CHUCK SCHUMER: 'We're Going to Stop Trump'

After socialists run the tables in New York, Chuck Schumer says, we're a united party. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110.

And now your host. Welcome to Sekulow. Will Haynes here, joined in studio by Jordan Sekulow. And this one is kind of a head scratcher, folks, because I remember not too long ago, if you were a conservative. And you warned of socialists or socialist policies that were creeping in from the far left into kind of the mainstream Democrat platform.

You were called a conspiracy theorist. You were mocked, saying, oh, that's so funny. They're afraid of socialists, yada, yada. But what we have now is a real engagement from the DSA, Democrat Socialist of America, using the Democrat Party to get their candidates elected and nominated to these party leaders as they move forward to a general election. It started with Mondami winning the mayor race.

You also had many of them in the squad who were DSA-affiliated, AOC, Corey Bush, those types of members of Congress. But now we're seeing it grow. We're seeing that three in New York were able to unseat establishment long-term congressmen in some cases. And in the primary. This isn't all of a sudden they flip the seat.

They were able to take the power away from their mainstream candidate or the incumbent in many places to win a nomination in a seat where they will pretty easily win in November.

So you'd think that the leadership at least would be cautioning people like, okay, let's not blow this out of proportion. Try to settle people down as they see what's happening within their own party. But that's not what you hear from Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader in the Senate, as he was asked by reporters on Capitol Hill last night about what happened the night before. Let's go ahead and play bite one, how Chuck Schumer sees this. About the candidates who lost their race, it feels like he's going after establishment folks here.

I mean, are you concerned about your own race coming up? Do you still feel like this is the same party that you once elected you 50 years ago? We have a great unified party, and we're gonna stop Trump. Are you worried about your political future now? There we go, Jordan.

We have a great unified party, and we're going to stop Trump. This is coming from the minority leader in the Senate. Obviously, he hopes to take back majority leader. I don't think that's going to happen. But you hear that at the same time, his counterpart on the House side.

They were chanting at some of these rallies, you're next to Hakeem Jeffries. Yes, I mean, this is, again, I don't know what party he's talking about that's United, because we've seen this Democrat socialist movement come in into New York and with the mayor backing these very radical candidates to take on incumbent Democrats who themselves are pretty liberal. I mean, these are not like moderate Democrats. They represent progressive areas of New York City, and yet they were not liberal enough because they don't want all prisons to be closed. They don't think that, you know, everybody should be able to immigrate here.

No immigration laws in the country and defunding the police and, of course, anti-Israel. What we saw with the unifier among a lot of these races was an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish bias.

So even when a Democrat, Dan Goldman, for example, who was on the lead counsel for the first impeachment committee, so we were down there on the floor of the Senate. He, again, was the House's lead counsel. To impeach President Trump in that first impeachment.

So he he gets all that attention. You would say, okay, that's a good way to move into the very left district in New York City, a well-known family. But because he happens to be Jewish, And and a Supporter of Israel, though he's not certainly not the number one supporter. I don't see him like on the front lines necessarily. because of his progressive areas that he represents.

He was too moderate, too Jewish, I would say, to represent the district table. That's right. And we're going to talk about this as we come back from the break. And I've got a kind of a breakdown. It shows obviously the minority leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, trying to save some face here as they are probably really freaking out, trying to figure out how to fix this.

But I'll read some headlines when I get back to you. You're not going to want to miss it. And if you are watching this and this is your first time seeing us, go ahead and subscribe to the channel, give us a thumbs up, and tell us where you're watching from in the chat because it really helps us get the word out to more people. But we'll be right back with more about how the Democrats are handling these losses, as you call it, on Tuesday. Welcome back to Sekulow.

Will Haynes here, joined by Jordan Sekulow in studio as we go through the spin that we're seeing out of the leadership of the Democrat Party as they try to make sense of their new world, their new reality. That after these three socialists win in New York City, and this isn't just for the mayor of New York City, even though that's a big position. These are three members of Congress that will be effectively elected now. There's not going to be much of an opposition in these districts once you win the primary. You've pretty much got your seat.

So we're having three new members of the House that are openly Socialists. As I say, I remember just a few years back: if you were concerned about creeping socialism in this country, you were mocked by the media, mocked by the left. That, oh, that's so funny. You think that socialism, you know, I mean, there was even that famous line of when Mitt Romney was debating Barack Obama and he said something to the effect he thought that Russia was a geopolitical foe. Barack Obama said the 1980s called they want their foreign policy back.

