Transcript

Jenna Ellis: Rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator

Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio. I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect. The rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you. And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.

Charlie Kirk: U.S. officials confirm deal with Iran is moving forward

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, June 16, and the deal with Iran is moving forward. And, a media briefing call with senior U.S. officials confirmed that the MOU, or memorandum of Understanding with Iran has been signed and outlines, some of the following from their point of view. And, this is coming from Andrew Colvette, who is, one of Charlie Kirk's producers. he says that the senior US Officials confirmed that in general terms, the deal says if you're willing to behave like a normal country, we're willing to treat you like a normal country. It's performance based. The straight of hormones is open, but we'll take a few weeks to get travel back to normal. The signing ceremony on Friday in Geneva, will include J.D. vance, Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff and others, and a large Iranian contingent. the officials stressed that we're here not just because of the last one and a half years of the Trump administration, but because of the first four as well. The sanctions pressures, ah, built up and they believe it created leverage. there's a few other, you know, issues, within this memorandum of understanding and the public hasn't yet been able to read that full text or the deal. Trump has signaled that that is coming soon. But, but meanwhile, this coming from the NewSong York Times. Netanyahu says that Israel will keep forces in Lebanon despite the U.S. iran deal. And they characterize him, the NewSong York Times, as a defiant Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who's told Israelis the struggle has not ended. So in that address to Israeli suggested yesterday that he did not feel bound by the newly reached ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran. he foreshadowed potential trouble for the peace deal, saying that he had no intent intention of withdrawing his forces from neighboring Lebanon, a key demand of the Iranians during negotiations with the United States. But again, what exactly this full agreement contains remains to be seen. Israeli soldiers are still fighting in Hezbollah, which is of course the militant group, allied with Iran.

Dan Barwami: Israel and the United States have different interests on Iran

And so let's welcome in, Dan Barwami, who's an author AND commentator and you know Dan, this is a really interesting kind of triangle here because obviously the United States has certain interests and the White House has been up front from the beginning that the main reason for going into Iran initially and beginning this conflict was to keep the them from getting any sort of, of that, of the equipment in order to get a nuclear weapons. And then obviously, Israel has a different goal, aligned mostly maybe in the Venn diagram or you know, there's debatable how much of that it overlaps in the Venn diagram. But here we're seeing that maybe there are some divergent interests. And it's interesting from the US Perspective that we kind of assume that because Israel is an ally, they're bound by whatever the United States wants. But here it seems like Netanyahu is standing up and pushing for Israeli sovereignty and saying, you know, basically we can still do what we want. So how do you view this deal overall?

Dan Barwami: yeah, the Israeli position is, to be honest, as someone who was raised in the region who understands Islam, I side with the Israeli position, because Iran is not a regime that you can expect them to behave. Yesterday Vice President Vanliere said that they will get the $300 billion investments from the Gulf states if they change. The assumption that they would change is a mistake because we are talking about a theological regime that believes chaos precedes the return of their savior, their Messiah, Al Mahdi. So Israel has been dealing with theological groups for 80 years. President Trump coming into the election season, short side benefits has been already achieved. Maybe believe this is good. This is good for who exactly? Not even for the United States, because the same forces that is, that has been fighting Israel for the past eight decades has its eyes also on the west. And the United States is the Great Satan. So yeah, unfortunately what's happening now is very problematic. And we never know what could happen in the future, especially with the rise of the Sunni Jihad also in Syria. So no, I agree with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his position.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, I think that that's a really important distinction here that the United States and especially Vance, with some of the statements that he's made, saying, for example, there were reports yesterday and Sunday suggesting that, you know, he's saying, well, there are Iranian leaders who, who believe that, you know, all of this has been a mistake. And they're basically changing their entire position that Iran has been in the last 47 years. And it seems like that, is maybe a little bit simplistic and perhaps naive, because, as you rightly point out, this isn't just a foreign policy or sovereignty position on that Iran is taking, on behalf of their own regime. this is theological. I mean, this is something that is so ingrained in just the way that they think. It's a perception of the Trump administration that every country wants to be like the United States. And that's just not true. So how do you see that perhaps worldview, just complete difference impacting this deal?

