BREAKING: DOJ to Appeal Abortion Pill Case to Supreme Court

This is Jay Sekulow breaking news.

The Department of Justice takes the abortion pill case to the Supreme Court. 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, Jay Sekulow. Well, literally two minutes before we came on the air live, we have our program set up and we are going to get into an issue involving the military and the censoring of chaplains at the Walter Reed Naval Hospital. I mean, it's an incredible situation. However, as we were getting ready to come into the studio literally about, Logan, two minutes ago? Yeah, I mean, less than five, I'd say that.

Okay, less than five. We found out that the Department of Justice is going to take to the Supreme Court of the United States the cases involving the courts that have held that the abortion pill could not be administered after the 10-week period because of the decision violating the Administrative Procedures Act. It's complicated, but it's going to be a major now Supreme Court case on abortion and it's moving very quickly and there's a lot of issues. Cece, you've gone through the orders. Let's get everybody familiar with exactly what is going on here.

Sure. So the drug Mifepristone is used, over probably 50% of abortions are done medically with medication and Mifepristone is the drug that actually terminates the baby's life and then there's Misoprostol that actually then expels the baby. And so Mifepristone is the drug that this case involves and it was approved. That drug has been out for 23 years.

Yeah, over 20 years, that's correct. So what prompted, for those that don't know, what prompted this to become all of a sudden 23 years later a Supreme, well now a Supreme Court case? I think it's because the FDA and the Biden administration has been dropping all the restrictions on Mifepristone. Medical safeguards as they're called. Medical safeguards, yeah. Because even the FDA recognized that there are risks with this drug.

Very harmful risks. And so it needs to be under the supervision of doctors and so they moved it from 7 weeks to 10 weeks. It used to be 7 weeks or under, now it's 10 weeks.

Now you can get it by mail. So I think because it's getting so liberal with its prescription, that's what caused this case to be brought. And then the Fifth Circuit Court just said, okay let's go back to the original FDA approval, but it's 7 weeks and it can't be by mail. And so it kept, it kind of got rid of the district judge's ruling but also kept some of the district judge's ruling in that it is not saying that the way that the FDA allows Mifepristone right now, 10 weeks and by mail, is correct. So Logan, we don't know yet because they have said they are going to file a petition for, they'll probably file a motion for a stay and in the alternative a motion for a, or a petition for certiorari. That's normally how they're done. We've done a lot of Supreme Court practice. What we don't know, they haven't filed it, I mean as of, as we're live right now, by the, if you're hearing this tape delayed, they probably have filed it by then. Because they said they're going to go do it today. So this is going to move very quickly in the courts.

I'm talking about days here, not months. Yeah, we had a question come in from Rumble, I think you can answer this before we go to break, and that was from Roy who asked, is this a sneaky way to just go around the striking down of Roe? Well no, this is, but that's a really good question, no, but this is what the nature of these battles are going to be.

And you see how quick they're moving? So because of the decision in Dobbs to overturn Roe, the season I talked about this yesterday, these abortion groups are really motivated and I would say agitated. And that's why they were able to move on this so quickly. Right, all the pro-abortion groups always, they're prepared and they have a long-term plan. And so they have this in the works and they're going to fight for abortion in states that they think are, you know, pro-abortion and they're also going to fight for the medication abortions.

And that includes the Mifepristone. Yeah, to them it's, look, it's another abortion procedure. It's not as financially gratifying, I hate to even use that word, to Planned Parenthood as the actual procedure itself. But these cases now are poised. We're going to get into the details on that. If you have questions, ACLJ.org, if you've got any legal questions, but if you want to call us, 800-684-3110. I do need to say this, we have filed in the lower courts on these cases.

So depending on how this moves, I may just order our team or ask our team, have our team, I shouldn't say order, have the team prepare a brief to the Supreme Court. I think we'll do that now actually during this break. Okay, we'll do that. If you have a question or comment, give us a call at 800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are going to take your calls at 1-800-684-3110. We know a lot of you are just joining us right now, so we want to go over a bit of the breaking news that's happened.

So yeah, let's start from the top here. So the Department of Justice has just announced, Merrick Garland actually, I will read it. The Justice Department today issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick Garland following the Fifth Circuit Appeals decision, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, an alliance for Hippocratic Medicine versus FDA. That is the abortion pill case.

It's one of them, there's two. The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Fifth Circuit decision, an alliance for Hippocratic Medicine versus the FDA to deny in part our request for a stay pending appeal. We will be seeking emergency relief from the Supreme Court to defend the FDA's scientific judgment and protect Americans' access to safe and effective reproductive care. That's from the Department of Justice, from the Attorney General. So the Fifth Circuit ruled in the case, and it was not a complete victory for the pro-life side either, by the way, but it did not give the Department of Justice the stretch of what they want in these abortion-oriented regulations.

