Transcript

Jenna Ellis: The U.S. Constitution guarantees God's rights

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. Morning.

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is June 25, so we are exactly halfway to Christmas. So, Merry have Christmas, everyone. That's actually the most exciting news this morning.

Federal judge strikes down Trump administration's database on Social Security numbers and citizenship

But, in other actual news that we need to talk about, a federal district judge has struck down the Trump administration's database of Social Security numbers and citizenship status. So on Monday, blocked the Trump administration from creating a centralized database containing Social Security numbers along with information about voters, citizenship status, and other sensitive data. But, and then that's one problem, obviously, and we can talk about the case. But the judge, has over the last several days, since this decision has come under fire, because she is an appointee of former President Biden. Her name is Sparkle Souk. None. which I think a few of us have, have, hopefully said that we're pronouncing her name right, but she was born in Trinidad and Tobago and is a naturalized US Citizen. According to her responses to the US Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation process, she answered yes to the question, are you a citizen of the United States? According to the Senate Judiciary documents, she. She stated that she had been a US citizen since 2009, but she's also been a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago since birth in 1983. When asked whether she planned to renounce her Trinidad and Tobago citizenship, she explained that she became a US Citizen and took the naturalization oath, renouncing allegiance to foreign sovereigns, and that she had agreed in connection with her federal employment only to take additional steps necessary to renounce co her Trinidad and Tobago citizenship if required by law for her duties as a federal judge. So here's, here's the situation. Someone who has only been a US citizen since 2009 is somehow determining how our President of the United States and his administration can determine and help in creating a centralized database about voter citizenship status to determine whether or not they qualify to vote in US Elections. This seems incredibly problematic to me that you have essentially just naturalized citizens who haven't been here honestly that long that are deciding major issues and, deciding opinions that are now hamstringing our President from actually operating according to, to his agenda. So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is senior counsel at the Lawfare Project. And Gerard, it seems to me that Congress needs to act here and you know, they, they control any such inferior courts as they determine according to Article 3. So the US Supreme Court is the only constitutionally created court. And so it seems to me that, that we don't as Americans want naturalized citizens to be determining issues of ah, presidential authority, constitutional law and many other things that federal judges decide.

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think the problem goes beyond where a person was born. I think the real problem is the ideology that some of these people have. And what we're really doing is that we're using place of birth or national origin, non citizenship at birth as a proxy for saying that some of these people come to the US with values that are not American, that are anti American, and that they, when they are appointed to a judgeship or for that matter anything else that they do in life, they carry through values that are not natively American, they're not democratic, they're not the same adherence to the Constitution or our principles that native born Americans have. But I think that the problem with that argument is that it's more of a red herring. I think the issue is ultimately the ideology that people have rather than when they were, where they were born. And that there needs to be more of a standard for what values are being taught in law school, in college and in k to 12 so that we have a better determinant of what people will do when they're appointed to a judiciary rather than the direct proxy of where they were born.

Jenna Ellis: Well certainly, I mean even people born in the United States going through the education system right now, I mean that are being taught Marxist anti American ideology, would be in my estimation, and I'm sure yours as well, unfit to serve if they have, if they carry some of those values with them. And this is what the vetting process is supposed to be for in the Senate. So that the Senate does not confirm some of these federal appointments that have this ideology. We've seen, you know, rogue judges. And so you're right that it's not just about where someone was born, it is about their ideology. And we need to have better vetting processes in place. Of course the Democrats, you know, want to put these rogue judges in place. That's why we've seen from the nominees that go all the way back, you know, to Clinton, some of Them are still on the bench, that have these, these rulings and these orders and these determinations that clearly don't follow the ideology that is fundamentally American or originalist. But I think that we can as a, as a catch all start, we still could have the rule and the metric of vetting our judges that even though some may come here from other countries and be naturalized and have a view of America that is good and healthy and they assimilate and all of that, obviously there are some, but I think as a uniform standard, it would catch and prevent so many people who don't have the right ideology or simply, you know, haven't been in this country long enough to understand our processes, our values and overall having that same pattern of thinking. If we still had a rule that naturalized citizens can't serve in the federal judiciary, I mean I would be comfortable with that rule because we want not only just American citizens, but people who have grown up here who have been, who have who were born here and who have and it's not even necessarily just people who were born here. I mean the whole question of birthright citizenship. We're still waiting from the U.S. supreme Court. So again it's not a perfect rule, but I would still be comfortable with that rule at least preventing people like this federal judge and others that we've talked about from not only serving in the federal judiciary but running for Congress and basically being in any part of a federal government power simply because they were naturalized later. And we can't guarantee even through what vetting process we have that they would share our American values.