Dan Barwami: Listen, I'm not Israeli, okay? And I'm not here advocating for Israel. From the beginning, I have always said that the only reason I defend Israel is because I believe that Israel is an extension of the west and Israel is fighting a war that the west will eventually have to fight. So when President Trump, today, probably at the G7, sitting next to the Emir of Qatar, say something like, we're dealing with reasonable people in Iran now because we have killed the first group and the second group, and now we're dealing with reasonably group, I believe that he is, not accurate. And the reason is 80 people were sitting or still are sitting on the committee, of the clerics who are to become the next Ayatollah in case the Ayatollah is eliminated. So we have 80 people who are, are vetted, who have been, assessed, who have been evaluated, and who are ready to, just carry on the same mission of preparing the world for the return of Al Mahdi. So, there's not even one point where you will be dealing with a reasonable, leadership in Iran. That is not going to happen at all unless you change the regime. I understand that changing the regime is a new, calm thing. People don't like it. And I understand that no American wants to see boots on the ground. I'm not advocating for boots on the ground. I'm, just saying don't empower the current Ayatollah regime in Iran by signing such a deal. Keep the pressure. The Ayatollah wants a truce. What they want is a truce that is, that they want the same thing that Muhammad has done. Ah.

Dan Barwami: And it's called hudna. Hudna is when you are weak, you sign a truce for a limited period, to regroup, to rearm. And once you are ready to keep going, then the truce is done. So this is exactly what President Trump is signing on Friday. J.D. vance. They will be signing a hodna. It's not peace. President Trump is assuming that Hamas wants peace, Iran wants peace. That's not true. These groups are theological, as I said. They are advancing an eschatological mission to bring about the end of the world.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. And so in your view, because of this mindset, is this the United States being played? I mean, I'm seeing a lot of the social media commentary, from others, Erik Erickson, even some other commentators, including Mark Levin and others who've been following this very closely, suggesting that, Trump is being naive about this being a peace deal and ultimately it will be a mistake later down the road.

Dan Barwami: No, I wouldn't say that President Trump is naive. I would say that he cares about short term gains. As I said yesterday, in an article I wrote, President Trump is kicking the can down the road and he will let some other administration in the future deal with, the problem of Iran. But short gains are not, without consequences. Yes, you, benefit from a deal, but you end up empowering the same force that will come back again. For example. I'll give you an example. The United states in the 80s used the jihadists in Afghanistan to weaken the Soviets. What happened after that? 9, 11 happened. Why? Because these jihadists were empowered, because they were used. Today, President Trump, he, again, he talked about how he would, ask Syria to fight Hezbollah because they would do better, according to him, than, Israel, in disarming Hezbollah. Yes, you can use, the Sunni jihadists to fight the Shia jihadists, but we will end up with slaves markets in Lebanon filled with not only Shia Hezbollah women, but with Christian women, with Druze women too. These slaves markets, we have seen them before in Syria when these very, fighters were, were fighting, against the Shia and against the Alawite. So President Trump, again, he is focusing on the market. He is, as we are stepping into an election season, he doesn't want, you know, his base to be angry, the gas prices, all of that. But what about the bigger picture? What about empowering the same forces that will fire back just in, the near future?

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's a great question. Is that trade off worth it to have, you know, maybe this short term deal where the White House can message this, of course, for the midterm, say, okay, the straight of Hormuz is open, hopefully gas prices will go down, some of those more immediate, effects. But is that really worth it for what we may be giving up in the long term? Especially if, the Iranian regime can rebuild and you know, come back in a stronger position than the weaker position that they are. Now, if. If Trump were to assume that the short term gain isn't worth that long term, what would he need to do differently to completely, change the regime and sort of crush this rather than the. The MOU and the agreement in Geneva that they're currently tracking? I mean, what. How would that look differently? What would need to happen?

Dan Barwami: I don't believe we have time to go into that because it's a very complicated situation. You need to support the, Iranian opposition. M. And we know that the seculars or the liberals, they are not as determined as the jihadists. But what I would suggest now is that, President Trump, every concession he grants should be reversible and conditioned, unsustained, verified performance, and, nothing delivered to them, at all before you make sure they are going to keep their end of the bargain. Now, I understand. I understand that, the Iranian regime is similar to Yasser Arafat, for example, in the past when he signed the Oslo Accord, and then he went and spoke in front of, Muslims in a mosque in Johannesburg, and he told them, don't worry, guys, we're signing this deal. But, you know, this is a khudna, this is a hudna. This is a truce until we are ready to wipe the Jews off the map.

