,” Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd (R) told TWS. “There’s no mechanism to ensure that only those registering or voting are citizens,” Speaker Johnson told The Washington Stand. With the SAVE Act, “we can assure American citizens that their vote isn’t going to be canceled out by a non-citizen,” said Byrd.

“The purpose here was basically to mirror the existing language in the NVRA,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), in response to a question asked by TWS, the only question asked during the video call. “We’re just literally amending existing law” to underline and facilitate the states’ responsibility to safeguard election integrity.

Speaker Johnson released a 22-page report late last month documenting the reality of non-citizens registering to vote, and actually voting, in U.S. elections, “As of May 2023, Virginia Department of Elections officials have removed 1,481 registrations,” said the report, and 23% had cast a ballot.

Non-citizens already legally vote in several areas nationwide. “A number of localities are blurring the lines of citizenship by allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections,” said Johnson. Cities and municipalities that allow non-citizens to vote legally include:

  • Oakland, California
  • San Francisco, California
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Burlington, Vermont
  • Montpelier, Vermont
  • Barnesville, Maryland
  • Cheverly, Maryland
  • Chevy Chase (Section 3), Maryland
  • Garrett Park, Maryland
  • Glen Echo, Maryland
  • Hyattsville, Maryland
  • Martin’s Additions, Maryland
  • Mount Rainier, Maryland
  • Riverdale Park, Maryland
  • Somerset, Maryland
  • Takoma Park, Maryland
  • Winooski, Vermont

“We are extremely grateful that the speaker of the House has taken it on himself to push this bill and say this is a significant problem,” said Election Integrity Network founder and Only Citizens Vote Coalition co-founder Cleta Mitchell, which hosted the call.

Speaker Johnson called the issue of non-citizens voting in the United States “a very clear and real threat” to U.S. election integrity. “We know that President Biden and his policies have invited more than 8.6 million illegals into the United States in three years. In fact, I’ve been on the record saying I think the number is more than 16 million.” When Border Patrol agents add in “gotaways,” they safely estimate a total of 10 million illegal border crossings during the Biden administration — more than the population of 41 states. To make matters worse, Johnson told TWS that Border Patrol agents revealed they are not permitted to count all gotaways, unless they “have clear sight and vision of them” fleeing into U.S. territory.

Yale University researchers estimated the total number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. at 16 to 29 million, in 2016.

“Democrats have said they want to make non-citizens voters. We have them on tape,” Johnson told TWS. Democrats, including Democratic socialist organizers, have long described amnesty for the illegal immigrants as the best mechanism to “create a governing coalition for the long-term.”

“The reason why they’ve got that wide-open border is so they can get as many illegals in here and get them to vote, so they can dominate the American vote,” Rep. Mike Ezell (R-Miss.) told “Washington Watch” guest host Jody Hice on Tuesday. “They want to dominate the House, the Senate and the White House. They want to get elected by any means necessary,” even “going against the rules,” Ezell told Hice.

After such an influx of lawless immigration, coupled with indifference to the citizenship of voter applicants, “among the other remedial measures we have to take, [the SAVE Act] is the most obvious one,” Johnson told TWS.

“Election integrity is a cornerstone to this country,” Ezell told Hice.

The bill enjoys strong support nationwide. A recent poll commissioned by Tea Party Patriots found 87% of all Americans, including more than three-quarters of Democrats, believe people should show proof of U.S. citizenship before registering to vote. Similarly, a bipartisan coalition of more than 500 state elected officials have signed a letter from the State Freedom Caucus supporting the SAVE Act.

Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd (R) noted that in 2020, Florida amended its state constitution to say only a citizen can be eligible to vote with 80% support. “We can’t get 80% to agree if it’s night or day,” Byrd told TWS. “It has broad bipartisan support.”

Yet the Biden administration announced on Monday that the administration “strongly opposes” the bill, because “it is extraordinarily rare for noncitizens to break the law by voting in [f]ederal elections.”

“It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in [f]ederal elections — it is a [f]ederal crime punishable by prison and fines. The alleged justification for this bill is based on easily disproven falsehoods,” Biden asserted. “Additionally, making a false claim of citizenship or unlawfully voting in an election is punishable by removal from the United States and a permanent bar to admission,” said Biden, who effectively ended deportations early in his term.

Biden’s statement implied he would refuse to take any action related to the border until the House Republicans submit to his agenda. “If House Republicans really want to do something about securing our border and fixing our broken immigration system, they should vote on the border deal that the [p]resident negotiated,” which would facilitate the entry of millions of non-citizens into the United States but do little to provide border security.

Biden and his fellow Democrats oppose the SAVE Act and “want to try to kill it, because they don’t believe in American sovereignty,” Roy told TWS.