Gerard Filitti: I think it's easier to have to for Congress. Not that Congress, mind you, is in any hurry to pass any laws, as we've seen and talked about frequently. But it's easier for Congress to pass a law that restricts or creates this category of this selection criteria where you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States to be a federal judge, whether to be appointed in certain positions or even run for Congress. That's an easy answer. it's not quite so easy because Congress getting Congress to do anything is nearly impossible. But the harder challenge is really, and where this starts, which is vetting people when they come to this country. Because it's not just the judiciary that we're talking about. We're talking about all of society from who becomes our teacher to who our doctors are and who our lawyers are, who our police officers are. And that's a big issue as well, so I think that you know, it's easier for Congress to pass a law, restricting certain jobs, if you will, to natural born citizens. But that doesn't, I don't know that that solves the long term problem, which is the infiltration of this country by people who don't share its values, never will share its values and actually want to destroy our values. And that's a vetting issue that affects everyone. And the other thing is, I mean I'm reluctant to say that we should have a law like that to begin with because I'm mindful of some very highly effective conservative judges like Eileen Cannon who was born in Columbia, or Judge, ho of the 5th Circuit. They're excellent judges who were not born in the United States and perhaps are more comfortable with our values than many people who were born here.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and certainly there are exceptions and I'm not suggesting at all that that is a quick fix that would be a catch all. I mean obviously the anti American sentiment and how it plays out in office, in in federal offices, including on the federal bench, is a complex problem. I'm suggesting that that's simply a good start and obviously there needs to be more thorough vetting and, and and the Senate especially needs to do a better job. I mean it seems like they, they, they just rubber stamp a lot of these nominees and there are questions during those processes, especially if it's more of a high profile situation that are more geared toward gotcha moments and you know, viral social media clips than actually doing their job of looking and saying is this person, do they have the right mentality, ideology, understanding of America, understanding of the separation of powers, of limited government, of but the actual powers of what a president has, can they put aside their politics? I mean all of these things that should go into a contemplation of who should be on the federal bench. And it just really doesn't seem like overall, the Senate is in a big hurry on either side. I mean, of course, you know, the Democrats are happy to just rubber stamp all of these people who are anti American, but even Republicans, it seems like they're more interested in the viral moments than actually vetting a lot of these people who then you know, once they're appointed, they stay on the bench for a very long time.

Gerard Filitti: you're absolutely right. That's the biggest problem is that the, there is no deliberate care in the vetting process in the Senate these days that you are looking at senators who, for some nominees, they look for Gotcha moments to embarrass them more than anything. But there isn't that. Consider review. Ideology is how they would rule as a judge. We see that for Supreme Court nominees, but we don't often see the same level of scrutiny, for lower judges. And that's the biggest problem is when you do have a judge who was born somewhere else, who does have that dual citizenship, who does have a background from a law school that's not known for conservative values, who even clerked for Justice Sotomayor. So it tells you something about where she stands, in her views on the law. And you want to apply extra scrutiny to that person, you want to test their values, you want to scrutinize how they feel about the separation of powers, how they feel about constitutional interpretation, what theories they apply or would apply as a judge. But you don't see that it's very quick to get someone voted on or to embarrass them, but not voted on for the right or wrong reasons.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and it's really incredible to me that we're in a situation now in, you know, in 2026, and we just kicked off, last night the celebration in, Washington D.C. which, you know, was great, that President Trump had. And I watched a little bit of the opening last night, of the kickoff of America 250, and seeing the difference in the ideology and even understanding of the, the responsibilities of government, public service compared to our founders era. I mean, I was just talking with a friend the other day about, you know, how, George Washington was, was one of the greatest, who ever lived because he was willing. I mean, he could have been the king, but he was willing to say, two terms is enough. I'm going to go back to private life and let someone else, you know, have the, have the privilege of being the president and will continue to give power back to the people. I mean, that kind of mindset to truly believe in what makes America great, which is that it's not the right of government to have power, but it is the right of the people to have the government protect their rights through limited powers. It just seems like no one in Washington is actually focused. I mean, not no one, but, very rarely do you hear anyone in Washington actually espouse these principles that truly of statesmen that we want that take their job seriously enough to not care about just the viral moments and, you know, the congressional pension after the fact, or the power or the prestige, but actually doing the job of governing legitimately.