So, just the concern about these types of things made you something to be laughed at not too long ago. But I want to play again to reset. This is what Speaker, not Speaker, I'm sorry, leader Schumer said just yesterday about these wins for the socialist in New York when asked about it on Capitol Hill, bite one. About the candidates who lost their race, it feels like he's going after establishment folks here. I mean, are you concerned about your own race coming up?

Do you still feel like this is the same party that you once elected you 50 years ago? We have a great unified party. and we're gonna stop Trump. Anyway, that's your political future now.

So, right there, you have the minority leader of the Senate saying, We are a unified party.

Well, really? Because here's what some headlines read. This is what his friendly media. The press that normally is propping up everything that people like Chuck Schumer or Hakeem Jeffries say. Here's what they had to say: this is NBC News: a tale of two Democrat parties.

And that's from the political desk, the analysis there in their political desk. Politico, an emboldened hard left, eyes Schumer challenge. Wall Street Journal, Mandami deepens his influence and the divide in the Democrat Party. Then we've got the Atlantic saying New York's warning for Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer. This doesn't sound Jordan.

The the friendly media sees this as rosy as the minority leader Chuck Schumer does. In fact, I mean, the truth is, there's no way you can see this as Rosie if you're Chuck Schumer, because the kind of candidates that were primary were candidates like him. And so they had similar backings. Yes, they had, these were liberals representing progressive areas who went down because of specific things about them that weren't progressive enough. They weren't liberal enough.

They weren't anti-Israel enough. They weren't at pro-Hamas rallies the day after October 7th, as one of these candidates from the Democrat, the Democrat Socialist Party in New York, who took out one of the incumbents was. I mean, they were there the next day on October 8th. In rallies, again, supporting what happened October 7th and denouncing Israel.

So, if you're not that radical, then they're coming for you. And so, it's not like they're coming for Republicans or moderate Democrats. They're coming for what we consider progressive liberal Democrats, who they believe are now outside the mainstream of their own constituents. They're too moderate for the progressive areas, whether it's a district or state that they represent. The only thing that Chuck Schumer and some of these Senate candidates have going for them is that you have a much larger swath of voters than you do in just a congressional district that happens to be in New York City.

And these three districts all, you know, falling very far left. Chuck Schumer's got the benefit of the whole state, and that may save some senators. Who again But we're talking about very liberal leadership of the Democratic Party. We're not talking about the, you know, the one moderate Democrat left here or there. They're not moderates at all, but they are becoming moderates in their own party and they're becoming ineffective leaders in their own party very quickly.

And they're losing to this new younger group, which might appeal to these really progressive districts, Will, but to everyone else, seem just extremist and dangerous, actually.

Well, and really anti-American. Here's what I want to hear from you watching. Call me 1-800-684-3110. As Jordan was even saying, these seem like extremist positions, but we also know. How well oiled of a machine the DNC is.

In that, if more of these candidates won, they've lost their grip on some of these primaries, the DNC, if they then are running as their nominees for office, do you think that this is something that the organization as a whole, the DNC, caves to? And we start to see more of this around the country. I want to hear from you. Do you think that there is a rise of socialism that is already being able to topple the leadership and the stronghold that the DNC has over their nomination process? Because that's one of their prizes at the DNC, is the ability to control which candidates are eventually nominated.

But I want to hear from you about that, 1-800-684-3110. But listen to this bite. This is bite four. This is a supercut of just some of the statements. It's four statements: it's from the three that won, and then the mayor of New York about.

Basically, what their marching orders are, what they are running on, and what they want on. This is after the victory. Take a listen to what they believe in in their own words. Abolish ice. Free Palestine.

Organize your union.

Solidarity is the force that we need to vanquish Trump's fascism, to abolish ICE, and to stand up to the billionaires. In the toolbar to make sure that we abolish ICE. It was not the end of a political movement. It was the beginning. Here's what's so interesting to me as well, Jordan, because you have the mayor of New York, who actually is a very charismatic leader.

You may not agree with a single thing he does, but he's smooth. He is very good, quick on his feet in interviews. He's also very disarming with the opposition, even the way that he and President Trump got along. You could see he is a very savvy individual. And that's obviously why he was able to win elected office of being a nobody in the political world prior to this.

Those other three are not. That's the caution to me. You get a charismatic person that can get out there and really wow people on stage, and maybe they're not listening what they're hearing, but they vote for them. Those other three are the opposite of Mondami in a way, but even more like died in the wool when it comes to the socialist policies. I mean, the fact that you do, they're running on abolish ICE and free Palestine.

