Today on Sekulow, it's exposed the left lawsuits begin against President Trump. 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, Jordan Sekulow. Hey, welcome to Sekulow. As you can see, I'm in Washington DC. It's been a week of inaugurations in West Virginia with our colleague J.B. McCuskey, former colleague of becoming the West Virginia Attorney General. Of course, here in Washington DC, with the official swearing in of President Trump, J.D. Vance, and that team now going to work today and yesterday full time with the President signing 200 executive orders, some new orders, some rescinding and just one order rescinded 78 executive orders by President Biden. We'll walk through some of these on the hot button topics and issues that President Trump campaigned on.
And he did it right away after taking the oath in that rally setting. Things were different in Washington DC because most all the events were held inside. I will tell you, even to get inside as we did some of these inaugural balls and events, I mean, just for the five or 10 minutes, you may be outside.
It was, you know, 10 degrees outside. So it made sense to move things inside. At the same time, the administration is getting to work and as you saw, was very prepared on what to do on day one. And I think we're already, I just came from a meeting with our legal team in DC going through those executive orders as they are, as we see lawsuits already begin to be filed against the Trump administration. One on Doge, we're seeing others talked about on birthright citizenship and definitions there. We'll talk through it on the show, but we've already identified I think, you know, 15 to 16 that are likely going to have lawsuits filed and that we are ready to defend along with the Trump administration.
That's right, Jordan. And as you mentioned, the, and as you have said, since the time of the election, that as soon as there's a new administration, our work in some degree ramps up very aggressively because these groups, these outside groups will start attacking the very policies that President Trump was elected to enact. And through these executive actions, they are being challenged already. One is being challenged, the Department of Government Efficiency. And then we also see states getting ready to take action against the birthright citizenship narrowing of that definition that was put out in an order yesterday. And this is just the beginning. We know that those are the ones that were ready to file at 1202, if you will, yesterday or right after things were signed, but these will continue to mount and we want to make sure that the government can do its job and the new administration can do its job. Therefore, we will be ready to engage these lawsuits as well.
And I know you've been meeting with our folks in DC and our team there already strategizing our first moves against these lawsuits. For instance, civil servant reform. This is the ability to make sure that when you go in as a department head, whether that's the cabinet level secretary or undersecretary, you've got staff of maybe hundreds of federal bureaucrats. And within that civil servant group, there are those who are time and time again showing you they are giving you willful disregard for the instructions and policies that your elected administration that you serve is to carry out, that you can then remove those people. Right now, it takes basically a criminal act by a civil servant to actually remove them.
This would make it removable by cause because they are thwarting the policies and the input and the actual policies, putting them into action. So a lot of work to do, but all work that's necessary to make our government work again for the American people. We want you to support the work of the ACLJ.
Donate today to ACLJ.org. I will tell you our Washington team is going to be very busy as the lawsuits begin filed today against the Trump administration. We'll be right back with your calls on Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow.
We are taking your calls, 1-800-684-3110. If you want to join us today on the broadcast, we'd love to hear your thoughts on yesterday with the inauguration of President Trump, his remarks and remarks that he gave throughout the day, did some interesting things that were different obviously because of the weather here, but it was already going to do some that were different too, like holding that rally and then of course utilizing that same event space to do a different kind of parade because again, the high temperatures I think were in the 20s, but while the temperatures were cold, I will tell you people are just very excited about the prospects of what is already getting done in this administration, what is changing in the world. I point to, again, is everything perfect in the world on day one? Absolutely not, but does it feel like we have a team coming together in place that is excited about tackling these really difficult issues and going out there as happy warriors to represent America? And I think at the same time, Will, from our legal perspective, we see the lawsuits that are already being filed, one on Doge.
There will certainly be lawsuits filed on civil servant reform. We talked about what draining the swamp means. Draining the swamp really means how do you get rid of these bad actors in the bureaucracy if they're constantly thwarting the President's directives, which are then carried out by these departments. So you know they are a problem person. They are willfully ignoring the advice, the job, the instructions that they are given by their directors who are political appointees.