Gerard Filitti: You're absolutely right. And I think that's also why we see, and we've seen such an end to bipartisanship and cooperation because people are no longer Washington thinking about the greater good. They're no longer thinking about what would benefit the country, even if it does not benefit me personally. They're thinking only in terms of how do I get reelected, how do I stay in office, how do I maintain and grow my power base. They become too addicted to power. Instead of addicted to government service, which is really service to the people. You are there to perform a, duty and then to go home. You're there for someone else. You're not there for your own aggrandizement. And that's a fundamental fact that we've forgotten about our founding fathers, that they were not in there. They didn't create this country for kings. They didn't create this country for a ruling class. They created this country to last beyond them. And nowadays we look at too many elected officials who just want this country to last for them.

Jenna Ellis: Yes. And Gerard Felitti, you're going to continue after the break because we have a lot more to talk about. We will be right back.

Jenna Ellis: Gerard Felitti talks about American statesmanship

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. I'm still here this morning with my special guest Gerard Felitti, senior counsel at the Lawfare Project. And we're talking about statesmanship and this view of valuing America as we were founded not because, conservatives always look backward, but because we need to look upward and we need to look at the worldview that comes from God himself, our Creator, and the principles of legitimate government that will carry us looking forward. And when we recognize how our country was founded in America. 250, as we're celebrating our semi quincentennial anniversary, over this next week and and especially coming up on July 4th, we need to recognize where we've been and where we are because of where we're headed. And when we talk about the, the current status of, of so called conservatives that are not very interested in actually doing their job of governing in a legitimate fashion, understanding that their job is to ensure that the rights of Americans are preserved and protected, that's the obligation of any legitimate government that the citizens within their purview and their constituency, their fundamental God given inalienable rights that every human being possesses because we're created in the image of God, that that's their, their only legitimate job, then we start to recognize how much the Democrats and the left and especially this extreme Democrat socialists, have, and you know, and their entire worldview is completely, purposefully un American and also, therefore, also anti Christian. And that's, that's really the bottom line of why Democrats hate America so much is because we were founded on a recognition of the God of the Bible and our Creator. And because of that, we the people have rights and give the government limited power. And so we're seeing that play out as well. Gerard, in, just yesterday, the Zorin Mamdani backed socialists have officially gone three out of three and won all of their respective Democratic primaries for the U.S. house in NewSong York. this coming from Bill Malusian over at Fox. their positions, he says, are some of the most extreme and far left the Democrats have seen. And, and he goes on to talk about, about three of them. Dar. I'm going to totally butcher this name, but, Dari. Liza Chevalier, in NewSong York 13. Her position is to abolish prisons, abolish ICE, abolish borders, defund the police, and quote, all deportations are wrong, including for violent criminals. She has called the US a quote, unquote effing disgrace, and said in a prior social media post, I forgot to get napkins. So I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me. this is someone who's actually obtaining the Democrat primary for the, for the U.S. congress. I mean, it's just so disgusting. Claire Valdez, NewSong York District 7. Her position is to grant citizenship and voting rights to illegal aliens, use taxpayer funds for all transgender treatments, and eliminate police private health insurance. Brad Lander of NewSong York District 10. His position is to abolish ICE, forgive all student loans, almost $2 trillion worth, and pack and expand the Supreme Court. So Bill Malusian concludes Mamdani gets a clean sweep. A bad night for Hakeem Jeffries, and big questions for where the Democratic Party is heading. yeah, but it's, it's absolutely insane that people like this can even be potentially propped up to serve in Congress. I mean, this is why, to our earlier point, there needs to be better vetting and rules to exclude people with these kinds of views from even being eligible to run for office. I mean, I think we are at the point of a constitutional crisis over some of these things.