Some members of the House seem “bent on destroying this country,” Ezell said. “As long as I’m breathing, I’m … going to continue to stand for the American people and do what’s right in the eyes of God. That’s my stand.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Military Funding Bill Passes House, Includes Conservative Priorities

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 217-199 Friday, largely along party lines. Conservatives attached a number of amendments, which the mainstream media described as “culture war amendments,” designed to keep social issues out of the military.

The NDAA is an annual, must-pass bill that authorizes appropriations for the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and sets DOD policies.

Due to its must-pass, pro-military nature, progressives in Congress have used the NDAA to advance their policy agenda by attaching left-wing riders to a bill they know many Republicans will support. Since retaking control of the House of Representatives, where all such spending bills must originate, Republicans have sought to reverse the progressive Left’s social engineering of the U.S. military by disentangling it from abortion, LGBT ideology, and DEI practices.

Although most Republicans voted for the fiscal year (FY) 2025 NDAA and most Democrats voted against it, due to the conservative-leaning policies included, a handful of members did cross the aisle. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), and Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) voted against the NDAA. Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Don Davis (D-N.C.), Jared Golden (D-Maine), Vincente Gonzalez (D-Texas), Mary Peltota (D-Alaska), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) voted for the bill.

Before the bill’s final passage, the NDAA went through the customary amend-a-thon. Members of Congress submitted hundreds of amendments, and they voted on the amendments ruled in order on Thursday. Highlights of those amendments are divided into categories below:

Abortion:

  • Amendment #55, proposed by Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas), prohibits the Secretary of Defense from paying for or reimbursing expenses relating to abortion services. The House adopted it 214-206, with most Republicans and one Democrat (Cuellar) voting “yes” and most Democrats and two Republicans (Reps. John Duarte (Calif.) and Brian Fitzpatrick, Pa.) voting “no.”

Religious Liberty:

  • Amendment #341, proposed by Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas), requires the Secretary of Defense to review and repair the personnel records of military chaplains who suffered forced separation, downgraded performance reports, denials of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, or any other adverse personnel actions as retaliation for seeking a Religious Accommodation Request (RAR) to the COVID-19 vaccination mandate. The House adopted this amendment “en bloc” (with other amendments considered uncontroversial), which means there was no recorded vote.

LGBT Ideology:

  • Amendment #52, proposed by Rosendale, prohibits the provision of gender transition procedures, including surgery or wrong-sex hormones, through TRICARE and the Department of Defense. The U.S. House adopted it 213-206, with most of the Republicans and one Democrat (Cuellar) voting “yes” and most of the Democrats and one Republican (Rep. Tony Gonzales, Texas) voting “no.”
  • Amendment #53, proposed by Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), prohibits the provision of gender transition procedures, including surgery or wrong-sex hormones, through the Exceptional Family Medical Program. The House adopted it 218-205, with most Republicans and one Democrat (Cuellar) voting “yes” and most Democrats and one Republican (Rep. Neal Dunn, Fla.) voting “no.”
  • Amendment #46, proposed by Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.), prohibits DoD’s military base schools, DODEA, from purchasing, displaying, or maintaining material that promotes radical gender ideology or pornographic content. The House adopted it 221-202, with all Republicans and three Democrats (Cuellar, Davis, and Gonzalez) voting “yes” and most Democrats voting “no.”
  • Amendment #54, proposed by Reps. Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.) and Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), prohibits drag shows, drag queen story hours, and similar events. The House adopted it by voice vote, which means the votes of individual members were not recorded.

DEI:

  • Amendment #43, proposed by Reps. Clay Higgins (R-La.), Chip Roy (R-Texas), and Duncan, eliminates the position of Chief Diversity Officer of the Department of Defense and prohibits the establishment of any substantially similar position. The House adopted it 214-210, with most Republicans voting “yes,” while all Democrats and four Republicans (Reps. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Ore.), Fitzpatrick, Thomas Kean (N.J.), and Mike Turner (Ohio)) voting “no.”

“Misinformation”:

  • Amendment #45, proposed by Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), prohibits funding of companies whose operations, activities, or products, function to demonetize or rate the credibility of a domestic entity (including news and information outlets) based on lawful speech of such domestic entity under the stated function of “fact-checking” misinformation, disinformation, or mal-information. The House adopted it 218-206 with all Republicans voting “yes” and all Democrats voting “no.”

Israel:

  • Amendment #5, proposed by Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), prohibits U.S. funds from building or rebuilding in the Gaza Strip. The House adopted the amendment by voice vote.