Those are two issues. The fact that they are running inside the Democrat Party, so if you're outside of New York City. And you're, you know, let's say Citral somewhere in the Midwest or the Southeast or even on the west coast in many districts. All you'd have to do is take what they said at that rally. After their victories, play those soundbikes and say, This is what's coming to Washington, D.C.

from the Democrat Party.

So, how on earth could you trust voting for anybody? Who is willing to put the same party label next to their name as these individuals? And you just run that because this is not what they're saying behind closed doors. This is what they're campaigning on. And that message has to be made loud and clear to voters across the country because it gets past the savviness.

You hear what they say: abolish ICE, stop deportations, defund the police. The list goes on and on. Take down billionaires, whatever that means, which really means middle-class Americans because there's so many people who work for those billionaires and have created nice upper and middle-class lives for people because usually billionaires employ thousands of people. And so they, of course, skip past that big asterisk there and act like they're the evildoers.

So what you'd go to and you say, All you have to do in a lot of places is play that because you're not having to say, hey, this is what they They're really like behind closed doors. They're saying this publicly because it's popular.

So, for me, I mean, the message is to mainstream Democrats is: can you save your own party? Or is it a sinking ship that is, again, may have some successes in very progressive parts of the country, but you get outside of those progressive areas. And this is scary. This is scary sounding to even a lot of people who would consider themselves a liberal for political purposes.

Well, and I think we should play now. This is a friend of the broadcast, friend of yours, Congressman Moskowitz, Jared Moskowitz from Florida. He is kind of in the Moskowitz-Federman kind of group of the party. I think it's not many left. But let's play bite 14.

This is what the congressman had to say. The DSA has been increasing their power in New York. They got the Democratic Socialists of America. They have a mayor, and he's obviously flexing his power. Thankfully, we live in Florida, and we don't have Democratic socialists like they have in New York.

And that's something that people in New York are going to have to decide whether they want to stay there and deal with those policies or leave.

Well, and to his point, I think South Florida, I think you have a little bit more cushion because of how large the Cuban population is that is against a lot of what these people in New York are saying. The socialist name alone, you'd lose a lot of elections in South Florida just because you putting that term is so it's just enraging to so many people still there who left, had to flee their homes because of socialism. And so you see that embrace of it, and it really does turn them off and turns generations off because they've heard the stories from their parents, from their grandparents, from their great-grandparents. But what Jared was saying there is key too. This is a Democratic Congress.

Saying you Democrats may want to decide not to live in New York anymore because it's not a safe place for mainstream liberal Democrats. We're not talking about outside the norm, we're talking about mainstream liberal Democrats aren't liberal enough for New York anymore. And he actually has a challenger in Florida, Larkin, that is related to DSA. Welcome back to Sekulow. We're going to take a little bit of a detour here to talk about some of the work of the ACLJ.

But don't worry, if you're on hold right now and you're calling about the situation of the victories in New York for the socialists, the way that the leadership is trying to spin it out of New York, here's what we've got. We've got a new brief that we have filed at the Supreme Court. As this case has made its way up, we also filed at the appeal stage of this as well. But this has to do with parental rights. It has to do with protecting children.

And it is really a unique angle that the ACLJ, as well as ACLJ action in some of these cases as well, are starting to wade into because of all the questions that are coming up in courts now about parental rights and protecting children in the tech world. We talked a few weeks ago about the way we're trying to work with Roblox to try and get to the bottom of how a game within the game was able to get platformed on there that reenacted Sandy Hook, and that was where people could participate in that.

So that's just one angle because we're trying to say, hey, look. work with us. We're conservatives. We can work and make things safer for children without having to get to legislation. But sometimes there is legislation that's needed.

And that's what's happening here. In Texas, they had a Senate bill twenty four twenty that was called the Texas App Store Accountability Act. And Jordan, this was really a parental rights and type of bill that helped parents know that they could safely Let their children participate in the online economy, but in a way that made sure that they still retain control as well as oversight into what their kids are involved in. It requires, and again, this is all new.

So, even these requirements, we all acknowledge it's not going to be perfect, but we need to start working on it.

So, we've done that at the ACLJ. We've testified on it at the federal level, at state levels, and of course, we've been involved in the court cases like in Texas. This case at the U.S. Supreme Court is because the Fifth Circuit said we don't have to stay this law while we are looking at it, whether it's constitutional, whether it violates other federal laws or not, that this law can go into force. And then we've had this appeal from the groups that oppose our position.

They've said, no, they want the Supreme Court to put an emergency stay in so that the law out of Texas cannot go into force in Texas. This is what the law requires: app stores to verify a user's age through commercially reasonable methods. That means you don't need to go spend trillions of dollars, it has to be commercially reasonable. We're not trying to put a tax. On app stores, we're trying to say make them safer.