Gerard Filitti: I think constitutional crisis is exactly the right phrase for it. Because the dsa, the Democratic Socialists, let's just call them what they are, Marxists, have made no secret about what their agenda is. It's very much public. Their own platform calls for abolishing our Constitution. It calls for creating a new constitution, based on proportional representation in one district. They call for public ownership of corporations, for ending sanctions on countries, for freedom of movement, immigration policies. They're very transparent about fundamentally changing, not just changing, but abolishing our current system of government. A Supreme Court and a presidency subordinate to Congress. That's not what our values are. That's not what our constitution are. So really you have a group that is an insurrectionist group within the Democratic Party that's capturing it because most Americans are still unfortunately asleep at the wheel. When you have primaries like you had yesterday, even in election years, it's a very low turnout for a party primary. You're seeing only a small fraction of registered voters in a district, let alone registered party members vote for these people. So all they have to do is capture plurality, have a strong turnout and they capture the nomination and they capture the party machinery and they become the party. So that's really the scary thing is this is an anti American, an explicitly anti American party that is going in strength within the Democratic Party, taking it over and becoming mainstream. Yeah.

Jenna Ellis: And it's really a, an incredible thing to witness that the Democrat Party is going so far socialist, leftist, but this has been predictable. I mean we, we've seen this downfall for years, but this is one of the two major parties. And so what realistically could change in terms of some of the rules of the worldview and the vetting process? Because of course even some conservatives go back to you know, well there, you know, there's no religious test that's, that's allowed in the US Constitution, some of those things. And obviously we can amend those rules. We can even amend the US Constitution. And so how practically speaking could we implement and impose rules that would prevent extreme leftists and I mean not just, not just Democrats, but I mean even you know, people that simply regardless of, you know, their background, their party affiliation, any of this their, if their worldview fundamentally is anti American in these ways, how can we start to think about fashioning rules and how would we actually implement those if we, if we got it together to do it?

Gerard Filitti: I hate to admit it, but I don't think I'm smart enough to come up with rules that would work because I don't think think that rules are going to help. It's ultimately this is a values test. It's a values based system. Whatever rules you impose, rules are meant to be black or white or with shades of gray. That can be easily discerned. But when it comes to people's agendas, people's motivations, what they hold in their heart, how they feel about this country, I think it's very hard to come up with rules that would identify, let alone prevent some of them from gaining office. It's more I think, about educating the electorate about people understanding what this movement is or what values people have and how they have shown their allegiance or lack thereof to America. So I think it's more of a transparency effort, it's more of an educational effort. It's more of a need for shows like this to explain to people what's going on and wake them up to the reality of it. Because rules, I think it's very easy. The Democratic Party has rules, our party process has rules. And the Democratic socialists have used those rules to their advantage to essentially seize power. So I don't know that ultimately it's going to be a rules based system that prevents this from happening. I think it's an enforcement or a return to our fundamental values.