So, Cece, let's set up again for those that are just, if you have questions, call us at 1-800-684-3110. Set up again what the Fifth Circuit did in this case, and then we'll dissect it from there. Sure, so Mifepristone is one of two drugs that's used for medication abortions or chemical abortions. It's the first drug that's taken that actually kills the baby. And so there are a lot of safety risks that go along with this drug, and that's what brought this case around in the first place, is that the FDA… One of the big questions though, Cece, and people are asking this, is this case, this medicine's been around for 23 years. Right, and the way that the FDA approved it originally was with a lot of oversight by doctors, only up to seven weeks, not by mail. But even then, even when they did that approval, they ignored a lot of the safety issues that came up in the testing.

And so this drug has been kind of under attack from the pro-life side really this whole entire time. I think because the Biden administration has been more liberal with the way that this drug is being prescribed, now saying you can be pregnant up to 10 weeks and you can also get it by mail, that's what has pushed this lawsuit to say you're missing all these safety risks and it's being approved and it shouldn't be. And so what the Fifth Circuit did was the underlying district court had said, yeah, the FDA messed up, we're pulling the drug off or putting a hold on the drug. That's not what the Fifth Circuit said. The Fifth Circuit said we're going back to the original FDA ruling, which allows it up to seven weeks and does not allow it by mail. And here's the question, was that enough for the Department of Justice?

And the answer is no, which shows you how pro-abortion this Department of Justice is. They want it by mail, which was not in the original regs. They want it to go up until 10 weeks, not in the regs. And so when you look at the situation, what they're asking for, they're asking more than the original regs allowed. And I think this is important, Logan, for people to understand, it sounds very technical, the Administrative Procedures Act, but there are rules and regulations that come into existence that affect everybody. I mean, the rules and regs basically are bigger than the laws, but you've got to follow procedures to put those in place.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not do that. And by the way, it's run by Becerra, Secretary Becerra, who is the most pro-abortion cabinet member in U.S. history, who we went to the Supreme Court and beat when he tried to regulate out crisis pregnancy centers or pregnancy resource centers. Yeah, we've heard that over the last year, especially from Becerra, and it's been one of those topics that keeps coming up. It seems like that this is an issue that we knew when Dobbs was overturned, like we said, a lot of people said, well, fight's over, packing my bags, going home, Rose overturned, great, we knew that wasn't exactly how it was going to play out and actually could get worse in some ways. Well, I would say more complex and more intense, but here's one, this is the good thing about Dobbs, it removes this badge of constitutional protection that didn't exist in the Constitution itself, but it removes this ability to hold this over the head of any pro-life legislation.

The problem now is you've got to be very strategic. During the break, I just talked to a couple of our lawyers and said, hey, this thing's moving to the Supreme Court today, depending on what they file, we need to be prepared to take, we've already filed in these cases going up, we need to be prepared for the next step, but this is the nature of the abortion fight now, folks, it is really complex, it is very serious, and the removal of the safeguards here is to increase the number of abortions, plain and simple. Right, abortion distortion is still alive and well, and we can see it in the FDA. You know, we have a blog up on our website, which is a good explanation of kind of where this case has gone and where it's going, and what's amazing is the FDA, when they were approving this drug, literally said they did not want to hear any kind of reports from any doctor of any harms that happened unless it was death. So if there was someone who had, you know, they didn't want to hear any kind of harm, so they literally stopped any reporting of any harmful effects of this drug unless the person died. And then the FDA relied on the fact, hey, look, this drug is great because we've not had any harms, but they created that themselves because they didn't let anybody report those. So it's abortion distortion really at its finest how the FDA approved this drug in the first place. But, you know, the reality is that they still can't, they can't take even, if it's not 100% what they want on every factor, this administration is so pro-abortion, they will, of course, but Kara is. Logan, you want to play that bite? Yeah, we have a bite.

This just is from Sunday. This is after the district ruling, so let's take a listen. This is on Dana Bash. Are you taking it off the table that you will recommend the FDA ignore a ban? Everything is on the table. The President said that way back when the Dobbs decision came out.

Every option is on the table. Talk about abortion distortion. Let me tell you what the context of that question was. And that was Congresswoman Cortez and some others said, you know what the FDA should do? Ignore the court's decision. Not like appeal it, which they have the right to do that, sure.

Ignore it. They're not right. So could you imagine, we have opinions now that Supreme Court issues, we don't like them, we just ignore them. That's what they're saying. Yeah, and you have Secretary Becerra actually kind of saying, well, everything is on the table.

Everything is on the table. Well, if that's the case, then that's true for every law and then you're opening up a door you do not want to. I think the problem here, I mean, I think this is, and it points to how we have to be very nimble in our litigation strategy. So there's another issue looming out on this thing, and that is, did this medical group have standing to bring this case?

Yeah. You know, if the Supreme Court looks for a way out, trust me, that will be the way out. Oh, there's no standing here. We're not going to decide it. And back it goes.