Dan Kaufman: President Trump needs to put conditions on Iran nuclear deal

So that is the same mentality. But now we need to deal with the reality. And the reality is that President Trump doesn't want, to, keep America into this war, and he is trying to, stop Israel from pursuing any further, operation. Well, what should we do now? President Trump should make sure that they are going to keep their, part of the deal. he has to suffocate them, through conditions. Jared Kushner and, Witkoff. They will be there. They have different items on the agenda. No one knows exactly what's going on behind the closed doors, but the Ayatollah regime should not be given any gestures, any incentives, anything, that would empower them or would give, them the chance to rearm their proxies in Lebanon, in Yemen, in Iraq, and at the same time, President Trump cannot even suggest using Sunni jihadists of Syria against the, Shia fighter in Lebanon, because Christians and the other minorities are. They will pay the price.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. And, I mean, this is such a great and different perspective than some who are just so fully confident in whatever President Trump is doing. And so do you have confidence that perhaps some of those conditions will be placed onto this agreement sufficiently that the United States would know? Okay. This condition has been broken. So we need to immediately go back in. And they'd be willing to do that, and the Iranian regime would at least know that and know that they can't regroup. and there are conditions enough that would mitigate a lot of the long term consequences that you're predicting are possible.

Dan Barwami: My concern is that the same outcome we ended up with during Trump's first administration is going to be the same scenario. Now, if you remember when President Trump was in office the first time, he put a lot of pressure on Iran. Iran was weakened. Hezbollah in Lebanon. I used to live in Lebanon at the time, and I witnessed with my own eyes how Hezbollah was not able to pay the salaries of its fighters. But what did Iran do? Iran realized that Trump could be out of office after, the first term. So they actually took it in. They suffered, but they realized that it's worth it. They waited and waited. They did not cave in. And President Trump was out of office by January 2020. And Biden came in. And what happened then? Biden, he just, you know, he just gave them a lot of I would say he benefited them because it was not the same suffocation. Now President Trump in his second term, he's here now. I believe that it's not going to be like, oh, you Da', Athollah, go, go do whatever you want. Of course not. Of course not. President Trump understands Iran more than anybody else. He has been advocating against Iran since the 80s. But the problem is that in a couple of years President Trump is going to be out of office. What's going to happen next? What if the Democrats are back in office and we can see that even the same people, on the Democrat sides have surrendered to the radicals, to the lunatics, to the anti Israel, people. So if we end up with a Democrat president in a couple of years with the same sentiment, same hostility toward Israel, then I don't know what to predict. I don't know what to, I don't know. Probably they are going to side with Iran against Israel. And that is a nightmare. A nightmare not only for Israel, trust me, it is a nightmare for the West.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. Well, we need to take a break here, but I think this is a sobering reality of some of the long term potential, consequences. And the bottom line is that we need to be praying, for not only this, this deal and wisdom for all of those who are representing the United States going into this, also be praying for Israel as well and for not just the Short term, but also the long term, for wisdom and ultimately for actual peace instead of, just a short term solution that may, as Dan is suggesting, not, be beneficial in the long term. So, you know, a lot to look out for. And, we'll be following this, of course, with interest as that agreement is supposed to be signed on Friday. So a lot more next week that we'll know hopefully about that full language. But, Dan, Barney, really appreciate it so much. And, this perspective that I think is so valuable about Iran's work, worldview and all of this. So we'll be right back with more.