Jenna Ellis: And that whole ideology and that whole understanding is necessarily premised on not only enforcing the border and ensuring that only people who live here, who were not born here are are assimilating to our values and people that we want here, but then also people who obtain citizenship, through birthright, for example, are also people who deserve that fundamentally through rules and that you don't have, you know, people like all of this, reports that we've talked about previously of people coming in from China for example, and simply having their child here in order to have their child, who actually be a Chinese national, be being an American citizen through birthright. So that's one issue. And then continuing the vetting process and ensuring that who we vote for in elections, ah, are not only the, the individual and the candidate shares our ideology, but the people who vote in our elections are the people that are actually competent and qualified and should be voting in our elections. And so President Trump has recently stated that he will not sign any more bills. this came out yesterday until Congress passes the Save America Act, a contra, well controversial, according to Time magazine, ah, voting measure. But it's a good thing. Requiring proof of citizenship and photo ID to vote in federal elections. That's a great thing. He's saying, listen, this is a fundamental thing that we have to do. that's, that's one part. And then the Supreme Court is getting ready to any day now. We've been waiting for the birthright citizenship case to come down. There are a lot of, conservatives who are very concerned about that and kind of forecasting that that may not, come down the way that that ideologically we as conservatives would hope. what is your projection on, on that? Because that's one aspect of it that I think President Trump is also trying to solve. I mean he sees, I think in his administration this bigger picture that it's not just about one specific catch all piece that will solve all the problems. It's about this multifaceted, problem solving agenda to say we have to close the border. We can't just give birthright citizenship, to anybody who happens to be born here. we have to be more careful about that. We have to pass the Save America Act. I mean there are multiple steps here that are in place, but, the Supreme Court, could potentially surprise us. But what's your, your projection and why they haven't issued that opinion yet?

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think to directly answer your question, I think I share the view that a lot of, commentators have that the Supreme Court is likely to uphold birthright citizenship. I think that it signaled, most justices signaled extreme skepticism to, President Trump's position during oral arguments, and that they are likely to come back and say that, people who were born here are citizens regardless of the status of their, parents or whether or not their parents were here legally. so this, I do see that this would be a setback to President Trump's agenda on that front. but that also speaks to the importance of the Save America act to voter ID laws, to the border enforcement issue more generally. And I think you're absolutely right that this is where you do have a rules based system that makes a difference.

Gerard Felitt: Ensuring immigration control is key to preserving democracy

Because when you look at, there are cities out there, progressive cities, and remember cities, states make their own election laws. They can allow and have allowed non citizen voting in local issues. You also have representation in Congress that's apportioned by population. And if you exclude people who are here illegally, you would have a very major shift in some of these electoral districts and an apportionment among states that would likely shift America more towards conservative voters, more towards conservative policies. So enforcing these laws, enforcing immigration control, I think that's key to preserving our democracy as we know and love it.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And you know, we need to have this multifaceted approach. And it seems, so frustrating, I think, to so many people who are, who are listening right now saying, yeah, we need to make sure that we keep America, America. And we have the, the laws, the rules, in place so that that mirrors our fundamental worldview and ideology that our country was founded on. And we make sure that, we only have people who should be voting, voting in US elections, that we only have people serving, who should be serving, in Congress and in federal office, including on the bench. I mean, this just seems so remarkably simple. but to those of us who actually want to keep America, great. But there are so many just, there are so many, ways that these rules and these solutions continue to be thwarted that it seems like the left has essentially created the constitutional crisis that's coming because we can't allow these socialists and anti American actors to use the principles of our liberty to destroy us.