These are the nine amendments tracked by Family Research Council Action, on the organization’s core issues of life, religious liberty, and sexuality, as well as other important topics, such as opposing the DEI worldview, protecting free speech, and supporting the nation of Israel. All nine amendments tracked by FRC Action were passed, making the NDAA for FY 2025 a victory for Bible-believing conservatives.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

If Biden Keeps Abandoning Allies: ‘We‘re Going to End up in a World War’: Senator

Joe Biden may want to abandon Israel, but that doesn’t mean congressional Republicans will let him. While the White House talks out of both sides of its mouth on America’s Middle East ally — saying support is “ironclad” one minute and refusing them weapons the next — Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is about to make uncomfortable Democrats pick a side.

Like most conservatives, the speaker was stunned that Biden would try to tie Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hands in Rafah by withholding arms from the Jewish state. “I made it clear that if they go into Rafah — they haven’t gone in Rafah yet — if they go into Rafah,” the president warned, “I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities — that deal with that problem.”

The move, a pathetic attempt to appease the president’s anti-Semitic base, was blasted as “dangerous” by Republicans and some Democrats. “[I]t could have catastrophic effects with our very important ally Israel,” Johnson told reporters. “And we’ve denounced it. And we’ll continue to do so.”

In the meantime, the House GOP plans to force the issue, bringing its own Israel Security Assistance Act to the floor to override the White House on weapons shipments. If the president still refuses to comply, the bill would freeze the budgets of the Defense secretary, secretary of State, and National Security Council. “I think it is important for us to express again the will of Congress on the matter,” Johnson said, especially when Biden “has turned his back on Israel and is now carrying water for Hamas and Iran.”

And it’s not just the speaker’s party who are angry. Just last week, 26 members of the president’s party sent a letter to the White House expressing their outrage at the White House’s embargo. “We are deeply concerned about the message the Administration is sending to Hamas and other Iranian-backed terrorist proxies by withholding weapons shipments to Israel, during a critical moment in the negotiations,” they wrote.

The internal tension on the issue has done little to motivate Biden, who seems more intent on placating the rabid campus protestors than stopping World War III. “Antisemitism is spreading globally like wildfire,” the Democrats insist. “We fear that public disputes with our critical ally only emboldens our mutual enemies, including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other Iranian-backed proxies. It also buttresses their agenda of chaos, brutality, and hate, and makes a hostage agreement even harder to achieve.”

Despite the pressure from Congress and the cracks in his own party, the White House announced that it “strongly, strongly oppose[s]” the House’s efforts, insisting, “If the President were presented with H.R. 8369, he would veto it.”

That kind of betrayal, as Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) called it, is inexcusable. Biden can drone on about his commitment to Israel all he wants, the longtime coach said, but “talk’s cheap.” “They’re our number one ally, and they’ve got problems,” Tuberville told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch” Tuesday. “Everybody says, ‘Well, there’s a lot of the civilians that might be getting killed or hurt.’ … But here’s the thing. This is war.”

The world also seems to have forgotten that Israel was the victim of a gruesome, deadly, and unprovoked terror attack. And “when people attack you, when people come after you, you have the right to take up for yourself,” Tuberville argued. “And that’s what Israel has done. They were attacked brutally. Several thousand people were killed. … I’ve seen the videos, and it’s horrifying.” Not to mention, he points out, “We still have hostages — American hostages — in Israel. And Joe Biden is sitting back, taking [his] time, trying to play both sides of the fence, because he does not want to lose voters, especially in the Muslim areas of Michigan and Minnesota. … [But] he’s going to get people killed. It’s what’s going to happen.”

Honestly, the Alabaman shook his head, “This guy, he’s the worst leader that we’ve had in office in many, many, many years. He’s letting these young people behind the scenes run our country. There’s no organization to what we’re doing.” Biden is talking out of both sides of his mouth, he said. “And you can’t do that when it comes to war. Somebody’s going to win. Somebody’s going to lose. And we are on Israel’s side as the United States of America, because they have been with us since day one. And we need to support them.”

It’s one of the reasons that this November is so important. “At the end of the day, you have got to have somebody in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue … that can make a decision and do what’s best — not just for us, but for our allies. And he is letting us down. Biden is letting us down on so many fronts. There’s not one thing that he’s done right, especially in foreign relations since he’s taken office — and it’s getting worse. And we’re going to end up in a world war if we don’t watch it. He’s got to stand up for our alliance.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden’s Military Extremism Review Overlooked the Real Extremists in the Military

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Does the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act ‘Criminalize the Gospel’?