On the other hand, I think you could argue that there is standing. So it's, but these are going to be the issues and they're very technical, but we've got to be engaged in these. Well, they'll absolutely be arguing everything that they can, because like you said, the Biden administration is 100% pro-abortion and they don't want to accept seven weeks and, you know, doctor's review and it can't be by mail. They don't want that. They want it to be as broad and liberal as it can, and they would kick it even further than the 10 weeks and by mail if they could. I guarantee you, because we've seen the administration.

I'm sure they'll try if they continue to control it. These agencies, they, listen, they love these, these agencies love this and the leaders of these agencies are the most pro-abortion cabinet members in U.S. history. Let's not make any mistake about it. Let's take a call. Let's go to Pat in Texas online. Why, Pat, you're on the air. Hi, Pat.

Thank you all so much for taking my call. So basically, if you take the money away from this whole situation, from the administration and the abortion industry, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now. The abortion industry is, pardon the pun, is making a killing off of United States, well, people in general, and I just, it just infuriates me that this administration will allow this to happen and they're just like, it's okay, because they're getting kickbacks, they're getting money.

I know they get kickbacks. This isn't, first of all, it's a global business, Pat. This is a global business. Planned Parenthood, these groups, this is a global enterprise. Abortion is their business. They worship at the altar of abortion. This is who they are. What's happened post-Dobbs is a lot of states took a pro-life position.

We said Dobbs returns it to the states. A number of states have taken a pro-life position. Others have not. I'm speaking tonight at the West Virginians for Life event and, you know, another example of they're having to deal with very complex state law matters now. So all of this is present, but these groups are committed, trust me on this, they are, Logan, have you seen this for your entire life? They are unbelievably committed to their cause, these pro-abortion groups.

Yeah, exactly. This is one of the, when they kind of come out swinging is when these things, moments happen, they've kind of been waiting in some ways for Roe to be overturned. Because now, much like we were on the other side, you know, you're waiting for this moment and hoping it will happen, but then when it does happen, you'd figure out how to kind of re-motivate your base.

They don't have to right now. We saw that in the midterms. We can be honest about it and say we saw that in the midterms. We saw them be able to get the message out there and we saw a lot of what was supposed to be the red wave get crushed pretty quickly. Will, will you have someone during the break send, get me, print off the Dobbs opinion because there's a couple lines in there I want to read.

This is really important, folks. So now it's at the Supreme Court on an emergency stay. They are going to ask for a, looks like a request for stay pending appeal.

Now it'd either be a stay pending full review at the Fifth Circuit because this was an interim ruling or they could say stay and a petition for certiorari. Yeah, a lot of people have comments about the FDA, a lot about big pharma in general and how this plays into that. Maybe we get into that in the next segment. So a lot of you have questions about that.

It's not even necessarily all related to the life issue. It's more related to sort of the strong hold of the pharmaceutical industry. Well, listen, I mean, they've been put in a very unusual spot here because they're somewhat like Walgreens is not carrying the drug. Others are.

Yeah, they don't like that. And it's business. It's business for all these companies. All right, we'll take your calls when we come back from the break. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 800-684-3110. Good reason to support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice. Quick trip up to the Supreme Court.

ACLJ.org. We're in a matching challenge. Back with more in a moment. Welcome back to Secula. We're going to take your calls on 1-800-684-3110. A lot of you have questions or comments related to the main topic of the show that we just started with, with the DOJ getting the abortion pill case to the Supreme Court.

So that's coming. But we do have other things to talk about. We want to make sure because that happened right before we went on air.

We had some other topics prepped and they're pretty important topics as well. They sure are because this is a big one on religious freedom. Again, the administration is going to tell you where they are.

So can you imagine this? You have a group of priests from Franciscan College, Holy Name College in Washington, D.C. They provide ministerial care at Walter Reed Military Hospital. They've been doing this for two decades. How about you show up Easter week and you get served with a cease and desist from the commander of the facility saying, we are terminating your involvement here. And instead they hired a secular company to provide pastoral care.

I kid you not. Now, Colonel West Smith, you were a chaplain in the United States military for many decades. You've served in combat all over the world.

You said you've had some experience at Walter Reed as well. What has happened here? I think it's indicative of an anti-conservative, anti-religious bent of the Biden Pentagon, which is really, really alarming. Have you ever heard of a cease and desist being issued?

Negative. I mean, here's the thing. This really stops on the commander of Walter Reed's desk, Captain Felix Bigby. Because in every installation that I've served at, we always have religious groups, clergy from outside the base or the post come on because we're short on specific coverage for specific faith groups. For example, Muslims, Jewish people, what have you. So we always had people come in to do religious services if we did not have a way to provide for that. And under military regulation, we are required in the military to either perform or provide for religious services. They not only cancel the contract, they went with Mac Global LLC, a for-profit secular company who has no Roman Catholic priest on their staff. Do they have ministers on their staff? They say they have some Protestant ministers. I checked their website.

I could not find any listed there. But two days before Holy Week, the most significant week of the calendar year for Christians and Roman Catholics, they would not let the Catholic priest in the hospital to do ministry. They have one Catholic priest there who's older, who's getting ready to retire.