Poll says 49% of registered voters want Democrats to control Congress after November elections

Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And so, of course, the Iran deal is presumably going to have an impact on the midterms. At least that's the hope of Republicans in the Trump administration. And a recent poll as reported by the Hill says that Democrats hold a five point edge over the GOP ahead of the midterms. This was a plurality of respondents to a recent NBC News survey that said they want Democrats to win back control of Congress with less than five months before the midterms. So the poll conducted from May 29 through June 7 found that 49% of 2,400 registered voters want Democrats to control Congress after the November elections. 44% said they want Republicans to maintain control of the legislative branch, while 7% of respondents were undecided, which is actually a really high percentage that shocks me more than anything. And it's, you're either undecided, if you've just not been paying attention at all, or you're, you know, not wanting to give a pollster any indication of where you actually stand. Because I don't think that anybody could look at the last, you know, even 10 years of, of recent history and not at least understand what worldview of America's future you want in office. Regardless of the obvious disappointment that a lot of Republicans and conservatives, including me, have had in Congress and their lack of passage of things like the Save America act, et cetera, that still doesn't mean that I say, okay, you know, let's see what the Democrats are going to do, because that's very predictable in terms of their worldview. So, where does the White House and, the GOP go from here? Well, let's welcome in Rhyen Fournier, who is the founder of Students for Trump, has been around the block a few times in terms of, political engagement. So, Rhyen, how do you see the, midterm shaping up with, you know, that's one poll. I don't tend to trust polls, but, it at least makes some interesting headlines and discussion points.

Ryan Fournier: Yeah, it's good to be back, Jen. I hope you've been well. yeah, you brought up some really good points. And, you know, that poll was taken in March. I've seen quite a few others where it'll say, oh, they got a two point lead on the gop, a three point lead with a margin of error of like two or three. So, I mean, I wouldn't take any of that, you know, to heart. I would take it with a grain of salt, like we've seen before. You know, you've worked in the, you know, the first election, the second election, the third election. So I mean, you've been around as well. And so you've seen, seen how these polls shape up and how most of them m, turn out to be highly inaccurate. I think the reality here is, though, is that when you look at what we've just accomplished with Iran, with this historic deal, whether Iran does well or poorly, they can't have nuclear weapons, no nukes, open strait, no terrorism, and no taxpayer money. So I think that what Trump has done is really strategic because this is something no president has been able to pull off, ever. They've never been able to successfully disarm Iran. And it's always just been these, you know, peace talks back and forth, promises made, never kept. but President Trump actually delivered on that, so I'm really proud of him. What the, administration has been able to accomplish.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, I think that collectively, you know, most people are saying, okay, this is good, that this conflict, at least in the short term, is ending. my previous guest was, was very concerned about what this might mean long term for Iran's, current regime to rebuild and come back stronger. And maybe this is just the Trump administration kind of kicking the can down the road. And I think we'll know more after Friday, of course, and kind of into next week. but overall, you know, Iran, it has been the focal point of a lot of the headlines and the news, both for and against, the administration. But at least here in terms of domestic policy and what voters actually care about, I think a lot of that has to do with the economy, gas prices. we're still seeing, you know, record numbers of inflation. Do you think that those issues need to be addressed more strongly by this White House and, Republicans ahead of November to give, more of the base an incentive for turnout?

Ryan Fournier: Yeah, I mean, I would agree with you on some of that. I think we have spent a fair amount of time on foreign policy, and, you know, it doesn't help when you have allies like Israel. And, you know, I do love Israel. I'm not hating on them. But Bibi, you know, had all the time in the world to do what he wanted to do. And, you know, they have every right, they had every right to attack, Hezbollah really hard. But dragging this out forever just fuels more hate and kind of drains support from all sides, as we've seen. but I do agree with you on domestic policy, and I know that that's something that they're really shifting focus to. I, think we've seen here in the last few weeks. So I think, you know, for gas prices, I saw a statement the other day, I think it was from Gas Buddy, which is, you know, like the number one tracker for, you know, gas prices across the country. they were saying that, you know, some average gas prices might sit around $4, you know, as of, like, you know, last Monday. But they're saying those prices could drop and most likely will drop to around 375 to 380, by 4th of July weekend. So that's going to be really helpful for a lot of people traveling for the summer for vacations. you know, but obviously there's no guarantees to anything, and it's all based on oil, which, you know, the price of oil has gone down, significantly. So I think we're going to see significant drops in prices, especially with gas. But it's not an overnight thing is, as we all know. So. But yes, I do agree. I think we need to focus a lot more on lowering grocery prices, lowering gas prices. but I know the administration has a big focus on that, so I'm hoping it all turns into good fruition.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah.