With the heated anti-Semitism protests booming on college campuses, lawmakers, school authorities, and even average citizens are wrestling with how to deal with the chaos, hatred, and slander of Jewish people and the Jewish state. Law enforcement has made their fair share of arrests as pro-Hamas protestors violate policies and incite violence. Many have voiced something must be done to reign in the anti-Jew hostility, and last week the House of Representatives responded by passing the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (AAA).

The bill’s definition of “anti-Semitism” is not new, but one of the examples it includes is drawing greater scrutiny. Back in May 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), a coalition of all of the largest Jewish organizations (conservative and liberal), agreed on a working definition of anti-Semitism that has since been widely adopted, including by the U.S. State Department in 2016 and by the Trump administration (by executive order) in 2019. The definition states, “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities,” and includes concrete examples (which both the Trump executive order and the current bill included).

While most of the examples have drawn little commentary, there’s one that this time around has sparked concern and controversy, even though it was included in the 2019 Trump executive order: “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.” The words within the parenthesis are drawing all of the attention.

The second phrase in the parentheses, “blood libel,” is not. Blood libel is defined as the “accusation that Jewish people used the blood of Christians in religious rituals,” and this is a form of anti-Semitism widely acknowledged. But the first part has stirred immense tension, causing many to interpret it as a hinderance to the gospel, which teaches that Jesus was hung on a cross by some hateful Jewish leaders. However, what experts want to point out, including the lead sponsor of AAA, is that this section of the legislation has been heavily misinterpreted.

On Thursday’s episode of “Washington Watch,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), the sponsor of the legislation, discussed with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins the details of AAA in order to clear the air of what the law is really saying. But before addressing the controversy, the congressman took the time to explain why the legislation matters, and the importance of getting it right.

Considering the anti-Semitism on college campuses, Lawler said, “[T]hese protests are so overwhelmingly anti-Semitic and need to be rooted out at every turn.” He emphasized how out-of-hand they have become, and how they’re “not a function of free speech,” they’re “not a function of … protesting against decisions made by the Israeli government or the United States government. That’s constitutionally protected. This is anti-Semitic hate at its worst.” As such, sharper definitions are needed to crack down.

Perkins re-emphasized how “the main thrust” of the Act “is to adopt a standardized definition of anti-Semitism, which actually takes a definition that’s already in existence.” But “there’s been some opposition raised about this,” he added, specifically when it comes to that one example. As Perkins explained, some are concerned it “would criminalize the gospel.” But according to Lawler, that’s simply not true.

“I’m a practicing Catholic,” Lawler stated. “[B]orn and raised. [I] go to church. I believe very deeply in the gospel and in Jesus Christ.” And so, when people suggest that the claim of “Jews killing Jesus” is somehow a symbol of anti-Semitism, it’s crucial to understand the context of that kind of statement. Lawler insisted, “[N]obody is saying that the Bible should be criminalized. Nobody is saying that anybody who believes in the context of the Bible is somehow wrong.” What it is saying, he continued, “is if you are trying to use something for the purpose of attacking an entire group of people and trying to associate them with some action that someone else may have taken for the purpose of discriminating against them, then that can be considered anti-Semitic.”

Ultimately, “[I]n no way is anybody objecting to or trying to target Christians with this bill. This is about putting in place protections on college campuses for Jewish students.” And, as he went on to highlight, the legislation specifically states individuals have a right to “criticize the State of Israel as you would any other government.” He insisted, “We want robust public debate. People should be free to voice their opinions, their objections to decisions made by the government. Nobody is disputing that.” What the legislation has in mind is the violent protests that have emerged. “[T]he moment those protests turned violent,” Lawler asserted, is the moment “you lose that right” to protest.

Perkins agreed that clear definitions are necessary. Currently, “it’s like silly putty. It’s stretched to accomplish whatever someone wants [it] to do.” Perkins also emphasized that the legislation addressed constitutional protections, stating, “Nothing in this act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” As such, Perkins said, “[R]eligious freedom is not affected by this.”

Lawler also noted that this bill, which passed in the House Wednesday, has “broad bipartisan support.” As he said, “You saw 320 members of Congress vote for this bill. None of us would put forth something that would curtail free speech and First Amendment rights or violate someone’s constitutional freedoms. … [W]e’re trying to provide … a clear path forward on how to deal with these instances of anti-Semitism.”

In comment to The Washington Stand, Quena Gonzalez, senior director of FRC’s Government Affairs, took the time to detail why the misinterpretation of AAA is vital to rectify. While there still may be parts of the legislation some disagree with, Gonzalez carefully addressed the main controversy at hand:

“The example in question only applies to ‘using … claims of Jews killing Jesus … to characterize Israel or Israelis.’ No biblical Christian preaches that Israelis or the Israeli state is responsible for Christ’s death. All of Jesus’s first followers were, in fact, Jews. To be subject to the Education Department ‘reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of … the Civil Rights Act,’ a covered entity would have to blame Israel or Israelis for Christ’s death, which no orthodox Christian entity does (or really can).