But I've been to Walter Reed. There are a lot of Catholic soldiers and staff people there. And during Holy Week, there is no way for one priest to do all the sacraments and to hear all the confessions. And yet they canceled it two days before Holy Week and gave it to a for-profit secular group whose job is not to do religious ministry.

And I think, as I told you during our prep time today, Jay, this is indicative of a backdrop that I've seen in the military during my last few years there and even more so now. And that is there is a push to eliminate not only the uniform chaplaincy, but to eliminate religious services on military installations. It's largely led by various humanist and atheist groups.

But the idea that you've got a chaplain program for religious services and we're going to cancel it and we're going to, it's like hiring a non-sectarian minister from a company. Now Congress, by the way, we've got a team of ACLJ lawyers. Here's what I want to know.

How in the heck did this happen? I want to know who decided this, what was the basis, what correspondence is going back and forth. So our Office of Government Affairs on Government and Oversight Project is already drafting and it'll be issued next week a freedom of information demand to the Defense Department to find out what the heck happened here. And then we'll get into the specifics of the unconstitutionality of it. But first we want to find out exactly what happened here because it is mind-boggling. Congress, Andy, is also taking action.

Yes, Congress has sent letters, Senator Rubio and a group of United States senators and congressmen have sent letters to Secretary Austin, absolutely condemning the situation and the timing of it. And you know, the timing of it, timing is very important. You know, years ago we had an attack on the Christmas markets in Strasbourg, France where the European Center for Law and Justice, our affiliate, is headquartered. They picked that time because it was a time of the Latuity of Christ. Now this time was picked specifically because it was Holy Week. It was the week in which Christ enters Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. It is the week in which he undergoes the Passion, in which he is crucified, in which he has the Last Supper with his disciples, in which he is resurrected on the third day according to the Scriptures and rises into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father on Ascension.

They picked this week and they did it as an absolute threat and an attack. A cease and desist. Yes, unorganized religion. Let me tell you what a cease and desist is. You cannot enter, you cannot perform your religious services in this government facility, which happens to be a hospital, where these things need to be helpful to the patients and to the staff.

But you can't do this. Have you ever heard of, you've been in the military a long time, Colonel. Absolutely have never heard of this and especially in a military hospital where people are wounded and sick and dying, to do this is unconscionable. I can't imagine if this Navy captain, who is the commander of the hospital, would allow this if he even knew about it.

But when all is said and done, it is the commander who gives permission or denies permission for people to come into a facility to provide religious ministry. There's more to the story. There has to be, but the buck stops on his desk, but it's an alarming act at one of our largest military hospitals. It sure is an alarming act, but there's something else here. This doesn't just happen out of the blue. Something else is happening here. Now, it's interesting, I'm looking at a quote from the congressman. After nearly 20 years of service, why did the Biden administration choose to terminate the contract with Holy Name College that, like you said, Andy, that particular week?

Yeah, well, it was a determined and calculated effort. You pick Holy Week, the most sacred week in the entire Christian calendar year, the triodion, the tritium in Latin that is celebrated that week, the giving of sacraments, the giving of the blood and body of Christ, the administration of holy unction. They can't do that. They're not ordained.

They have not had the privilege and the charism of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them. They cannot do that, and you cannot administer sacraments unless you're an ordained priest or deacon. We're going to hire a for-profit company, Logan, to go ahead and perform the religious services. So I guess a lot of people are asking, so what do we do? What's the next step here?

So the first thing you have to do in a case like this, first it's outrageous, but then you've got to get past the outrageous side. This didn't happen in a vacuum. They didn't just wake up. That commander did not wake up that morning, Wes, and say, oh, I'm going to cancel the Catholic Church's ability to come in and minister to the soldiers and to the staff. That didn't happen overnight.

No, no. We have to find out what led up to this, which is why Congress is inquiring about it, and we are as well. But you've got to bolster Congress here, because here's the problem. It's going to take Congress to get hearings and all this. We'll issue early next week, and I think we'll have it by Monday or Tuesday, we'll issue at least the first thing, which will be a Freedom of Information Act request letter. That demand says, hey, this has happened.

These are the facts. This is what we want to find out. Who started this?

How did this come up? We want all the email exchanges, and that's where you'll find it. I mean, we found that stuff on the border about them taking off the information about the terrorists that were captured, because it didn't look good that we caught terrorists, and we were able to find that because of our Freedom of Information Act request. Now, just think about this for a moment, though, folks, as we go into a break.

We've got 30 more minutes of this program left. Last week, the FBI, we found out, was assigning investigators' assets into Catholic churches in Virginia. This week, the same administration is saying, no Catholic priests at Walter Reed.

We're going to hire a for-profit company to do this. Is Chris Reagan, oh, this is all coincidental, and Secretary Austin, oh, this is just coincidental? No coincidence here, folks. Support our work at the ACLJ, because we will get to the bottom of this, and we will get answers and rectify the situation, ACLJ.org.

That's right. We have another half hour coming up. If you don't get us on your local station, find us broadcasting live right now on ACLJ.org. That's the easiest place to go.