And in some cases, not only do they ignore, they actually do the opposite or try and slow walk things or just cause things to be difficult. That someone like that can be removed or at least put into a different position if not completely removed from the federal government. So this is learning, I think the Trump team learning from those first four years, really how do you get to those problem people and what's the best way to drain the swamp? And the best way to drain the swamp, Will, is to make sure that you can start removing people from these positions after they have shown that they're not going to follow the rules, they're not going to follow the policies, that they are not going to respect who the American people decided to elect as President of the United States and put in these positions as head of the departments that they work for. If they're not going to do that, they shouldn't be working there, certainly not in policy positions, which is what this is limited to. So it's not trying to fire the people who are taking care of the buildings or securing the buildings. These are bureaucratic policymakers. So they are people that still have to do with inputting policy. And it shouldn't take, as it does right now, and we know this from our work with people like Lois Lerner, it shouldn't take the potential of criminal conduct to have to remove a bad employee. Certainly that's not how the private sector works and it's not how the public sector should work either. If they are thwarting the will of the American people by disregarding the instructions of the President or the President's executive, basically cabinet, then they should be gone. They should be removed from that position. But we know, Will, that is going to be a massive lawsuit. So the ACLJ team here upstairs before I was in the radio studio, we began working on putting that team together.
That's right, Jordan. And as I look at these executive actions that were taken yesterday, I kind of put them in two categories. You have a lot on the border and securing the border, which is clearly a mandate of the American people, and then draining the swamp, getting rid of the deep state, whether it be the executive order on ending censorship or the ones that are more directed towards the hiring practices, the merit based system, telling people they have to come back to work. And those are all things that both sides, both the border and the draining the swamp category, I think will get a flurry of lawsuits as we're already seeing. And while the one on Doge that was filed minutes after Trump was sworn into office, it's trying to focus in on 1972 law and it's filed by a group called National Security Counselors. And what they're saying is that Doge meets the requirements to be considered a federal advisory committee, which is a legal entity regulated to ensure the government receives transparent and balanced advice. And they are required to have fairly balanced representation, keep minutes of meetings, allow the public to attend, file a charter with Congress and more, which they're alleging in this lawsuit that Doge hasn't done. I feel like this one could have been a premature lawsuit.
And that's why we want to get in on it early because you look at this and they're making these assumptions. However, Doge is just an idea until the President becomes President. Yet they file the lawsuit minutes after he takes office. He can't establish something before he's President.
He can't do all these necessary requirements before he's President. So they're making the assumption that it won't be under that class of a legal entity, a federal advisory committee. Maybe it will. They're also telegraphing maybe things that they could get around this. But I feel like this lawsuit is one that we need to get on early because it could be a pretty quick win. Whereas some of the others, you know, the deep state is going to fight hard about going back into the office, being able to be fired. Those lawsuits are coming too, but you can't just let one slip away in these early stages.
And that's what we're prepared to do. No, I mean, really, this is what the person on the Doge complaint is complaining about. So Washington DC, that this is the complaint, if I can just get it out. So it says that the panel is breaking a 1972 law that requires advisory committees to the executive branch to follow certain rules on disclosure, hiring, and other practices.
Like you said, Will, we're not at that point yet of Doge. For what I know, Elon Musk has not been paid anything. They might have people who have been working on the outside during a transition that was being paid for, not by the federal government, by the way, but by, again, it's something that you can, it's a mix of dollars and that every incoming administration can receive. And there may have been teams that were working on, okay, what is this going to look like? Is this going to be something outside or inside the government? I think we're still waiting to get the exact answers on it, but the lawsuit saying is you can't have it because of they want the disclosure.
They want the hiring. They want it all to be basically available by FOIA. I'm not saying ultimately it wouldn't be, but usually commissions within the White House and work that is inside the White House is not subject to FOIA.
So while they're talking about the record keeping, if this is an advisory committee, depending on what level it is to the President of the United States, the FOIA angle is very difficult for these legal organizations who, again, are just trying to make trouble in the first 24 hours of President Trump's second presidency. A lot of these are premature, but like you said, Will, we know voters were encouraged by these. They want to see action. They want to see what someone like Elon Musk and his brain can do when looking at a department and you know that half these buildings are still empty in Washington, D.C.
But you should imagine that in all the empty chairs you see in those pictures and every empty floor, there's a person being paid, working from home, and that's their chair and that's their desk and that's their building. So that is what we're trying to get a handle on first in Washington, D.C., is making sure, making absolute sure that Washington gets back to work and those that don't can't just have a free ride here. And so a lot of those executive orders, you know, they fit together on two things, Will, getting things back to work and then protecting Americans again. I even believe there's going to be lawsuits on sending military to the border, though the President certainly has, I think, the power, especially if the states concede. So I think most of those states will, some might not.