Gerard Filitti: Well, ultimately, I think it comes back to the way the liberal faction did it, the progressive faction did it, is they opened up our borders. And that's the fundamental problem is we stop controlling who we allow into the country. We wouldn't be Talking about the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. We wouldn't be talking about judges who are born abroad. We wouldn't be talking about voting ID if we had our borders secure. Because then we'd know who was in our country when only people that we wanted to be here who share our values would be here. So all of these issues would be moot. We wouldn't have President Trump wasting a year and a half of his administration on these issues when we would just have our borders secure and we wouldn't have these concerns about infiltration from foreign ideology. So ultimately it does come back to the border. And I think that's where we can also stress that Congress needs to act so that it takes discretion away from future Democratic administrations. And we have much more clarity that there is a values based system for coming into this country and becoming a citizen. And I think that's how you ultimately preserve the Republic.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And you know, this always comes back to Congress acting. And it shouldn't have been, incumbent on President Trump to have to push these issues and these questions through executive action. And I'm glad that he has, and certainly what he's done with ice, what he's done to close the border, but it really does come down to Congress. And, and as I've been saying, you know, for the last two years, for the first two years of Trump's administration, we have a trifecta and obviously we don't have, the, the, the votes in the Senate to overcome that 60 vote threshold. And that's the problem, really. But it seems like Leader Thune could be doing a lot more to, to say, okay, here's what we're doing and imposing, you know, some sort of leadership on the Senate, to at least try to negotiate. But to your earlier point, Gerard, I mean, I think that the days of bipartisan cooperation and simply just doing what's in the best interests of Americans are far gone, because we've seen even Republicans who have gone against the Trump agenda and so, you know, don't even meet the threshold of 50 votes in some instances. So it's very, very frustrating when you see that President Trump is so focused on the right things, on preserving American values, and then, Congress just being that monster that is just sitting there where you're trying to pull them, and they just won't budge. and that, I think, is incredibly frustrating. And why the midterms are so important that we make sure to look at these people who are being nominated in primaries like in NewSong York, rejecting the socialist extremists, but even the RINOs, you know, the Republicans in name only and selecting and preferring the best leaders. So hopefully the next two years will be a lot better. But. Gerard Felitti, thanks so much. We'll be right back.

Jenna Ellis welcomes Congressman Brandon Gill back to American Family Radio

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. So we've been talking throughout the day program about, what Congress needs to do and that it all comes back to Congress acting to secure the border, ensure that the Save America act passes, create perhaps some, rules according to their power, under Article 3, to, create rules for such inferior courts as Congress, you know, of course, shall, designate and, that Congress is the correct entity that can prevent, for example, this. This district judge that blocked President Trump's, save citizenship verification system and to prevent perhaps dual citizenship, holders or naturalized citizens from even obtaining a federal judgeship to begin with. So where is Congress in all this? I know that that's what everyone is probably yelling at their radio station right now. So let's welcome in Congressman Brandon Gill, who is from the great state of Texas and has been doing a great job in Congress to sound the alarm, to advance conservative values, to, you know, uphold the principles of liberty and freedom. And so, Congressman, Gill, where is Congress at in all of this?

 Brandon Gill: Thanks for having me, Jenna. we've got a ton of work to do, I'll be honest. And, we've been spending a lot of time, or I have been spending a lot of my Time trying to investigate a, ah, mixture of fraud, abuses of birthright citizenship, going after institutions that are abusing the American people outside, especially from a constitutional standpoint. But to your point, we've got judges who are overstepping their authority and this is something we've been dealing with for quite some time. Where you've got district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions, where you've got judges that are basically taking it upon themselves to act as, act as the role, of the President in certain instances. It's why I filed articles of impeachment, against Judge Goesberg twice, actually first, for his role in demanding the President bring a plane full of trend Aragua terrorists into the United States, and later for his role in the Arctic Frost investigation. So we've got a lot more work to do. I mean, this is a huge problem for our country.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And it seems like, there are a very few Republicans, like you, in, in Congress and like Senator Eric Schmidt, who was posting on this, as well this week about this judge that blocked President Trump's citizenship, verification system, who actually want Congress to act and would be, the leaders. And in the forefront of this, the question that I get so often, and I myself am wondering, is why aren't more Republicans concerned? I mean, we should at least have the group of Republicans in Congress and that conference in lockstep with President Trump's agenda because that was the mandate overwhelmingly from the American people in 2024. I mean, we want the border closed, we want ICE funded, we want the Save America act, we want to ensure, that Congress actually deals with birthright citizenship, especially if the Supreme Court doesn't, in the next coming days, as we get that decision, there are things that it seems like, Congress just simply isn't acting on. So where is the Republican Conference and also Speaker Mike Johnson's leadership?