We're on all social media platforms as well, but ACLJ.org. You'll see it broadcasting live. They're right in the middle if you're watching, and you can always pick us up later on.

Be right back. We're going to lead with this military chaplain situation that we just talked about, where military chaplains that are Catholic are being removed, got a cease and desist order from Walter Reed Naval Hospital. They've been there for 20 years. So we've got that going on. We're looking at that. But at the same time, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit, took a, or is taking right now, a motion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Don't know if it's going to be, it looks like at least a motion to stay, maybe a petition for certiorari for that as full review. We've got our team looking at it right now. We filed, this is on the abortion pill mandates.

So those cases are moving very, very quickly. We've got calls coming in already. Let's go ahead and take one.

All right. Ron is calling California on line one, and if you want to call in 1-800-684-3110, we'll try to get your calls over the next half hour. Rhonda, you're on the air. Oh, hi.

Thank you for taking my call. I just recall from listening to you guys, I remember seeing Biden say on television that if he had the chance to codify Roe. So I was just wondering, what does that mean and should co-lifers be concerned? Yeah, well, codifying Roe means there was an attempt to get federal legislation to say the right to abortion, although not recognized in the Constitution per the Supreme Court, is a statutory right. They would have passed legislation. They can't do that now with the House of Representatives being conservative. But what they can do and what they're doing here, Andy, is they are, through the administrative state, removing the guardrails to increase the access to abortion. In every instance and in every situation, that is exactly what they're doing. They're saying, well, federal facilities, you can do it because they're not part of the state system, and they're trying to undermine what the Supreme Court of the United States said in the Dobbs decision.

In every possible case, they can. But again, it is part of this radical left-wing ideology that, as with the cease and desist order on the Catholic Church at Walter Reed Hospital, is an attempt to threaten the vision of America that we have as conservatives, and to put in their own place a vision that they have of a woke, left-wing, anti-life America. That's the idea that is being pushed here, Jay. I asked our office, our production team, to hand me the copy of the decision in Dobbs, which was the Supreme Court case overturning Roe v. Wade.

And let me just read you the one line. I mean, this says it all and explains why you're having this reaction around the country on this. The critical question is whether the Constitution, properly understood, confers a right to obtain an abortion.

The Constitution does not confer such a right. Roe and Casey are overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. So when the states are putting in restrictions, or allowing, that is what the Supreme Court said.

It goes back to the states. That was not good enough for a group like Planned Parenthood, of course, because their entire ethos is abortion. But understand where this is coming from. That's where this is coming from. This is what they wanted to see take place.

It has taken place, and now we're having to fight it out on very aggressive terms. I mean, you know, you're talking about a case that's moved literally from the district court, Andy, to the Supreme Court in about seven days. Yeah, it's pretty quick. The movement is pretty quick. You're going to be agile here.

Yeah, you do. You have to really understand how quickly the situation can move. And we have to press forward with a pro-life agenda that we have. The Supreme Court of the United States was absolutely correct in Dobbs. I defy anybody to find me a right to abortion enshrined in the federal Constitution.

It simply is not there. So now we're trying to get around it by these various means. It's not going to succeed, God willing. All right, coming up in the next segment, Secretary Mike Pompeo will be joining us. We've got a lot to talk about with him. You can still give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. And as always, support the work of the ACLJ by visiting ACLJ.org.

So I'll have Mike Pompeo on the next segment, and then at the end, the show will take as many calls as we can. And if you need help, ACLJ.org, help. And that's a good way to get... Slash help, yeah. Yeah, slash help. That's a good way. If you need legal assistance, the ACLJ is there.

ACLJ.org slash help. Hey, everybody, welcome back to the broadcast. We're joined by our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Mr. Secretary, while the world is...

I haven't talked to you in a couple of weeks since I've been traveling, but we've talked offline, but not on air. The world has changed a lot in the last two weeks, to say the least. So you tweeted out that Prime Minister Macron just simply got it wrong. He botched it, and he's now kowtowing to the CCP, and it's going to provoke more aggression. First of all, let's summarize for people. How did you deal with the differential on China deployment and really diplomacy with China? When you were the Secretary of State versus what is going on now? Well, it was remarkable to watch President Macron travel, spend three full days in China, and then get back on his airplane and say, you know, France needs to keep its distance from America, and we have...

Essentially, we have... But we have friends in China. That is absolutely galling. It is absolutely also ignorant. And I don't mean unintelligent.

I mean ignorant. It fails to grasp the central threat that the Chinese Communist Party poses to the people of France, in addition to those of us here. And for him then to say, gosh, you know, this Taiwan thing, nothing to see here, folks, is an enormous propaganda victory for Xi Jinping. We dealt with it differently. We reminded them of their responsibility, whether it was President Trump and I telling the Germans you can't rely on Russian energy, whether it was us telling the French, no, you have to have a set of trade relationships with the West that are fair and equitable. We didn't live in a fantasy world, Jay.