“The language of this bill has applied to all federal agencies since 2019. It was issued as an executive order by President Trump and retained by President Biden. No one objected then, and for the past four and a half years no one has been harassed for preaching the gospel as a result. But as we can see on the news, the Biden Department of Education is not enforcing this long-standing policy, so Congress is acting to enforce it by making it statute.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

United Methodist Church Caves and Embraces LGBT Ideology

University of Utah Approves Trans Flags, but Not American Flags

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The Bible Does Not Justify Anti-Semitism

A bill (H.R. 6090) to make the Department of Education adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism “is unnecessarily raising concerns” about its effect on the gospel message, said Quena Gonzalez, senior director of government affairs at Family Research Council. The IHRA definition includes “contemporary examples,” he told The Washington Stand, among which is “using … claims of Jews killing Jesus … to characterize Israel or Israelis.”

But “no biblical Christian characterizes Israelis or modern Israel, just because they’re Jewish, as having killed Jesus,” Gonzalez responded. “Christians have long denounced this trope, going back to the church fathers of the first few centuries, and Christians today need not be concerned that this bill implicates proclaiming the gospel.”

The New Testament is clear that ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles both stand condemned before God as sinners and can only be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. The same God “gives to all mankind life and breath and everything,” and “he made from one man every nation of mankind” (Acts 17:25-26). Yet both Jews and Gentiles have broken God’s law, so “both Jews and Greeks are under sin,” Paul declared (Romans 3:9). “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law … the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift …” (Romans 3:21-24). Now “there is neither Jew nor Greek … for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

As to who killed Jesus, the Bible’s most comprehensive answer holds Jews and Gentiles equally responsible — although God was ultimately responsible. As the apostles prayed, “in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place” (Acts 4:27-28). In fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 4:25-26, Psalm 2:1-2), God so orchestrated the circumstances that representatives of all mankind — both Jews and Gentiles, the people and their leaders — participated in Jesus’s death, giving no one group reason to boast against another.

God’s sovereign involvement does not nullify human responsibility, but it does add to the significance of Jesus’s death. Jesus died in this way so that he might be the Savior of the whole world. “The gospel is, that I killed Jesus by my sin,” said Gonzalez. “The gospel (literally, the ‘good news’) is that God the Father sent His Son to die for my sins; God killed Jesus.” In fact, three times Jesus said that he laid down his own life as a sacrifice for his people (John 10:11, 15, 17).

Regrettably, some people — even some Christians throughout history—have lifted biblical texts out of context in an attempt to justify anti-Semitism. In the earliest recorded Christian sermons, preached several months after Jesus’s death in Jerusalem, Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah rightly declared to a Jerusalem audience that they had played a role in causing Jesus’s death:

  • “This Jesus … you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men … this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:23, 36).
  • “Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life …. To this we are witnesses” (Acts 3:13-15).
  • “Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified” (Acts 4:10).
  • “Your fathers … killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered” (Acts 7:52).

This accusation only applied to those present in Jerusalem at Jesus’s crucifixion. When the Jewish apostle Paul preached to Jews living in modern-day Turkey, he did not accuse them of Jesus’s death but “those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers” who “asked Pilate to have him executed” (Acts 13:27-29). He warned these Jews not to imitate those who did not believe in their Messiah.

None of these passages condones anti-Semitism. In each instance, the Jewish preacher aims to convict his hearers of sin so that they might turn to the Messiah and repent. Thus:

  • “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:38-39).
  • “Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus,” whom God sent “to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness” (Acts 3:19-20, 26).
  • After “being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man,” who was enabled to walk and leap by Jesus’s power, Peter declared, “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:9-12).
  • As some men (including Paul, prior to his conversion) stoned Stephen to death for proclaiming the gospel of Jesus, he prayed, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7:60).

If God intended to judge the Jewish people for having Jesus killed, then why did he offer them salvation, healing, forgiveness, and blessing? Those who twist these texts into a warrant for anti-Semitism presume to inflict a greater judgment than God, the Judge of all.

In fact, these same passages even show God’s sovereign agency behind Jesus’s death:

  • “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God … know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:23, 36).
  • “The God of our fathers glorified his servant Jesus … whom God raised from the dead. … What God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled” (Acts 3:13,15, 18).
  • “Jesus Christ of Nazareth … whom God raised from the dead … this Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone” (Acts 4:10-11, paraphrasing Psalm 118:22).
  • “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56).