Classify accounts as adult. Or minor accounts. Again, this will put more power into the hands of parents. And some of this will take parental responsibility. You, as a parent, will have to take some of this on yourself by making sure that you're signed up the right way.

So if you signed up as a minors account for your child, obtain parental consent. You've seen that already with many apps do this already. And applications, if you have a child that tries to purchase something through the app, you will get a notice yourself and you can actually accept it or deny it, but you sign up for that. It's technology we know that already does work. And then, of course, getting parental consent before there's any purchases.

We were just talking about that. Many apps have already got this in place. But the industry itself, what they try to say, Will, is that there's no way to do this without violating privacy rights. And then we've, you know, how are we going to verify minors and all this and that? And I think this is where it goes to the parental.

It really starts with parents taking control. And so while the apps have to have these available these actions available the parents are going to have to turn them on right the parents are going to have to be the monitors honestly if you're going to give the kids these apps and you're not going to monitor it all these laws aren't going to do much protection for you what where they're going to work is for the parent who says as i'm setting up this new technology technology for my for my kid they're this age i'm going to put this level of restriction on and the apps are going to be and these app stores are going to make it a lot easier and clearer for you to do that well and here's i think so it's not app by app right now that's the issue you have to go app by app instead of the app store in general doing that for you and one of the reasons it's also important to get ahead of this uh on the on the front side of it Is when you start to one, this is right now kind of being fought on a First Amendment type free speech, freedom of commerce in some ways. kind of issue. They're trying to say like and privacy rights. Like so several different traditional constitutional issues that are being brought up here.

And obviously, you're having companies and even app makers that would be opposed to this. You you wonder why Places like Amazon have a one-click to purchase, the less friction to revenue for a company they're going to want.

So, any sort of barrier to purchase, it may not be nefarious, their opposition to this. It's just that, hey, we want to run our business the easiest way, the most profitable way. But I think even this, getting on the front end of it. Taking it on as a parental rights issue is something that ACLJ historically has done across the board when it comes to situations like this, where the state or outsiders are trying to exert more authority or control over your child than you, the parent. But I think the other thing here.

That it would be smart For app makers, for big tech companies to get ahead of and maybe support common sense things like this instead of fighting it in court. The more and more we see studies that come out of how Technology and games and even algorithms affect the brain when it comes to even things like dopamine and the way that they can, in and of themselves, be addictive. Right. I think they're going to lose those battles more and more the longer we get down the road because the government already regulates. Tobacco products, regulates alcohol, other addictive chemicals.

If you were to start to look at it under that vein, which I know the tech companies don't want it to be looked at, it could be much worse for them.

So it's important, even at this level. Just start working through this. Common sense. Let parents have some authority in their family lives to be able to regulate internally these type things. It doesn't have to be the government regulating if you allow the parents to do it.

And that's, in one sense, what we're asking for here. As many as we see our economies, I mean, you can't deny it. These apps and this technology is going to be used more and more in the classroom. It's going to be more and more part of young people's lives, whether you like that or not. That is kind of clear now.

And so their ability to utilize this technology is going to be part of their ability to then prosper in this new economy that they're going to be entering, which is hard to even imagine what it could be like for some of the kids that we're talking about that this would apply to, because these are, we're talking about usually under 16 years old for this to apply to. And again, puts the onus on parents as well as these app stores. As you said, Will, it's really unfortunate. Unfortunately, it's about money. This is about, like you said, getting the easy click to download.

They don't really care about whether it's good content or content the kids shouldn't be getting. It's easy purchases versus one more step. And then they'll try to argue then, what are we going to do with privacy? Unfortunately, when we get to the courts on these, which is where they end up, but when we get to the courts on these, it's not where you necessarily always want to end up when it comes to technology. And so what I hope the courts just do here is just say, let the law do what Texas Fifth Circuit did with our brief is let the law go into force.

And you'll see that this can work. And it's not going to be a great, a great, this ominous hanging over the industry that runs the app stores. And that it's going to be one of the tools parents can use to keep their kids protected online. That's right. And folks, when you support the ACLJ, you support things like this very brief that we just filed at the U.S.

Supreme Court.

So, you're supporting that work. You're also supporting, as we talked about multiple times this week, as we stand up for that middle school girl. Who was forced multiple times by her school to violate her faith?

So, when you stand with the ACLJ, you're standing with families across the country. You are helping make this country safer and better for the American family. Support us today at ACLJ.org. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow.

And now your host Logan, secular. Logan's not here today, but Will is. Thanks. I'm going to blame that one on Tim. Appreciate you, buddy.