We lived in the world that was real. And what President Macron did there, and apparently with no pushback from the Biden administration, he went and kowtowed to the Chinese Communist Party distance himself from America, probably to benefit French businesses. The administration should be all over the leadership in France, making it very clear to them that that is an unacceptable position for him to take. And frankly, that he's out of step with many of his European counterparts as well. In that regard, and I wanted to go to Andy O'Connell, our Senior Counsel. We have an office in Strasbourg, France, and we have been in Europe for many, many decades. Back to the 90s. And I have seen just over the last, Andy, I would say 10 years, just to follow up what Mike was saying, this kind of shift, I wouldn't call it anti-America, but they are clearly realigning politically.

Well, this is the thing. You cannot count on the French as allies, I'm afraid you can. Look at what happened in World War II. Churchill tried to give them a backbone.

They don't have one. They made their separate peace with Germany under Marshal Petain and established a separate country in collaboration with the Germans at Vichy. So do not count on them to support you, as Secretary Pompeo said, a terrible realignment, but something consistent with anybody who reads history. So Mike, we've got China cozying up with Russia, Iran, and others. We've now got Saudi Arabia, China, and Iran.

They were about to sign the Abraham Accords, and they were already in a helpful dialogue, and more than dialogue, cooperation with the Israelis. It seems like this administration is taking apart all of the unbelievable work you did to stabilize, let's first talk about the Middle East. It is remarkable, Jay, that in just 26 months, I think it is now, in 26 months we've gone from having a more prosperous, more stable Middle East, countries recognizing the right of Israel to exist, and close relationships between the United States and the Gulf Arab States and the United States and Israel, an Iran that was as isolated as ever at any time in history, to now a deep distrust from, frankly, every Middle Eastern country, including Israel, that doesn't believe they can count on the United States of America in times of trouble. You know this, Jay, if you're the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or the Emirates, or the Kuwaitis, or the Omanis, and you don't have confidence that the United States of America will be there, you need them, you're going to hedge your bets. So you're going to cozy up to the Chinese Communist Party, you're going to cozy up to the Iranians, try and take that tension. You'll do business with the Russians to try and reduce risk, right?

We've got Russians on the ground in Syria. This is what happens with failed American leadership. It's not a singular problem, it is a cascading series of crises that the world now faces as a result of failed American leadership. So Macron made those statements, and there was some European pushback pretty swiftly, but he had to be calculating on what he was saying, Mike. I mean, for Macron to make that statement, you know what just flashed in my mind?

I remember, and I know you were there, so was I, the state dinner that President Trump and the First Lady had for Macron at the White House, I think it was probably 2018 or so, and the normal flare and pomp and circumstance the whole event, but there looked like there was really constructive discussion about the kind of how we view the global threats. It seems like now France is really peeling off from that. It's kind of backing up what Andy said. They're going their own way here. They got some European pushback, but they're clearly setting in another direction. So Andy's comments are certainly right as a historical matter. The French have, you know, de Gaulle withdraws from NATO, right? So there is a long history of French resentment for American power. Second, we also had challenges with Macron, too, that we worked our way through. No one can forget. He wanted to stay in the JCPOA, and he pressed me personally and the administration more broadly, hey, you got to stay in this thing.

We got to do this. This was protecting French businesses more than anything else. But we managed our way through it, and this administration has literally refused to work with governments who will have a view that is different than ours and make sure that the American position was understood in those capitals in ways that if you don't get this right, there are things that America will no longer be able to do. You know, the President would talk to the French about tariffs on different products if they didn't permit America to sell our products inside of their own country.

This was the serious foreign policy, both military and economic, that our administration understood, and this one simply does not. You know, Secretary Pompeo, what you said in echoing what I had commented on with respect to the French support for the Allies during the Second World War, you just mentioned something very interesting, and it prompted me to think of an anecdote when you said de Gaulle and the NATO situation when he peeled off from NATO. And I remember very clearly that de Gaulle looked at Secretary of State Dean Rusk, your predecessor under President Kennedy, and said, I want every American troop out of France. And Dean Rusk looked at him and said, even those buried at Normandy? Yeah.

And he shut his mouth. So we've operated, Mr. Secretary, in France for a long time, in Europe for a long time, now like literally 27 years. You've got another complication here, and I know you dealt with it as Secretary of State, and that is China and Taiwan, and boy, the saber rattling is for real now.

What's your sense of where that is? There has been enormous escalation of Chinese actual no BS, physical confrontation surrounding Taiwan, conducting exercises there. Not just the statements, but the reality on the ground flying more interdictions across the center line of the strait between China and Taiwan.

Jay, this is precisely what you get when you appease. You get more threats, you get bolder adversaries. President Biden has demonstrated in Ukraine that he wasn't willing to provide them with the tools for decisive advantage, and so made the calculation by dribbling out these resources that it would be enough to permit Ukraine to continue to at least hold themselves in a roughly equal position. Xi Jinping's watching that. So the things you see happening today, not only in and around the strait of Taiwan, but in the waters off of Japan, in the waters off of Vietnam, efforts in the air, space, and cyber, the Chinese Communist Party is not just, I think it is more than rattling their sabers.