That's not as big of an issue. But you could see a California or some others on the left trying to say, well, this is you're trying to put, you know, federal martial law on our state's borders. But in fact, our borders are not controlled and governed by states or state laws. They are governed by the federal government.
It is Article 1 of the Constitution. And this is, again, a role outside of the states. But even that idea of let's send some military, get some plans there so that the fentanyl stops and the human trafficking stops. And you see these kind of dual tracks of a government that works for its people and how does it work for its people?
One, it's by getting inflation under control, getting the economy back on track. And then second is protecting the American people from the poorest border, which is killing Americans with fentanyl, which is making us a leader in sex trafficking around the world. These are not issues where we want to be number one in. And it is why the ACLJ will, this morning on, we're ready to fight. And we already are. That's right.
That's right, Jordan. And if you look at these two different categories, as we talked about, both the border and the government efficiency, these lawsuits are trying to make America less safe and to try to make America less efficient, trying to protect wasteful spending. But we at the ACLJ, it is time for a big change.
And that's why you can take urgent action. Go to ACLJ.org slash sign and become an ACLJ champion as well. We are going to work in tandem with Doge and these government agencies to cut funding for the efforts. We will defend these actions in court.
Go to ACLJ.org slash sign and sign the petition. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. So it is here. President Trump has been inaugurated and this is again, day one, really, of his work began right after he was inaugurated. You know, that's the kind of President he is working on those executive orders. We've been working through some of those as well for you, looking at ones that we think we need to be prepared to help the Trump administration defend.
Lawsuits are already being filed against the administration. But you do want to take a moment and I think understand what has happened in the last 24 hours of the United States and how it impacts the world. I mean, a huge shift in the issues, the way we see our leaders see the world, who will be advising them, the team that President Trump is building, the reaction from world leaders. I mean, all of this is going to be something we keep a close eye on, obviously, and work closely with here at the American Center for Law and Justice. But there has been a massive change in Washington DC. It was clear, even though the streets were pretty empty because it was so cold, that people are excited because they remember what President Trump was able to get done in four years.
And now that we kind of have this list of goals that he's been talking about, not just for the last campaign cycle, but since he was in office, that he is ready to implement and go for. I know that we've got a lot of phone calls coming in. If you want to talk to us, 1-800-684-3110.
Will, let's go to the phones. Yeah. And Jordan, I know we saw that one of these orders undid 78 executive actions of President Biden.
So a lot of that is being left behind. It's a new day. So we're not going to focus too much on the work of Joe Biden.
But Beverly does have a call on line one that I think we should get into. A lot of these pardons happened right before the inauguration. And yesterday we focused on the inauguration.
Didn't really get time to talk about that. So I think it'd be good to answer Beverly's question from Oklahoma. You're on the air.
Hi. My question is, I thought pardons were for people who had already been convicted of a crime. I didn't know you could give a pardon to a person that hadn't even been arrested for a crime. You know, the pardon power is very broad.
It only relates to federal law. And you saw with Joe Biden issuing those pardons to family members, including pardons he said he would never release. So that included Hunter Biden, but also his brother. And Will, I mean, the situation here is that so long as it's somehow probably connected to the work of President Biden, and I think that's likely why he did it, is all those investigations that had been going on, and that could be restarted. Because now that he's out of office, remember what they did to President Trump and his family when they were out of office.
So he's now gone forward. And I think it's interesting because they practiced, Will, extreme law fair against President Trump, right? I mean, extreme law fair.
We're talking state courts and bookings and having to take mug shots. So you had three states, three federal US attorneys coming after him. You had the Mueller, you had the two impeachments. And you know what Joe Biden's figuring out is, you know what, we were pretty horrible to this guy. And he's now in charge of the US government. And if the theory holds that what my Department of Justice was doing to him is okay, well, I guess if his Department of Justice and Pam Bonney believed that there was more criminal conduct there, now that I'm not President and won't have some of those immunities right off the bat, that President Trump actually went to court and fight for all Presidents, that you know what, I'm in jeopardy and so are a lot of members of my family because of what the left has done to our legal system.
That's right. And also to Beverly's question about someone doesn't have to be convicted to receive a pardon. You also remember Joe Biden gave that broad pardon to Hunter Biden after the election that included 10 years back when Joe Biden was vice President of things that he may or may not have done. It was very wide sweeping pardon. But you also look at these preemptive pardons.