But I'm here, and Jordan is joining me in the studio as well as we're talking about the socialist wave that happened in New York this week, as well as the way that their leadership are dealing with it. And we're going to take phone calls about that as well. We have Rick Rennell coming up in the next segment. But I did want to get to this one. This is a call from Lori in Maine online one.

She is an ACLJ champion.

So by Logan's rules, you get to go first, Lori. But a little bit off topic, but I think it's an important thing to bring up. Lori, you're on Sekulow. Will, thank you so much. And I just want to thank you guys for all that you do for freedom, for life, and for truth.

You got President Trump back on the ballot here in Maine and really appreciate it. to kind of answer your question and then I'll go into my call. The Democrats, I think, will get in line with anything to have power after what I saw with that banana republic. Of last Term.

So that's my opinion. Right. I'm sitting here in Maine looking at Susan Collins voting against the SAVE Act, voting for the Iranian War Power Act with the Democrats. And I'm these are major impactful issues, and I'm wondering if you guys can help me. What can I do?

Well, Lori, I mean, in November, you have a choice, right? You have Susan Collins or you have Graham Plattner. I don't want to speak for you. I don't know where you're going to land on that one, but I have a feeling, I have an idea it's not with the person trying to unseat Susan Collins. But that can be frustrating, Jordan, because we've seen.

Especially when you're in states where you still have the remnants of these Republican holdouts who are really, they're not the norm anymore. They used to be a lot more of the Susan Collins type Republicans. But what you'll see, and I think this is just politics, Will. Is that when it comes down to the Republican Party and maintaining leadership within the Senate, is you're going to see a lot of Republicans who don't agree with Susan Collins on a lot of issues, but they're going to say, hey, for us to keep the majority here, it's either we go with Susan Collins, we don't really have another option. We have not gone forward with another option that could win.

And so you kind of have to do the numbers game. And I know, again, politics is not always a choice between someone who's perfect and someone who's horrible.

Sometimes it's a choice between who is more in line with me than the other person. And it may be someone who is only 70% there with you. That's not ideal. I think it's better where you can find someone who's close to 90 plus percent with you. And that's a pretty good find if you can get there politically with all the different issues.

But again, because of the politics of Maine and the politics of the U.S. Senate, I think that what we have to ask a lot of Maine voters to do is kind of hold their nose a little bit and think big picture, what does my vote do to the The makeup of the U.S. Senate. Right. And once again, we had actually Rick Renell talked about Susan Collins last week, I believe.

It was after Graham Plattner actually won the nomination for the Democrats. And Rick had kind of a take that you don't hear very often in kind of the mainstream discourse is that. People like Susan Collins, unfortunately, if it's not everything you want as a citizen of Maine, Laurie. Is the type of Republican that makes the Republican Party unique and special? Yes.

Is because it isn't like the DNC that says top-down, here is every single thing you believe.

Now, Sometimes that's what makes it frustrating for a voter. Because if you want a, here are your principles as a conservative, and someone that would closely align with the party that you would vote for doesn't line up 100%, it gets frustrating. But Democrats are able to do that. The scary thing. Is that As more of these socialists take over, That top-down messaging.

It's not like they're holding to any principles, they're holding to what's going to get them more power, as we had someone say earlier. And I think that is where you're going to start to see. No variation. And they're going to try to push people like John Fetterman out of the party because he is a more. Susan Collins for the Democrats type of senator.

So it's interesting. Maine also is a very interesting state with a lot of libertarians and a lot of freedom-minded people that sometimes aren't as engaged in the process. But we'll keep you updated on all of this as we keep going forward. We're joined by Rick Rinnell in the next segment.

So don't go away. You don't want to miss that. And if you can, support the work of the ACLJ at aclj.org. Welcome back to Sekulow. Will Haynes here, Jordan Sekulow in studio, and we're joined now by Rick Grinnell.

Rick, we've had you on. This is the third time this week about three very different topics. And that's what I love about having you on: we can kind of run the gamut with you, and you're going to give really good insight for all of our viewers. But when we see what happened yesterday, one, it was remarkable to me to watch because you had the Secretary General of NATO in the Oval Office with the President. In what I would only describe as the type of thing you imagine happens in the closed door meeting afterwards.

Normally, the press in there for the Oval Office by the fireplace is when they're all like, we're in lockstep. We're really good. We're going to go in there. Any other issues, we'll discuss inside. But having real-time pushback between the President and the Secretary General was remarkable to me to watch live on television.