I think they are testing this administration to see if there will be a point at which it will respond and push back and actually impose costs on the party itself, on the Chinese Communist Party itself. We appreciate it as always. Mike Pompeo, of course, former Secretary of State, former Director of the CIA, and fortunately for us, Senior Counsel for Global Affairs. Mike, thanks for being with us.

We appreciate it. You know, I want to say this to our audience, Logan, and that is what a unique situation we have at the American Center for Law and Justice. We have, I remember, our first cabinet member we worked with was John Ashcroft, who was the Attorney General during 9-11 for George Bush, and many decades of work with him. Now we've got, right now on our team, we've got the former Secretary of State and the former Director of National Intelligence as part of the ACLJ team. This is the uniqueness we have, both in our legal work and in our media operations, to be able to get information out to all of the radio stations we're on, all of the social media platforms we're on. It's a unique factor, and we're trying to continue to expand those roles with others. Yeah, absolutely. We're always looking to add new members to the team, including people like you who are listening right now and maybe want to support the work and become a member of the ACLJ.

You can do that at ACLJ.org. We always want to hear from voices like Secretary Pompeo, our incredible staff here, Rick Grinnell, all these people who are a part of the show. But also, we give you the opportunity to voice your opinion, voice your thoughts, whether that's through the comments section on our Rumble channel or our YouTube channel, Facebook page, so on. Or whether that's by giving us a call and being live on the air. You can give us a call right now. We will take some calls in the next segment. If you want to be on the air, this is a good time.

It could be about any of the topics we discussed today. 1-800-684-3110. Also, we're in the middle of a matching challenge, so if you want to support the work of the ACLJ, you can do that today by just going to ACLJ.org, and any donation is effectively doubled. And of course, we are here to help you. And the other day, when we mentioned that, I think we got 30 requests for assistance.

We're here to do that. ACLJ.org slash help. If you've got a legal issue that you're dealing with or in your community, we want to help you. ACLJ.org slash help.

And again, if you want to support the work of the ACLJ, that's ACLJ.org. Back with more in a moment. Welcome back to Sekulow. Wrapping up today with a little bit of a topic change.

You may have seen this. Elon Musk was being interviewed. Elon Musk, obviously you know, as a billionaire, businessperson, philanthropist, owner of Twitter, as of the last six months or so, I think is when it all kind of closed, when he became the new owner of Twitter, and has certainly not done that lightly or behind the scenes. He has been very upfront, very wild in some of his moves, and it's brought a lot of people back to the platform, like myself, and also drove a lot of people away, whether that was this week NPR and PBS. PBS added on to NPR because they got labeled as government-owned, partially government-owned media. Well, they are. National Public Radio. You could say they certainly get funding.

They got offended about it, saying, well, they're journalistically independent. He does a lot of these things to needle people, though, because he is a free speech advocate. He is. He is someone who's out there.

It is nice to have somebody, especially the richest person in the world. You know, NPR, and listen, there's some NPR programs I listen to, and here's the thing I don't understand. NPR is barely hanging in there as it is. They're down 30%, so now let's go off of Twitter.

That's like, it's self-inflicting a move. Well, I think it is funny how many people are still, who cannot leave. They hate it so much that Elon is running this, and they can't sell their Tesla, and they can't leave Twitter. Like, they're so addicted that when it got bad and I couldn't take it anymore, I left Twitter. I was off Twitter for years. Now, I'm back on it. Why?

It's a lot more fun, and here's why. This is a conversation between Elon Musk and hosting the BBC, correct? Yeah, so this is just about free speech and what it means and what hate speech is and how that can be effective on Twitter, so let's take a listen. Free speech is meaningless unless you allow people you don't like to say things you don't like.

Otherwise, it's irrelevant. And at the point at which you lose free speech, it doesn't come back. I think the issue some people have is that a lot of people were brought back. I mean, some people were brought back who were previously banned for spreading things like QAnon conspiracies.

You have people like Andrew Tate who were brought back who were previously banned for things like hate speech. Do you think you prioritize freedom of speech over misinformation and hate speech? Well, who's to say that something is misinformation? Who's the arbiter of that?

Is it the BBC? You're literally asking me. Yes. Well, no, you are the arbiter on Twitter because you own Twitter. Yes, I'm saying who is to say that one person's misinformation is another person's information? All right, the conversation keeps going. So that's just the conversation of misinformation. It seems a bit, you know, a little back and forth.

And this is where things get a bit more hasty. They start talking about the new feature on Twitter called For You. And what it is, it's more like a discover feature. It gives you people that you follow, but also people that you may find interesting, kind of takes your likes.

And, you know, for me, if it's Monday night, I'm getting a lot of pro wrestling content on there on my For You, if I'm being honest. And this conversation goes to, well, this host kind of puts, well, maybe you're putting hate speech forward on this For You feature. So when you hear that, it's when you know what that is, like a separate feed you have.