That wouldn't consider anything future looking. But you look at the pardon for Dr. Fauci, you look at the January 6 committee, those preemptive pardons, once again, that Biden criticized when it was talked about and thought of that Trump might do after the 2020 election, but he didn't do. They went after Trump for this concept that he may do these preemptive pardons, but he wasn't the one that did it. In the end of the day, the one who now set this precedent is President Biden, who came forward and gave these broad sweeping preemptive pardons to members of his family, as well to members of the January 6 committee, as well as to Dr. Fauci and some others. But I also think it's interesting, Jordan, because one thing the President did, he fulfilled a campaign promise, is he issued on the first day 1,500 pardons for those involved in the January 6 scenario. And what I think Joe Biden actually did, I didn't think that was going to be a day one pardon from President Trump. I thought maybe they would get in, they'd look at it and find the right timing. But in reality, I think Joe Biden gave Trump the go ahead, go forward because of his pardoning activity these last few weeks of his presidency, including minutes before he was no longer President when he pardoned his family.
Donald Trump was already in the Capitol. The ceremony had started when the White House pushed out that pardon notice to the members of the family. So I think at that point, all bets were off in the one who set the precedent for these kind of pardons, which the Constitution very broad on, but scholars like to point to the traditions that Presidents have had and the norms. The Constitution doesn't set those norms, but Joe Biden's the one who now set precedent for very broad wide sweeping pardons that are extremely political, if you look at them on their face. And I think that's what we saw play out over the last 24 hours.
No, absolutely. I think what we are seeing through those pardons too, I mean the 1,500 people is that these people have already served for the most part, you know, years in prison. Some of their prison sentences were just outrageous based off conduct, 22 years, 18 years. It's just the sentences really did not match the crime of trespassing.
Some were treated differently than others, but again, when you saw the kind of who got what sentence, I mean, it was kind of randomly, someone would get 14, another person would get 22. So President Trump, I think, again, the left is gonna always, there's always gonna be the Adam shifts with the world. That is still their obsession, even though he's now in the U.S. Senate. But you know what President Trump is saying? Listen, Joe Biden is pardoning his entire family from future actions and future investigations. People that have already spent four years in prison for illegal act of trespassing, certainly committing crime, but for over four years, it's time for them to go. And that's exactly what he did by issuing those pardons.
I think a lot of families will be very excited to be reunited with their loved ones, again, who were not imagining this kind of horror because of where they happen to be, maybe at the wrong place at the wrong time. Support the work of the ACLJ as well. We're gonna get to work on a lot of these cases with the Trump team.
Donate today. We gotta have the attorneys ready to go as they are at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back from Washington, D.C. All right, welcome back to secular. As you can see, we're in Washington, D.C., attended some of the inauguration festivities. This week, it's been a big inaugural week from Monday to Monday for one, our ACLJ colleague, J.B. McCuskey, becoming the West Virginia Attorney General just a week ago and was excited to be at his inauguration on what was a pretty cold day in Charleston, West Virginia, but the inauguration was still outside. I don't think it was too many degrees below freezing.
And then, second home of Washington, D.C., it was, I think we were walking into one of the inaugural balls last night, somewhere around 19 degrees or 18 degrees. And you know what that hasn't done? It has not slowed down the work of this administration to get right to work on fixing some of the wrongs you can do right away through executive order and also getting those key people in place. You might have seen with Secretary Rubio that vote 99 to 0. So, again, we're starting to get leaders to their departments to really take control not just of the White House but of the massive departments within the executive branch.
And, Will, I want to keep taking people's calls at 1-800-684-3110 because things looked a little different yesterday. I mean, it was inside swearing in, so you had a much smaller crowd. You've got, you know, so what you saw outside here, and it looks kind of like a martial law zone, wasn't really necessary because lots of people didn't come into the city because there wasn't going to be anything outside. And so it was a bit different of a day. And I will tell you, security still, as people can imagine, is very high involved when you have these transfers of power, lots of former Presidents here and other world leaders. But I think what was unique with President Trump is that with all of that work he had to do yesterday of, you know, starting early with breakfast and teas and the White House and the this and the that, I think really what was first on his mind was when he could sit down and get to work and start signing those executive orders. And that's exactly what he did, which is make good on those campaign promises. That's right, Jordan. And we're going to get to call here in just a second. But you mentioned Senator Rubio, now Secretary of State Rubio, after being confirmed 99 to 0.