The Democrats are narrowly in the minority in both the Senate and the House

And, you know, let's talk numbers, Rhyen, because the Democrats are narrowly in the minority in both the Senate and the House. And so they're looking to flip both chambers of Congress. And this would be for the first time in two decades. And in order to do that, the Democrats would need to flip four seats in the state Senate that are currently held by Republicans. And so, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates one of the seats held by retiring Senator, Thom Tillis. that's obviously North Carolina as leaning in favor of the Democrat nominee, Roy Cooper, the former governor of North Carolina. And the CPR also rates two races as toss ups, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and her bid for the sixth term in the upper chamber. And also Senator Jon, Husted from Ohio, attempting to get elected to a full term. he was the one who was appointed. And then, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, appointed to succeed. Appointed him to succeed Vice President Vance, of course, in 2025. So he's. He's new and hasn't actually run for election. So, the Democrats, ah, according to, to this report at least, are optimistic about their chances in the Alaska and. And also the Texas Senate race, which is interesting. and that one's going to shape up to be a national race that already is between a Talarico and Paxton, despite the CPR rating both of those as GOP liens. So in the numbers, as well over in the House, there's, all of the redistricting battles I think has resulted in Republicans having a favorable chance to net nine additional seats. but of the 18 seats, the CPR rates as toss ups, 14 are held by the GOP already. So, so I think, you know, this looks like maybe the Senate may be more poised to lean potentially in favor of the Democrats. what's your view of just the sheer numbers and, some of those CPR rates?

Ryan Fournier: Yeah, no, I mean, this is something I've been thinking about here recently because, you know, we did a lot of. We had a lot of success with the redistricting. you know, this has been going on over the last year. and you know, Democrats always say they're optimistic about taking Texas right now. They're optimistic about taking Alaska, and Florida.

Jenna Ellis: They're suggesting the governor's race in Florida too.

Ryan Fournier: Yeah, yeah. It's just not going to happen. You know, it really is just, water under the bridge, especially to me. But I don't take everything, you know, with, you know. Well, I take a lot of it with a grain of salt, but I don't get complacent. And I think that that's sort of one thing that I like to repeat every cycle, is that we can look at these numbers. They can look very close. but at the end of the day, we're only going to win this if we actually get out on the ground and have, you know, the precinct chairs, you know, the precinct captains, people watching the polls. and it really is an awesome thing that the DOJ is stepping up, to ensure that these elections are secure and to ensure there is no voter fraud, which we've seen time and time again across the country. So, you know, I don't know. You know, I look at, you know, Maine. I mean, you've got Susan Collins, who's always been sort of a thorn, in the Senate. North, Carolina, the state that, you know, I live in. well, Now I'm in D.C. but, you know, lived in North Carolina for my entire life. And, you know, I, I think Roy Cooper has a very, very good shot at it. I personally don't believe Whatley was the best choice. and that's my personal opinion on it. I mean, people can argue, you know, agree to disagree, but I just don't think he's a strong candidate. And I think that the name recognition of Roy Cooper carries a lot of weight there. So I think that there is a very high chance that we will lose that seat. but as for everything else, I mean, like I've said to look at Florida and to think that that's going to flip to Democrat, that that's a stupid thought. The same thing with Texas. They've tried time and time again. And I think that, you know, it obviously is still a little bit too early to tell, you know, because one month is like a millennium, when it comes to politics. So anything can change overnight. Anything can change, you know, within a week. a lot can change within a week, but I think it's just too early to tell. I think we need to just put our heads down and keep working and keep fighting for the American people and getting things done that actually benefit them. Like I've said earlier, we've done enough with the foreign piece now. I think we really need to put all focus on what's going on at home.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah.

Ryan Fournier: We need to focus on choosing better candidates in primaries

So well said. And we've only got about a minute left, but how much of this do you think we need to focus on actually choosing better candidates in the primaries? I mean, I see that as kind of the biggest deal. And to focus on some of these races that really should be a slam dunk instead of, you know, choosing to nominate perhaps, not the best candidates.