 Brandon Gill: Well, I think that, I think that the Republican Conference, at least in the House, is behind the President fully. And I mean, I'll give you a couple examples. I mean, one is that we, we passed the Save America act multiple times out of the House. It's hung up in the Senate because you've got several, Senators who believe that, you know, some sort of what they think are procedural guardrails are more important than the substantive good of the Save America Act. That's one area where you see, especially the House of Representatives, is on the forefront. But I've had ah, talks, with leadership about judges, about some of them that you Just mentioned. and my hope is that those are going to be moving. Some movement from the House will start pretty soon on that as well.

Jenna Ellis: Good. And that's encouraging to hear and I think you're right at least as far as you know, those of us sitting outside and observing can see that the House at least you know has passed some legislation and gets hung up in the Senate. And that's what's frustrating. but as you're looking at for example the, the the primaries for the U.S. house in NewSong York and yesterday, how the Mamdani backed socialists went three for three and that those, those contenders are potentially going to be colleagues after the the, the midterms. is there a concern in Congress to perhaps, perhaps create additional structural rules or have some other methodology of preventing people with this kind of anti American worldview from obtaining office?

 Brandon Gill: I think it raises a lot of really important questions. First of all, it's not just these representatives or soon to be representatives in NewSong York. It's that you see the entire Democrat party right now polling has shown that only a minority of Democrats are proud to be an American. And the reality is that if you don't love this country, how can you be expected to govern this country for its own good, to govern it properly? And that's a real question we need to ask ourselves right now of the Democrat Party. And again that's not me impugning their motives, that is from polling data, you know that Democrats have self reported about their own affinity for this country. But going further, you've got these candidates in NewSong York who have, I mean one of them has spoken openly about eradicating Western civilization in the American empire. I mean this stuff is so far out there. How in the world can you trust somebody who is made it publicly said that their goal is to eradicate this country, to govern this country properly. so I think that first of all the goal for us as Republicans should be to beat these people at the ballot box and to win elections. You know, you win the country by winning, to put it simply. but I do think that we need to start, you know, this is kind of a new, a new paradigm for us. I think there are probably are some things that we need to start thinking about structurally in the House. About what how we can protect the country, from people who seek to do it harm.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And you know you've been on the forefront as well, talking about stopping Islamic immigration, importing our demise. I Mean, it's the multifaceted approach of saying, you know, there are threats that. Threats to this country from without and also especially within. And, And so it. It seems like those are the things that need to be, prioritized in Congress and to ensure that, that we stop this before it's too late. And we can see, you know, what's going on in the UK and Europe and elsewhere, as a cautionary tale. And I think we're not too far from that if we continue down this road. But we don't really hear a lot in the news right now about ICE as much as we did Under Secretary Noem. so what's the status of, how Congress is potentially looking at, helping President Trump, you know, stop the illegal immigration? I know he addressed that a little bit in some of his, America 250 kickoff comments last night. but is that still a priority in Congress?

 Brandon Gill: It's certainly still a priority. And, the good news is that from a numbers standpoint, deportations are up, relative to where they were about a year ago. So we're actually continuing, to move in the right direction.