Look, it doesn't surprise me. I've been in all these public meetings and private meetings, and with President Trump, they're exactly the same. But you're right, with other politicians, they're not. President Trump recognizes that a lot of people will say something publicly. and then do something else privately.

And what he wants to do is get them to the answer and make them commit publicly. And so he always uses these instances to really help the American people. He's going to push NATO. He's going to say, well, you got to spend more. You've said that you were going to spend more and you haven't.

Look, one of the things that's so frustrating about the NATO issue. Is that we Americans have tried a whole bunch of different angles? We've had George H.W. Bush. And George W.

Bush and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and Joe Biden and Donald Trump all try different types of styles to get the Europeans and others to pay more into NATO. The facts are the Americans pay way more into NATO and the other members of NATO love it. They love the protection that we give them. They were in this big boy alliance and they feel emboldened because they have this commitment from the United States to protect them. And we all know, Americans, that the members of NATO need to pay more.

And we've tried the real nice approach. We've had Barack Obama really go to Berlin and have millions of people in an audience and him talk about the importance of this great alliance and how great Germany is. And he has really tried the nice angle. George W. Bush tried the nice angle.

We've had all of that. But the simple fact is, the only angle that works is when you are really aggressive, you threaten to pull out and you start to pull out of certain areas, and then the Europeans get that message. The Europeans teach us constantly that the only thing that works is high, big pressure.

So any President that comes after Donald Trump that doesn't use that high pressure is literally being duped in this relationship.

So I like to see it. I like to see the President push hard because he's fighting for the American people and our tax dollars.

Well, I also think you saw the Secretary General in kind of a between a rock and a hard place there because he was acknowledging more and agreeing more with the President in that meeting than I see kind of typically in that sense. And he was critical of many of the NATO partners, especially in Western Europe. But there even was that one moment that made me laugh. And I'm like, I got to ask Rick about this is when. President Trump was calling out, you know, said Spain is a horror show, which I thought was a hilarious line for many reasons.

But then he was calling out even Germany.

Now, Germany has been. Doing more, has been spending more than historically they have, but they're still well, they're at half of what their commitment is at that 5%. And even seeing the Secretary General try to spin that like, oh, but But they're spending X amount and gives the dollar figure and says, and that's a lot of money. It's like, it doesn't matter what the dollar figure is. If you've got a great economy and all of a sudden you're spending more, but you're still not meeting your percentage commitment, you're not living up to your agreement.

So just that moment in and of itself, and seeing kind of that. Germany almost being the leader of Western Europe, in a sense, when it comes to defense spending and the economy for sure. I wanted to get your take on that kind of moment as well.

Well, look, I think most members of NATO, and I would say most every single member of the European Union, knows that the German Verbal commitment is always different than the actual commitment. And Germany talks a big game about helping others within the EU or within NATO and seldom delivers. They like to spin a lot of what they're trying to do, but the German economy is the largest economy in all of Europe. And so they do have a responsibility to do more. I think you can't go too far without talking about Mertz, Friedrich Mertz, the leader of Germany right now.

I think he's in a disastrous situation. I think he's going to go the same way as Keir Starmer. The Conservative Party is very angry that Mertz is. showing that he's duplicitous. He says one thing and does another.

He doesn't follow through on his commitments. He appears to be very weak. I think Germany is going to experience an implosion of their government sometime soon. We have obviously this was kind of a precursor as the Secretary General came to meet with President Trump to what is a high-level meeting that is at the beginning of July. After our celebration of the 4th of July, we have some more, a NATO summit coming up.

What do we expect kind of to be the focus of that other than obviously the spending issue? And what should our audience be kind of watching for and looking out for in the news as that comes up?

Okay. Look, I think we've constantly had this funding issue with NATO, but we've also had the issue of trying to prioritize what NATO is and where they should be spending its money. You know, the perfect example is the cyber attacks that are coming from non-state actors. This has become a NATO issue. And so we've got to figure out what are the NATO capabilities, what can they do, and what are the priorities to kind of go after these problems that the NATO alliance members are experiencing.

And it's not just traditional military anymore. It is technology driven. And so we've been once again at NATO talking about those issues for a long time, but we don't see as much action.

So I think in this next one, you're going to see a real push to understand technology, to utilize technology more and to concentrate on some of these cyber attacks as member states of NATO have been experiencing. Final question for you. Interestingly enough, the 2026 NATO summit on July 7th and 8th. Is in Ankara, Turkey. Our NATO ally, obviously, who has been very critical of their NATO ally, the United States, during the Iranian conflict that we've had going on.

Do you think i i everything is smooth sailing as the summit, that the Turks as they're hosting this summit try to make it look like they are running it w very well? Or do you think a lot of this friction between the United States and Turkey bubbles up as they host this NATO summit?