Ryan Fournier: Yeah, no, that's. That's always been a big thing for me, too. It's, You know, you would see a really good candidate that would, you know, be, you know, sort of within the primary, and they would be kind of against the guy that sort of the party wants, and they would be doing much better. They'd be polling better. But then somehow, some way, the system at play, system at works. you know, the endorsements come in for the guy who's not doing the greatest his numbers go up, but really not many people like him. But then you have, like, the fake polling data that comes in to support them, and then that's the nominee. even though they're a poor candidate with, no charisma, they're not America First. They don't support the agenda entirely and they just lose. so I really think we do need to put more focus on picking people that actually can win that.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well said. And we got to take a break here, but Rhyen Fournier, really appreciate it, and I agree. I mean, Trump's endorsements carry weight, but he's got to select them more carefully. We'll be right back.

The Supreme Court declined to revive Carter Page's lawsuit over FBI surveillance

welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as we are still awaiting the United States States Supreme Court to issue opinions on some of the more controversial and politically charged cases, as they will do, before the end of term. And of course, they always wait till the end to, to issue some of those opinions and then go on their three month hiatus and basically say, you know, you all deal with the fallout. but, as we're still awaiting that, the Supreme Court has declined to review two cases. the first one is that the Supreme Court declined to revive the Carter Page lawsuit over the FBI surveillance tied to the Trump Russia probe. So Page recently reached a $1.25 million settlement with the federal government, but sought to hold individual officials liable, which would have included James Comey and other former government officials, for what Paige alleged was unlawful surveillance. And, I would agree with him on that front. And, interestingly, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did not participate in the case. But the justices still denied Paige's appeal, effectively leaving lower court rulings in place and ending his effort to hold those individuals accountable.

Gerard Felitti says lawsuit against FBI over surveillance was denied

So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is senior counsel at the Lawfare Project. Jared, what was the reason and you know, the rationale that this lawsuit was denied and now, effectively is ended?

Gerard Filitti: Well, the rationale essentially is that the, that Page had the wrong defendants, that, you know, he needed to reach in and find the agents that were actually responsible for the wiretaps, not people like Comey who were in charge of supervising. And because that's not who he was, pursuing, then the court basically said that he was looking at the wrong defendants and that he couldn't proceed on that theory. And this is a Biven style motion action that he was filing. This was basically a judicially created remedy, trying to go after these individuals who violated his Rights, not one that's implemented by Congress, which really made it more difficult for him to hold accountable the actual individuals involved.

Jenna Ellis: And unfortunately that makes sense. And I think for all of us who, you know, have sat back and looked at, the overreach of FBI surveillance, the law fair that has persisted against, you know, Trump officials and and others, including me, I mean, I'm no stranger, to this, and I'm, I'm obviously not somebody who's just watching from the outside. I've had that, targeted against me personally. And it's frustrating that, some of these individuals that were at least participants in some fashion and that, you know, the heads of some of these agencies at the time aren't being held accountable, really in any way. And that seems to be a flaw in the system.

Gerard Filitti: I think you're absolutely right. It is a flaw in the system. But it goes back to the fundamental theory of government immunity and the government being making itself immune from most actions against it. Certainly there are exceptions, but when you look at things like this, where you have an abuse of surveillance to target individuals, you need something clear from Congress that gives people the right to sue. And, I think that's really the missing piece is we need Congress. And there have been some efforts over the years, but not nearly sufficient. We need Congress to get its act together and actually pass laws that enhance the ability of people to hold accountable those who violate our rights.

Gerard Filitti: Yeah.

Jenna Ellis: And I mean, Congress. It just seems like the Republicans in Congress just simply do not want to govern, is the bottom line. I mean, they, they aren't getting it together to, to pass any sort of meaningful legislation other than the one big beautiful bill which. Okay, great, but that was, you know, a year ago. What is. What have you done for me lately? is obviously the political question. But, you know, the Trump administration attempted at least to have this, 1776 account and and this whole, you know, anti weaponization fund that now the doj, basically in the midst of Democrat pushback and Jasmine Crockett, put filed legislation to try to say, well, the government can recover any disbursements. And so basically the DOJ has abandoned this whole effort. And it seems like, you know, there's no real desire on the part of even the Trump administration, much less Congress, to rectify, some of these very obvious issues with lawfare. That's right.