Thus it was prophesied, “it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand” (Isaiah 53:10).

Furthermore, those who would abuse biblical texts to justify anti-Semitism must overlook the New Testament’s multiple positive references to Jews. Paul expressed “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” over their unbelief (Romans 9:2). Jews not only received “the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2), but “to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 9:4-5).

Paul further testified that God has always preserved a believing remnant among the Jewish people (Romans 11:1-5). “A partial hardening has come upon Israel,” he admitted, but only “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved. … For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:25-26, 29). Paul’s concern — and God’s concern — is that the Jewish people might believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to magnify God’s mercy (Romans 11:32). Anyone concerned with inflicting punishments on or discrimination against the Jewish people is not aligned with God.

To summarize: Jesus willingly laid down his life according to the eternal plan of God, and both Jews and Gentiles, the leaders and the people, were equally complicit in his death. The Bible does not hold Jews especially responsible for Jesus’s death, nor does it hold them especially accursed for their complicity. It certainly does not implicate the modern state of Israel and modern Israelis, who were not there, any more than it implicates modern Gentiles, who were not there. But it does hold out future hope that Jews will come to believe in Jesus.

The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism “does not criminalize the gospel,” insisted Family Research Council Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Travis Weber on “Washington Watch.” Even in the one example causing confusion, the anti-Semitism “has to be attached to the state of Israel,” he added, and that’s not what Bible-believing Christians do. So, “for Bible-preaching churches that are preaching the gospel, this is not an issue,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Dem Claims Men ‘Don’t Compete in Women’s Sports’ as Stolen Titles Near 300

Does Rep. Jerry Nadler (D) live in New York or an alternate universe? People certainly wondered after a House Judiciary hearing where the 76-year-old declared, “Men do not compete in women’s sports.” Is the president’s senility contagious or is Nadler living in complete denial of a global phenomenon that’s plunged communities into chaos? Not only are men competing in women’s sports, they’re winning women’s titles — a fact Riley Gaines was more than happy to point out.

“Ironic he says this on the EXACT 2 year anniversary of this photo being taken,” the former University of Kentucky swimmer posted alongside a picture of Lia Thomas holding a trophy he never should have had the chance to race for. “This 6’4” man isn’t fooling anyone with any amount of common sense,” Gaines fumed. “2 years ago today I had a fire lit under me and communists like Nadler continue to fuel it.”

And yet, Nadler was so determined to suppress reality that he actually moved to have evidence of the debate stricken from the record. Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman (Wyo.) had catalogued a number of times that biological boys had stolen girls’ titles and opportunities in the last several years. The group SheWon puts the number at an eye-popping 292 stolen first-place podiums. “I ask for unanimous consent to submit for the record instances of men hijacking women’s sports and the various examples that we have demonstrating not only injuries that have been suffered by women as men have participated in girls’ sports, but also the women — the girls and women who have been affected by this, including Riley Gaines, when Will Thomas decided to join the … women’s swimming team in Pennsylvania,” she requested.

Nadler, the committee’s ranking member, fired back, “I object to concluding these mistruths in the record.” Shocked, Hageman replied how telling it was that he didn’t want the facts included in the record — to which the New Yorker replied, “Men do not compete in women’s sports.”

That’s news to the 25 (going on 26) states who’ve stepped in to stop this madness from overtaking their girls at the pool, track, court, field, and gym. If it wasn’t happening, then this was sure a monumental waste of legislative time.

Slack-jawed, conservatives kept up the pressure, giving a passionate defense of girls and the opportunities, safety, and privacy they’re losing by this absurd introduction of men in women’s sports. Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) showed a video montage of girls who’ve been physically injured playing against biological boys in volleyball, field hockey, and basketball. From Massachusetts to North Carolina, members watched as girls screamed in pain, lost teeth, were carted off with head injuries. One of the victims, Payton McNabb, still suffers from blurred vision, partial paralysis, and memory loss.

We have examples, Spartz insisted, of “much stronger guys playing sports against biologically not-as-strong women.” “Girls actually get hurt by biological males playing sports,” she argued. “I mean, it is really unbelievable for me that this is an issue that we cannot stand with women and girls on.” Instead, Spartz went on, “the other side tries to really deter the conversation in a different direction and divert it. … Let’s talk about how we are going to protect our women and girls.”

When the talk turned to privacy rights, Democrat Eric Swalwell (Calif.) joined Nadler’s delusion, claiming that men in girls locker rooms “is not a thing.”