I think that, you know, you mentioned Islamic immigration, and,

I think that, you know, you mentioned Islamic immigration, and, you know, one of the biggest issues I hear from constituents about is the Islamization of Texas. That is something that voters in Texas are really focused on, rightfully. So, the interesting thing about that is that a lot of that is coming from legal immigration. So you've got two different problems here. Illegal immigration we've talked about a lot. We all recognize it's an issue. The president has, done a phenomenal job, of course, of securing the border and deporting people, and that work continues. I think that we have a lot of work to do on the legal immigration front, right now, because that. The idea that we would allow anybody who holds views that are so antithetical to our own to immigrate into the United States is insane. And the reality is, you know, there's a reason that people from all over the Islamic world want to immigrate into America, but very, very few people from America want to immigrate into the Islamic world. And that's because our values, the ideals that we have, and our governing structures far more conducive to human flourishing than anything you'll find in the Islamic world. and I think that our immigration system should recognize that. In other words, I don't think that it makes sense, to allow mass migration from the Islamic world. we have fundamentally different conceptions of core constitutional liberties. And that's something that our immigration system should recognize. I mean, we have very different ideas about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, about the role and dignity of women in public life than those in the Islamic world do. and I think that, you know, in my opinion, Islamic immigration should be banned.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. I completely agree with you. I'm speaking with Congressman Brandon Gill from the great state of Texas, and, you know, the left and, which of course includes anyone who is antithetical to, Western civilization, to the fundamental principles and values of Christianity that this country was founded upon. they are using the liberty and the principles of liberty that this great country provides against us. And I think we can and should reasonably not allow them to say, well, since your country, you know, allows for freedom and, and allows for liberty, then we can come in and use that against you and essentially use your rules against you for your demise. I mean, there has to be, congressional action here on, on legal immigration, illegal immigration, and also the, birthright citizenship issue. And, you know, as everyone is anticipating, the Supreme Court, probably not holding, in the position that would be originalist and best for conservatives. What's the current plan, if there is one in Congress to address that? Because, you know, my. My projection is likely at least the conservative justices will say, you know, this is, the president's action. You know, overreaching can't be done through executive order. It has to come through legislation from Congress. So is there a preparation to have that out as soon as the Supreme Court may issue that kind of opinion?

 Brandon Gill: Well, right. Right now we're waiting to see what. What the Supreme Court says. I think the goal, if they don't rule in our, you know, how we believe it is proper, is to do what we can to actually effectuate change. In other words, I don't want to put forward legislation that we know is not going to have the votes in the Senate, for instance, or even in the House. And I think the things that we can do that will actually protect the American people in the short term is probably pushing for more, in giving the administration the resources they need to keep the border secure, to keep deporting people, and to go after institutions that are facilitating things like birth tourism. That's something that I've spent, some time on in Congress now in the task force that I'm chairing, is we launched an investigation into four different birth tourism companies. I mean, one of them was literally called have My Baby in Miami. and these are businesses that are defrauding, the American people. I mean, this is immigration fraud and they ought to be shut down and prosecuted. And that's the work that we can do in the near term.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And that is smart to have a plan. And it seems like the left immediately, as soon as President Trump issues an executive order, five minutes later they're already in court trying to, to sue for a nationwide, injunction. And it seems like Republicans often are playing catch up or it takes a long time to actually, to get to the point where they're willing to go on the offensive. And it's frustrating because Congress necessarily is a full body that needs, you know, that can't be as nimble and move as quickly. but these types of issues are so incredibly important. And before we run out of time, just in the last few minutes, Congressman Gillen, it's always great to get updates from you. Thank you. We're praying for you and the other members of Congress. you're also part of the, you know, the Sharia Law Caucus to make sure that that is not an ideology that gets a foothold in the American legal system. what's the update there?

 Brandon Gill: Well, the biggest thing I would say about the Sharia Free America Caucus is that it's growing rapidly now. The only, everybody who's in the caucus, and I believe there's about 70 of us now, we're all Republicans, we don't have any Democrats there. But getting 70 Republicans in growing for a caucus like that, including we've got a couple members of leadership in it now, I think is a really, really good sign. And it shows you that at least House Republicans are very aware, of the threat that mass Islamic immigration, has on the United States right now. so things are moving, and they're moving fast.

Jenna Ellis: Good, good. Well, that's a really good thing. And we're really grateful that there are that many people. I mean that's actually surprising, numbers. And hopefully, that continues to grow. And I hope that as we are looking at, you know, this multifaceted problem with these invasive and anti American worldviews coming in through multiple, facets that Congress will address these questions. I think we need to be on our, representatives in Congress and also our members of the Senate to actually care to put American principles and values and true liberty at the fore, to protect American citizens first. And especially as we are, about to celebrate America's 250 to say listen, this is how we create a more perfect union. We have to ensure that Congress is actually does its job. We can't leave it all to President Trump. So, Congressman Gill, thanks so much. You can follow him on X at rep. BRANDON Gill and you can reach me and my team, [email protected].