So take a listen. This is where things get interesting. I mean, you use Twitter.

Right. Do you see a rise in hate speech? I mean, just a personal anecdote.

Like, what do you do? I don't. Personally, my For You, I would see, I get more of that kind of content, yeah, personally.

But I'm not going to talk to the rest of, for the rest of Twitter. You see more hate speech personally? I would say I would see more hateful content in that. Content you don't like or hateful?

What do you mean? Do you describe a hateful thing? Yeah, I mean, you know, just content that will solicit a reaction, something that may include something that is slightly racist or slightly sexist, those kinds of things. So you think if something is slightly sexist, it should be banned? No. Is that what you're saying? I'm not saying anything.

I'm just curious. I'm trying to understand what you mean by hateful content. I'm asking for specific examples, and you just said that if something is slightly sexist, that's hateful content.

Does that mean that it should be banned? Then the conversation keeps going. It gets to the point where he goes, well, tell me what you've seen. Have you seen anything that you feel? I mean, you say you experienced all this.

What is it? So keep listening. Then I say so that you don't know what you're talking about.

Really? Yes, because you can't give a single example of hateful content, not even one tweet. And yet you claimed that the hateful content was high. Well, that's a false. No, what I claim was there are many organizations that say that that kind of information is on the rise.

Now, whether it has on my feed or not. Give me one example. I mean, right, and if you're someone like the Strategic Dialogue Institute in the UK, they will say that.

Look, people will say all sorts of nonsense. I'm literally asking for a single example, and you can't name one. Right, and as I've already said, I don't use that feed.

Well, then how would you know? I don't think this is getting anywhere. You literally said you experienced more hateful content and then couldn't name a single example.

That's absurd. First of all, this was like an Oxford Socratic Method debate, and Elon Musk eviscerates the BBC broadcaster, because you know what happens? They make these global statements, these big pronouncements. There's this, this, and this, and that results in this. Well, what exactly did you see? That I don't know.

You could make it like the old comedian Jackie Mason, the late Jackie Mason. They go through the whole thing and said, I have no idea. Yeah, I mean, pretty honestly, it's not a hard thing to figure out. Have you seen things that are bad, negative, hateful on Twitter?

Oh, yeah, yeah. So then come in there with some facts, come in there knowing that this guy is going to do this to you. They treat him, find it very interesting with Elon. They treat him like he's an idiot, like he's a buffoon. And he's a genius. And he's a billionaire.

Genius. The richest person in the world, not for no reason, and a genius. Yes, he obviously, look, there are things that he does that I like, there are things that he does that I don't like, just like everybody else, but they treat him. And it's very interesting to me to see how they do that, because he is a bit more comedic. He's a bit more satirical. He'll say things that are inappropriate. I will post things that are inappropriate.

They don't treat him with the respect he gets. And when this sort of thing happens, I mean, that wasn't supposed to even be a conversation. It was supposed to be an interview. And it ended up being, like you said, it felt like an interrogation on the other side. It is the old debate method that we grew up with, that we, you know, we've been, Andy and I have worked at Oxford, the University of Oxford, and several of the colleges over the years have done programs there, have done events there.

And what's so interesting to me is it's like they get up, I've had lawyers do this, they get up, they make these grandiose statements, the judge says, and the facts supporting that are? I have no idea. I mean, that's, you know, where are the facts for that? I don't know. No, but I can philosophize on it and I can send it out and I can propagate it.

But if you ask me for facts, then I'm resting my entire argument on sand, which is resting in terms on more sand, so it doesn't get anywhere. But I got to give Musk something for revitalizing Twitter and doing things that makes it quite a platform. As a matter of fact, a young lawyer told me that she was off of Twitter. She went back on.

She enjoyed it so much, she said, that she gave it up for Lent because she said it was just too much for her to enjoy. I don't know. I don't know what the numbers actually say. You had a large group of people that did leave and you have companies leaving like NPR, but you have a large surge of people. I'd say I find it a much more enjoyable experience than I did three or four years ago. I bet they're back. I bet they come back. Yeah, it's hard for people to get off of these platforms.

It really is. And as long as the content's still there, but he does things to troll people. I mean, he turned the Twitter logo to the doge dog for multiple days.

You know, he's changing a lot of things just to get a rise out of people, which is hilarious. So you should follow us on Twitter. Because at the end of the day, it's a social media platform and who really cares?

But he does and I was forced to buy it and was having some fun with it. At Logan Sekulow, at Jay Sekulow, at Jordan Sekulow, at ACLJ, Twitter, Facebook, Truth, our preferred platform, Rumble, and of course, YouTube. All right. Support the work of the ACLJ. We're a matching challenge campaign.

Any amount you donate, we get a matching gift for. We pivoted quickly on this broadcast today. We had a lot to cover. We had like breaking news, as we said in the beginning, with the Supreme Court now involved in the abortion pill cases. Go to ACLJ.org to support the ongoing work at ACLJ.

Again, ACLJ.org. Talk to you tomorrow.