He didn't vote for himself. So that is our first cabinet member that is there, confirmed unanimously, but also moved out of committee are John Ratcliffe, Pete Hegseth, and Kristi Noem. So we expect votes on them soon to be CIA director, secretary of defense and Department of Homeland Security secretary. But let's go to Michael in Florida on Line 2. Michael, you're on Sekulow. Gentlemen, I just wanted to say that of all the Mondays in the past four years, yesterday was far and away the best.
Michael, I think a lot of people had that feeling. Many people dread a Monday, but I saw a lot of memes going around saying the one Monday everyone is happy to be here is this Inauguration Monday. And Jordan, how was it to be there in the city?
You know, it's nice when you're in because of the weather. And the fact that a lot of things closed down here on Inauguration Day because it's just too hard to move around. But because of the weather, you weren't on the streets as much. There weren't as just mass people everywhere. So there was a protest. There was a protest zone, but you like had to like drive to it to get to it. So you know, that was again, not like they were thought it might be because of the weather. So it was kind of unique in this transfer of powers like the Biden liberals were gone. And the Trump team was back in Washington, D.C. And so when you walked into hotel lobbies again in places like that, you recognize the people that you've worked with and you see the smiles on people's faces because again, it's happy warriors going to work for the American people to make their lives better. That's right, Jordan, as we come to a break here, we have Jeff Balaban, who is in Jerusalem, going to share a little bit about what it was like in Jerusalem yesterday when we come back, as well as an update on the three Israeli hostages that were released on Sunday.
You don't want to miss it. Stay tuned and go ahead and sign our petition as we fight back against the new lawfare of the left. Go to ACLJ.org slash sign. All right, welcome back to secular. We are taking your calls to it.
1-800-684-3110. I'm in Washington, D.C., been doing a lot of travel the past seven days. Again, all positive to see friends and allies taking on new positions in these inaugurations happening in states and, of course, in Washington, D.C., and not just President Trump yesterday, but to see Pam Bondi there, to see Tulsi Gabbard, to see Senator Rubio.
I mean, the list goes on and on. It's just, it's an exciting moment to know that a lot of people that we've worked closely with, Governor Noem and others, that, you know, so many of the issues, whether it was Homeland Security, whether it was the Department of Justice, the FBI with Kash Patel, you know, that we have been having to fight on your behalf. And, I mean, they have come after conservatives, these, you know, radical traditionalist Catholics, and tried to hide the ball from the American people, that that is not going to be done anymore, and that there are people now being put in place who are not only going to do the right thing, but are going to ensure that the bad actors are removed. And that was an important part of the President's executive orders that he signed yesterday, especially on the one making it easier for these civil servants to be reassigned or removed from their positions if they refuse to carry out the policy of our nationally elected leaders like the President and his cabinet. They shouldn't have to commit a crime to be removed.
If they don't want to follow the directions, they should be fired or moved to a division that doesn't have policymaking authority. Now, will there be lawsuits on that? Sure. Are there already lawsuits being filed on some of these executive orders?
Yes. Are we going to fight back against them? Yes, we will. But I also want to give you an update on Israel because the foreign policy implications of bringing in a new President, we already started to see with this deal between Israel and Hamas. Remember, President Trump saying he thinks a lot of these conflicts will be coming to a close as soon as he's President.
I want to go to Jeff Balbon right away, who oversees ACLJ Jerusalem. And Jeff, in part of that three-part plan with Hamas, the first hostages were released by Hamas that was tied to this plan. And then two of them were individuals who we worked with them and their families. And thankfully, these are two who are going home alive. Yeah, yesterday was an extremely emotional day here in Israel. The whole country feels very, very small. The whole country feels very, very involved. Every life really matters here. And, you know, their names are known, their pictures are known. Everywhere you go here, you see pictures of the hostages dead and alive. And to see these three women come home, as you point out, two of which we actually advocated for during this past 15 months, to see them come home alive, even though obviously their stories are brutal and painful, and even though the deal is a brutal and painful deal, this clearly would not have happened had it not been a change in administration. And there's tremendous gratitude for their lives, for them coming home to their families. And it was just announced very recently, just in the last hour or two, four more are being released this coming Saturday. They're doing this on Saturday, which is the Sabbath here.
But they have not announced the names as of the last reports. And Jeff, as we... Oh, go ahead, Jordan. Go ahead, Will.