Well, I would probably be able to answer this better after the FIFA game tonight in Los Angeles than I'm going to, because I'll see a lot of the Turkish officials. But look, let me just say that Turkey's been a member of NATO since 1952. It's the second best military in NATO. If you ask anyone in Brussels, they will tell you that the Turkish team of diplomats at NATO are extremely professional. I think the Turks have demonstrated that they know how to push an agenda and they know how to organize.

I think the NATO meeting will be run without a flaw. I reject all this idea that we got to push out Turkey out of NATO. They serve such an incredible, important role. President Trump and Erdogan have a good relationship. I think he recognizes his limitations, but they have a good relationship.

And let's be honest about one thing: Erdogan helps us with. With Putin, he's considered to be a Putin whisperer. Rick, I think that under normal circumstances, the U.S. men's team may rest a little bit. They've already secured their place in the knockout round, but.

Maybe the President's calling him like, listen, don't give Turkey anything else before this summit. We'll see what happens. Enjoy that match tonight, Rick, and we'll talk to you soon. I appreciate you joining us today. Jordan, it's a lot to unpack there, but that is one of the also the remarkable things about this broadcast that You're not getting when you turn on even your favorite news channel.

No, you're able to get that kind of analysis from someone who has been there, has been the ambassador to Germany, has had to deal with all these NATO issues, and able to break it down for our audience of even what to look for. It's not merely talking heads on talking points. This is, again, these are people who have lived it their whole life, who have been experts in these different areas, and we're able to bring it to you, whether it's the legal, whether it's the political, whether it's the diplomatic world and the negotiating world, the world, the law of war. I mean, all of that combined, we're able to bring it to you every day on Sekulow and analyze it with what's going on in the world in real time.

So when you support the work of the ACLJ, it is things like filing that Brief at the Supreme Court. We have other pending cases at the Supreme Court right now. We are standing up for that middle school girl in Washington State, and we can't do any of that without your support. Go to aclj.org today and give a donation if you can. We appreciate it.

We'll be right back with your phone calls here on Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow, final segment of the broadcast. Jordan, let's get to some phone calls. Let's go ahead and go to Karen from North Carolina on line three. Karen, you're on Sekulow.

Hi, thank you for taking my call. My question is, Why would The socialists from New York be sworn into Congress when they don't support the the U.S. Constitution. One woman said she ran out of napkin, so she wiped her hands on the U.S. flag.

Right. It's disgusting. It is disgusting. Yeah, I think for one is you just we need to talk about all those things, right? That needs to be known.

But number two is that the Constitution that they're taking an oath on, they're going to say that they view it in a totally different way that you do, and that it's not unpatriotic to see it their way, that it can be read this way to them. The truth is, by the time that they're already taking that oath, we've lost, right? And listen, I'm not always saying that, you know, in some of the most progressive districts in the country, it's not really up to conservative Republicans or conservative activists to kind of hold what is kind of the norms. For America, that we would hope for that we could agree on, like not using the American flag to wash your napkin because I ran out of paper, I ran out of napkins. And so, again, that would have been something that you could not get away with saying and make and become the nominee in either party.

But things have changed.

So, I think our job is to point it out to the leaders of those parties and say, how can you? Be a part of this party anymore? How are you comfortable with this group coming in saying this about the United States flag, saying this about our Constitution, saying this about police, saying this about the other side? I mean, casting the other side not just as someone they vigorously disagree with. On policy, but they actually believe are evil or supporting actions like what happened on October 7th and supporting Hamas, taking, you know, going out into the streets and burning Israeli flags or burning the U.S.

flag. Those are those questions. It didn't have to be like Republican versus Democrat. And it shouldn't have to be that either. It's kind of like Americans say, you know what, no, we're not going to have this as part of our political system.

I think this is what. Democrats are facing now. And listen, we know as Republicans, it's simmering in our own side. Not to the point so much of elected officials. We saw the massey kind of issue.

Once President Trump came out and said, this is not someone who's with us on the issues. The people in Kentucky said, okay, you know what? We're not going to put somebody in place who's not with the President that we overwhelmingly chose. But so the Republican Party's been a little more proactive in trying to prevent mass takeovers. What you are seeing on the left.

Is maybe a party that doesn't have a lot of options when it gets to district races. Statewide, I think Democrats should still be able to keep some of these radicals out. But then you see a Fennerman gets through and they can't stand it because he differs with them on Israel, just on Israel. Right. Let's go ahead and take Ann from Pennsylvania.