Gerard Filitti: And I think part of it is that when you do see efforts, they're not well thought through. You have the big Idea of having this 1776 fund, which is, I think, a great idea. But the problem is the devil is in the details. You actually need to take the time to think through how this is going to be implemented in order to survive legal challenge. So you need those mechanisms, you need the boring, tedious details on how these things work. And I think that's where we're seeing a lot of these ideas fall apart, is the ideas are good, the ideas are solid, they're helpful, they address a very real problem. But there isn't that attention to detail into how to make them legally strong.

Jenna Ellis: And, you know, that attention to detail. I think you, you hit on the precise problem that even during the first administration, a lot of, a lot of us were frustrated with is that there are kind of some grandiose ideas, but then the implementation, because obviously government work is very different than the private sector. The implementation lacked specificity. It made it open to some of these legal and, legislative challenges and, and, and ultimately, while you can have great ideas, the implementation needs to be a lot precise. Why do you think the Trump administration hasn't figured that out by now and said, okay, we need to make sure that if we want to pursue, this particular outcome, we need to make sure that it is sufficient to withstand some of these challenges.

Gerard Filitti: My personal opinion is that President Trump likes seeing things move quickly. He likes being able to do things by executive. And he doesn't have the patience, necessarily that it takes to go through the legislative process or through the regulatory process where he needs to dot your I's and cross the T's. He sees that as something that other people should be doing for him. And unfortunately, I think that he has surrounded himself with people who are great at ideas and great at actually executing these ideas, but not the details of implementing them. So it's Trump's personality. He wants things done quickly. But government, as we all know, very rarely moves quickly.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and, you know, from my own personal experience, with him, I think you're spot on. And, you know, the way that he approaches government work is too similar to the way that he approached NewSong York real estate. And, you know, some of these other things that you can have, this sort of rapid progress, and you can do things so much more quickly in the private sector than you can the public sector. And that frustrated him, to no end, which is a fair frustration. But then at the, on the same hand, we, the founders implicitly made it difficult for the government, to, to move quickly. And the, the cumbersomeness of the process is kind of the point. And you know, Scalia very famously said, to the Senate when he was still alive, you know, the founders were worried about an excess of legislation and going you know, into and trying to make sure that the that Congress couldn't just legislate easily and quickly. And then he said, you know, they looking now at. And I think that was around 2015 or so. He was like, you know, they didn't even know what an excess of legislation was, I mean compared to what we have today. And his point of course being that the process and the fact that it's not easy to just have. We don't have a tyrant and a king in America. That can just quickly be the legislative, the executive and the judicial all in one. That's part of what makes America great. But when you're trying to get things done in a more successive fashion, that can be frustrating to somebody like President Trump. So I think you're spot on on that.

Alito argued that the court should clarify when schools may restrict student speech

but I want to shift gears now to a second ah, story before we run out of time. This was the second part of the Supreme Court. they refused as well yesterday to hear a case involving a Students for Life club whose school blocked ah, flyers featuring defund Planned Parenthood signs arguing that the court, and then justice ah, Alito penned a solo dissent from the Supreme Court's refusal. And he argued that the court should clarify when schools may restrict student speech. So this is an interesting case that the Supreme Court's refusal sometimes does refuse to clarify the issue. And I think Alito was right in this one. But it's interesting, he was the solo dissent, which means that Thomas was also for the Supreme Court denying assert.

Gerard Filitti: Now that's right. I mean certainly that's what it suggests. But at the end of the day this is a very interesting case because there are really two standards when you're looking at school speech. One is much more protective of student speech and the other, called Hazelwood, which is what what this really comes down to is much more deferential to the school. So schools have been able for many years to characterize student speech in such a way as to say that it looks like it's the school speech, not the student speech and get away with restricting it. and that is something that we see this dissent, very unique dissent point out that we need more clarity, especially because in the last few years there's been more of this development of a doctrine of government speech. That the government has its own right to speak. So a school, as a government entity, has a right to speak. And the question then becomes when that right supersedes that of a student.