Go, go ahead. Yeah, Jeff, you mentioned that, you know, it's a new day in the new administration. And I did wanna pick up on that a little bit because you're back in Jerusalem. You had been here for the holidays back in Israel.
And you actually went to some festivities last night, and you saw the celebration. The people of Israel know that it is a new day with their ally in America. And as we watch the TV, we know that Elise Stefanik is currently before the appropriate Senate committee for her nomination to be the ambassador to the UN. She's speaking very highly about how aggressively she's gonna work to defend Israel there. But go through a little bit of what it was like in Jerusalem yesterday on what you would normally not think of as something that people in another country would be having parties and festivities surrounding the inauguration of a different nation's leader. Look, the relationship that Israel has with the United States really is a unique relationship. It's very special. It's beyond merely just the interests. It is the interest, but it's also just the values that are shared.
And there's a sense of community, one country with the other. You know, the only 9-11 memorial anywhere in the world that has the names of the people who were killed in 9-11 in America is here in Israel, actually in Jerusalem. So this yesterday, let's put it this way, walking up to a big event in Jerusalem, huge posters, huge billboards outside congratulating Donald Trump saying, we love you. There you go.
So that is at the Friends of Zion Museum in Jerusalem. And as I'm walking up, I hear the strains of proud to be an American blasting in the streets and walk inside and there's a watch party. Oh, there you go. And people were dancing to YMCA. And then there's a watch party. And in addition to what everyone saw in America, that special guests come by video that had Mike Huckabee, the incoming ambassador, God willing, who's a huge supporter of Israel and also sends a message.
There you go. There's a picture of Mike Huckabee on the screen, indoors where we're watching. They had David Friedman, the former ambassador, who's also well-loved and obviously a close friend of the President. And so there's a real feeling of optimism going forward. And again, it's a very emotional and difficult time here in Israel and it has been for a while. And even while this process is difficult, there's a tremendous feeling that there's a new day with President Trump. We're looking forward to peace breaking out once again in the Middle East instead of war, which is exactly what happened when President Trump was President the first time, the Abraham Accords. And that's what the hope here is and the anticipation here is in Israel.
Yeah. I mean, Jeff, I saw again yesterday at the events, really leading up to the inaugural all weekend, the excitement level from just all of the folks who work on these issues, whether it is Israel, other conservative issues, policy issues, that finally we've got people in place that are going to be put in place, not just at the White House, but in the various departments who not only share our views, but maybe have gone through this ringer once already in the first Trump administration and maybe have moved up the ladder and are ready to go into either relaunching some programs that were already working and really reworking our relationships with nations like Israel. And the idea that this relationship that was getting a bit nasty between the Biden administration and the Israeli government, that this is a new day for America and Israel, it shouldn't have to be like that. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. It certainly has become one for the left and maybe in their after actions report they'll realize that it's probably not good siding with Hamas over Israel during an election year. Look, in Israel, it's extremely important. And I hear this over and over again from in the government, from in the Knesset, which is the parliament here, tremendous concern that they don't want this to be a partisan issue. They want that they are America's friend. They want both sides in America to be Israel's friend and they need it.
And yes, this has been a very difficult period. You know, Biden did not treat them nearly as well. And there's a history with this really started with President Obama. And again, that was the Obama Biden administration where the policy from both sides, meaning Democrats and Republican, numerous Presidents had no no sunlight or no daylight between Israel and America, that Israel knew what to expect in America, knew what to expect in the region.
And that was broken. And there was fear that a house administration would be even worse. So going back now to a President who showed his great friendship and his understanding and a breakthroughs, a lot of people didn't understand why he would not have gotten a Nobel Prize for the amazing piece that he brought to the Middle East.
And so there's a lot of anticipation that will happen again. And that's why we work on this. That's why we work on this here in Israel and in Washington to help bridge those communications. And by the way, you mentioned earlier, at least the phonic and other signs of early help is the President's view on UNRWA, on the U.N. agency that keeps this horrible situation of basically they teach Palestinians to hate Israel. They're the ones who run those schools. They raise the terrorists. And then it was found out that they were actually involved. Many UNRWA employees were involved in the horrors of October 7th, in those atrocities, and that their bases were used in Gaza to harbor terrorist material and weapons. And so, you know, the President sees this clearly and there is a new day already dawning starting day one. Thank God.