Once again, very similar theme that we're talking about here. Ann, you're on Sekulow. Hey guys, great commentary as usual. You know, I do have a question.

So concerning the subject of Mandami and the rise of socialism and such. For us. You know, this culmination has been brewing for generations, the socialist agenda. The rise and the socialist and TDS is at its extremist because of the building up of this philosophy. But now they're very arrogant.

I have to say, this is so important. They're very extremely arrogant and confident and outspoken about their beliefs. They tell us what they're going to do. Mandami is. is an example of the culmination of this last.

I'm sixty five years old. I have been dealing with this for decades.

So now my question is, because this goes way beyond the point of high property taxes and gas prices, this is a question of When are we and put really in quotations? When are we really going to start believing them? Right. Well, and this is exactly. I mean, earlier in the week, I talked about the importance of getting back to the basics and fundamentals and encouraging people.

We're celebrating 250, just break out the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and read them again. Is that I feel like even those of us that are so supportive of our foundational documents. you know, read them, read, get back into it, because Uh we you're right. We've been talking about the incursion into academia of the socialism and these ideals for so long. And to some degree, we'll be like, ah, that's just the college professors, those crazy college professors.

Those crazy college professors is what's happening.

So the crazy college professors' students are now getting elected.

So they may have been the outliers who were educating. And I'm talking generationally. And they were kind of, you know, they missed their prime in running for office. But their students and the students of their students are now running for office. They don't see these words as fundamentally anti-American.

So in the past, the word socialist, like we were talking about the voters in South Florida, so many who have left Latin American countries that embrace socialism, Cuba being one that's the greatest example, but many countries who went left and people fled and ended up at South Florida. This idea that socialism was antithetical to the American idea. And that that's why even on some policies, Democrats on the left who learned. Like the kind of bigger government, we're very careful not to look like their policies were socialist in nature. Always kind of tried to downplay those assertions by the right.

And what we said is kind of creeping socialism. You allow a little bit of government, a little bit bigger, people get used to government paying for this, people get used to government paying for that. And then suddenly it's much harder to reform a system when you've been giving it to people for free, even if what you're giving is not as good as what you could get in a free market. If people think it's somehow free, which it never really is, but if they think it is free, they're going to say, oh, that's better than me having to pay for it, or those big companies that are trying to take away, you know, they're hurting our jobs and hurting our communities. But this is not creeping socialism anymore.

This is socialist. proudly coming into mainstream political races. Mostly on the side of the left, on the Democrat races, and taking on multi-termed members of Congress and winning because their message is more radical. That's right. Let's go ahead and go to James in South Carolina on line two.

James, you're on Sekulow. Thanks for taking my call and for all the work you guys do. Thank you. Go ahead. And I would agree with, well, every call I've heard, including the first one from the young lady from Maine.

I don't know how much this changes because if you listen to the people, they're a little more radical on Israel. But The Democr Crap party as it is now doesn't want borders, they don't want to enforce the law, they don't want to. It seems to me that they're un-American. Right, James. I mean, it's kind of what they say online.

They're saying the quiet part out loud now. Yes. You're right. A lot of this has been what they have been fighting for, but they've been saying, no, no, don't call it socialism. Don't call it socialism.

Now they're just having people that are actually being honest, which is. Not what you want, but also refreshing. They're at least not lying about it. It's like the Biden team saying, Well, we had to deport more illegal immigrants than President Trump. That's because President Trump closed the borders.

Right. You know, so like the reason why is you opened the borders up.

So, yeah, there were a lot more people who were fleeing in.

So you could kind of pick and choose when you wanted to put your enforcement numbers up because any day you could go down and say, okay, today we're going to arrest 3,000 people. Tomorrow, though, we're going to allow 10,000 in.

So it was a political game, and we always said that was never really about the people. It was a political game. And so they would always try to use the numbers and say, look, when you actually close your borders, you're not deporting as many people. Right, because we close the borders so strongly to illegal immigration, yet we're still having to fight that out in court every single day, the executive power to protect the borders of the United States. You get some wins, you get some losses.

Here's the truth, though, as Will said: they are saying the quiet part out loud. They're having it tattooed on them. They are, and literally, folks, and they are not backing down. And it's not to say that that's where the norm is in America today. But I mean think about a Mondami even.

two two or three election cycles ago. you would have never considered as a serious candidate. They're now the mayor of the largest city in the United States and made the kingmaker for their party. And they just unseated three incumbent House Democrats in New York City who are considered very liberal by even more extreme liberals and upstarts who all embrace socialism. And we will be back with more of this great analysis tomorrow on Sekulow and support the work of the ACLJ.