Jenna Ellis: And yeah, and so then when we're talking about a student club on campus, you know, at what point is the club itself responsible for their own speech? Because you can have, you know, obviously two very contrasting views. You can have the pro life club, you can have, you know, the pro abortion club on the same campus. And obviously those two diametrically opposed viewpoints, can't be perceived as the school speech simultaneously. So at what point is private speech on campus of student clubs, private versus the school?

Gerard Filitti: And that's exactly the issue that's raised by this dissent and the need to take this case and make a decision, because we don't have that clarity right now. You can argue pretty much anything, and you have a highly deferential standard to the school. So the school in that circumstance could choose one or the other message or it could reject both. and that really creates confusion for students and for Americans as to, you know, what are we allowed to say in a school setting? and that's, I think, why we need the clarity, why we need the Supreme Court to take up this case. But it's not just about abortion. It's about other issues as well. As we're seeing on other campuses. We're seeing the whole Israel, Palestine issue. We're seeing, Marxist ideology coming into classrooms. So it really does become a question of which speech is appropriate in K to 12 and not school spelling. And for the Supreme Court, the weigh on that is very timely.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and it should, of course, as, you're rightly pointing out. I mean, there are a lot of, settings that we've seen recently where schools have sponsored protests, they've basically compelled students to engage in certain activities that, our speech and when we are specific political point of view, but when we're talking as well about school censorship, not forcible participation, but censorship. the court has previously addressed school policy restricting student speech, in Hazelwood, as you mentioned, and also Tinker, the famous case as well, that set some of those standards. And the court said that students don't shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. but at the same time, there are standards, some standards that schools can implement regarding apparel that students can wear, you know, school dress codes, you know, some of those things. And so it's interesting to me that the Supreme Court wouldn't take up this case that seems perfectly positioned to address some of these issues and, and make a uniform clarification. And so. So why do you think that Justice Alito was the sole dissent? I mean, this doesn't seem as politically motivated, for the other justices. It just seems maybe like a cop out.

Gerard Filitti: I think you're right. I think it is a more of a cop out from the other justices. And I think part of it has to do with the. That this is about pro choice, pro life, speech, not something else. And I think the court is reluctant to wade back into that right now. So I think the issue in this case, the actual fact pattern in this case is what the court wanted to stay away from. But we may well see something come down the line that also brings up Hazelwood and Tinker. And the tension between the unresolved boundary between those two cases that Alito flagged, in his dissent is something that I think may very well come up just in a different context, in a different type of case.

Jenna Ellis: That's fascinating and I think you're spot on on that. That, because this dealt specifically with a very, very hot topic politically right now in the U.S. maybe they didn't want to wade into that and have whatever their, their rule and their opinion might be to resolve the tension between Tinker and Hazelwood. They wanted to do it in something in some other fact pattern that isn't as politically charged. I mean, in Tinker it was a, that if I'm remembering correctly, it was the students wearing armbands protesting the Vietnam War. I mean, we could see something similar with you know, students protesting, you know, perhaps the, the conflict in Iran or, you know, something else that is perhaps political but a lot less emotionally charged to American citizens. Are there any cases that you're aware of that have, something similar to what this, case that was denied? the same kind of fact pattern but on a different issue that isn't as politically charged.

Gerard Filitti: Not that I write for the Supreme Court, but I do know that there are cases both in California and NewSong York that are challenging school decisions on protests and protest speech that's taking place on campuses. So that may be a couple of years before they wind their way through the system to reach scotus. But those, I think are more likely than something that, as you say, is so. Is so emotionally charged as, the pro life is issued.

Jenna Ellis: M. Yeah, well, that, that's really interesting. And you know, as, one of my former mentors used to say, you know, the Supreme Court, like, you're, you're trying one case as the petitioner, and, you know, there's one issue, but they're playing a very complicated game of political chess, unfortunately, in a lot of circumstances. And perhaps this denial evidences that very clearly. But Gerard Felitti, really appreciate your commentary, as always. You can follow him on X at Gerard Felitti. And also also the Lawfare Project. And we will be back tomorrow morning, with more of Jenna Ellis in the morning. And in the meantime, you can also go to afr.net and hear on demand. It's our AFR exclusive podcast where we do a deep dive into some of these issues, with just a little bit more time. So you can find [email protected] reach me and my team, Jenna. Afr.net.