Tell that to the 16 plaintiffs suing the NCAA. One of them, Gaines’s teammate and SEC champion Kaitlynn Wheeler, describes in agonizing detail how they were put in a “fundamentally unfair situation that no student-athlete, let alone a teenage girl, should ever have to face.” The collegiate sports body “did not simply make my teammates in the 100-, 200-, and 500-yard freestyle races face a biological male swimmer in the pool,” she insisted. “The NCAA also decided that Lia Thomas, a 6-foot-4-inch, 22-year-old transgender swimmer with a male body and full male genitalia, would be undressing with us.” She writes of that traumatizing experience in a new Washington Examiner op-ed:

“The moment I realized Thomas would be sharing our most private space, I was engulfed by a whirlwind of emotions — shock, disbelief, horror. The sanctity of our locker room, a space that should have been ours and ours alone, was shattered without warning. The presence of male genitalia in a space that was supposed to be safe, where we were vulnerable and exposed, was not just uncomfortable; it was a visceral invasion of our privacy and dignity.

“Feeling my stomach churn as whispers turned to silence, I stood there, naked and exposed, not just physically but also emotionally, grappling with a reality I couldn’t comprehend. The NCAA’s decision to transform our sanctuary into a ‘unisex’ locker room without our consent felt like a betrayal of the highest order. It was a stark reminder that our voices, our comfort, and our boundaries did not matter.”

And yet, the effort to protect these girls is what Swalwell called “creepy” — not forcing innocent teenagers to share a room with a naked man. That’s what really stings, the girls say. No one has their backs. As so many female athletes admitted to Senate Republicans, they feel “helpless.” “This is kind of a theme that we got,” Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said of his committee’s investigation on trans inclusion in sports: “‘Why am I even trying? I don’t have any hope whatsoever.’” “Our voices as women were completely silenced,” another admitted.

Fortunately for Wheeler and the thousands of American daughters living this nightmare, Republicans do care. Over the objections of Democrats, conservatives on the House Judiciary Committee passed Rep. Greg Steube’s (R-Fla.) Protection of Women in Olympic & Amateur Sports Act last Thursday. To Wheeler, who watched Thomas stand on top of a podium meant for her sport, maybe it will mean the end of the silence of the adults in the room. “That silence spoke volumes of the injustice, pain, and anger brewing in the hearts of not just the competitors but of every woman forced into silence by a system that refuses to listen.”

Until then, she vowed, women will “stand against the erasure of our voices,” whether or not this president or his party stands with them. “We demand a future where female athletes are respected, where our safety and privacy are not just acknowledged but fiercely protected.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Does Transgender Visibility Day Override Resurrection Sunday?

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

A Defiant GOP Smashes Woke Military Policies with Rock-Solid NDAA

The biggest story of this past week isn’t that the House passed the military spending bill — or even that they passed it with language that beats back President Biden’s woke policies. The biggest story is the one that won’t be told: of House conservatives refusing to give an inch.

Former Congressman Jody Hice, now a special advisor to the president at Family Research Council, was blown away by the sea change in how this new Republican majority is doing business. For the last couple of years, Hice watched his party buckle under Democratic pressure, especially where military policy is concerned. “Progressively,” he told The Washington Stand, “the NDAA bills were becoming more and more woke. And we, as a Republican conference, were compromising to the demands on the Left. To see what took place Thursday night, I was just blown away. This is a major shift — not only from the woke agenda push from this administration — but this is a major shift from the direction of our own conference over the last several years, as it pertains to the NDAA.”

Late Thursday night, Republicans finally went to sleep after accomplishing what seemed impossible only hours before: adding a slew of pro-life, pro-military, anti-gender transition amendments to the bill. Democrats and the media spent the wee hours of the morning blasting the conservative changes, vowing it would never pass with such “poison pills.”

They were wrong.

Barely nine hours later, the entire NDAA — anti-woke language included — had squeaked by in a 219-210 vote, thanks to an even swap of Republicans and Democrats (four) trading sides. Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.), and Don Davis (D-N.C.) all threw their support behind the GOP-led bill.

Of course, the most jubilant celebration came Thursday afternoon when Congressman Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) managed to include language rolling back the Pentagon’s taxpayer funding of abortion — an absolute defiance of the law. In one of the most powerful moments of that debate, mom-to-be Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) stood on the House floor and made it clear: “I am a United States veteran and a woman elected to Congress while pregnant. Advocating for a service member to have a child ripped from her womb completely destroys everything this military stands for.”

As Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) explained on “Washington Watch” moments before that vote, what the Department of Defense did with this sudden policy was nothing but an unconstitutional “end run around many of the pro-life states’ laws and all the hard work that’s been done after Dobbs overturned Roe.”

“This has become a really important issue in the country,” Johnson insisted. And what they’ve done, he explained, is used “executive fiat” through the Department of Defense. Secretary Lloyd Austin “[has] said that they will pay for or reimburse expenses relating to abortion services. So in other words, if a service member or a woman serving is pregnant, and she’s on a base somewhere in a [red state] … then she can travel to a state that provides abortion — and taxpayers will reimburse her for that. That’s a violation of the Hyde Amendment,” Johnson fumed.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made sure to emphasize, “Just to be very clear here, we’re talking about elective abortions. So this is new territory [President Biden is staking out]. For decades, [there] has been a bipartisan position that taxpayers would not be forced to facilitate abortion.”

Obviously, this has been a huge flash point in the Senate, where Coach Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) has taken months of heat for holding up certain military promotions until the DOD drops its reckless abortion advocacy. And while Democrats — the president included — blame the senator for everything from recruitment problems to retention, they refuse to even meet with Tuberville. If this delay was really so devastating to military readiness, the coach has said, you’d think Biden would pick up the phone and try to negotiate.

“That’s what this place is about,” he added. “It’s about working with each other, talking it out, getting in situations where you can maybe compromise to a point. I mean, here’s a guy that doesn’t even want to talk.”

He may be forced to, now that Republicans have teed up a 1,200-page rebuke of the last two years of Defense Department radicalism. If Biden wants to blame someone for America’s shrinking force, he ought to look in the mirror.

After all, it’s “the president and his administration [who’ve] injected into the military all of this woke social policy nonsense. … We have ESG and DEI and anything else you can imagine —the funding of drag queen shows on military bases, [the] violation of parental rights. We were able to get amendments … to take care of all of that,” Johnson said. But frankly, “it’s far more contentious than it should be. You know, our military has a very important job,” he insisted. “They’re trained to be a powerful force that wins wars and defends our nation, not experimentation with social policy. And so it’s just completely disingenuous for the president to [blame Republicans or blame Tuberville for these problems]. … [I]t’s not Republicans and conservatives that are inserting this. It was him. We’re undoing the damage that has been done.”

Along with crushing the Biden abortion policy, Republicans also held the line on the avalanche of diversity training and wildly inappropriate mission creep like taxpayer-funded gender transitions. Amendments to:

  • Outlaw the flying of Pride flags on military property (Norman Amendment #34) passed 218-213;
  • End the indoctrination of children in Defense Department schools by banning pornographic and dangerous gender ideology books (Boebert Amendment #35) passed 222-209;
  • Ban taxpayer-funding of gender transition procedures (Rosendale Amendment #10) passed 222-211;
  • Strip the funding for Chief Diversity Officers or Senior Advisors for Diversity and Inclusion from the ranks (Roy Amendment #30) passed 217-212; and
  • Outright block the DOD from creating new DEI administrator positions or taking action to fill existing DEI jobs (Burlison Amendment #62) passed 218-213.

One lone Democrat — Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas) — voted with conservatives to stop the president’s out-of-control extremism on abortion and transgenderism. And while he refused to comment about the decision, he probably heard from the same constituents that his neighbor Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) did. “The American people I’ve talked to back home don’t want a weak military; they don’t want a woke military; they don’t want rainbow propaganda on bases; they don’t want to pay for troops’ sex changes.”

And yet, as Perkins pointed out, Biden blames Republicans for injecting social issues into the military. “You know, it’s like they poke the bear, and the bear pushes back — and they accuse the bear of being aggressive. The Left has been pushing this stuff for years.” And finally, conservatives pushed back.

“I do want to point out,” Perkins said, “that there’s something unique here under this Republican Congress. … I don’t want people to miss that … a year ago, we couldn’t even have a debate under the Democratic rules. There was no debate. It’s just that you were steamrolled in the Left’s process of getting their agenda through. … [This open dialogue] is something that hasn’t happened in a very long time.

“Yeah, what a concept,” Johnson joked. “We were able to get some real process reforms in that long, drawn-out battle for the speakership in January. And as painful as that process was for everyone, the result was really good. We got transparency again. We eliminated—forever, we hope—the possibility of omnibus spending bills and giant pieces of legislation that no one has read. … It takes a lot more time and effort, but this is what is demanded, and it’s what the American people deserve. And I’m really glad we’ve gotten back to some regular order here.”

In the meantime, Republicans are crossing their fingers that the heavy lifting they’ve done on the NDAA survives the Democrat-led Senate. One thing’s for sure, Perkins said. Biden doesn’t have Tuberville to kick around anymore. If he wants to end the freeze on military promotions, there’s a simple solution now: support this bill. “The remedy’s right here in front of him.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: House State and Foreign Ops Funding Bill Contains First-of-Its-Kind Pro-Life, Pro-Family Protections

EDITOR NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.