Well, thank you so much for for joining us today and for that great report and for also showing us what it looked like there. But, you know, we our work doesn't end as well. Just as there are lawsuits fighting against the actions of the new administration, you know that even if the President tries to move funding away from things like UNRWA and and from the United Nations in certain ways, the left is going to try to sue over that. The left decides that they are textualist when it comes to the law as soon as it's a Republican or a conservative in office.
All of a sudden, that's when the law matters and they're going to try to find obscure 1970s laws to bring lawsuits about things like Doge or or no, you didn't move that money specifically properly. You have to keep funding UNRWA, even though they are supporting terrorism, training terrorists and actively engaging in terrorism in some cases. But we're not going to stand for it. We uphold the law. We fight to uphold the law. We believe in the rule of law here and we're going to keep doing that. And that's what we're going to do under a new administration.
As the lawfare continues, the lawfare against President Trump in his personal life may be over for now, but they're now focusing all that energy on his administration, trying to stop him from restoring what the voters put him in office to do. And you can join us. Go to ACLJ.org slash sign to sign our petition as we move forward and fight back against the less new chapter of lawfare. Join us.
ACLJ.org slash sign. Welcome back to secular. We got a lot of calls to get to. Well, let's get right to him.
That's right. We're going to go to John calling from Washington State. He's watching on YouTube. He's got a question about the birthright citizenship executive order.
John, you're on the air. Yes. The birthright citizenship, in my opinion, I do believe it should be limited to those who are here lawfully, like people on a visa or on other green card, not someone that has brought their children or brought a pregnant wife across the border. And that child being born in the US getting immediate citizenship, I think there should be some other kind of limitations like spelled out in the executive order.
That's right, Jordan. So the title of it, and then I'll get your thoughts on it, but just for the audience as well as protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship. And it says the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the US when one, the person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. Or two, when the person's mother's presence in the US at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary such as, but not limited to under the auspices of the visa waiver program or visiting on student work or tourist visa. So it's not as the news wants you to believe that it is an ending of birthright citizenship. It's saying that in these categories, if it's an illegal immigrant who comes over to have a child, they are doing that to try and get the citizenship for their child. Or if it's something like a tourist or work visa where they're not really meant to be here long time, it shouldn't vest in that way.
The ACLU is already sued, but Jordan, what are your thoughts? Well, I think that, and the way this works too, is it looks at the mother, but it also looks at the father. So if the mother, for instance, is here illegally and the father is not a citizen or is not a lawful permanent resident, so you don't have to be a citizen, but even a green card holder. So if the mother is here illegally and the father has no status at all, then you would not get birthright citizenship. If the father does have lawful residents, not citizenship, but lawful residents like the green card, you would still get US citizenship. That would correct the issue with your mother either not being here illegally or not having a long-term visa like a permanent residence, like a green card. And so they look at that both from the aspect of, again, are you looking at the citizenship angle and do you look at it from the mother's side or the father's side?
So again, it can be corrected. So you look to both parents and then you can determine whether or not under these new definitions and more clarified definitions, if you meet birthright citizenship. One of the things they're trying to get a hold on is birth tourism.
You see that a lot in one place where I live, like in South Florida, where people would plan pregnancies and plan to be in the United States if they had the resources around the time they would have their child so that even though they had no citizenship whatsoever and no permanent residence in the US, that their children would forever be US citizens. And so that would prevent some of those activities. Of course, this is going to be challenged. But what we do know is that if Congress gets in and backs up the President on some of these executive orders, when it's Congress plus the President, that is a very strong case in front of the US Supreme Court. So I think a lot of these executive orders are saying, this is what we wanna get done. Congress, you need to come aside and you need to start passing similar language. So it's not just relying on who the President is that determines who's gonna get citizenship in America, that our laws are gonna catch up to the realities that we have to deal with.
That's right. We're gonna go back to the phones. We've got James calling from Tennessee. James has a question that we're seeing kind of a trend in as well. It's about back to that pardon issue.
James, you're on the air. Hey, guys, in reference to the pardons, let's say, for instance, Dr. Fauci, he's a federal pardoned, but does that include North States, for instance, Tennessee? Can Tennessee AG put him through court because right now he's being pardoned.
He doesn't have the Fifth Amendment, so he has to talk, correct? So it's kind of a two-part question, James, and I'll get Jordan's follow-up on that. One, could a state theoretically bring a charge against someone like Dr. Fauci if they committed a violation of the law of that state? I think a lot would depend on that, but I'll get your take in a minute. But also, the second is what a lot of people are pointing out, that especially before the congressional committees that want to investigate things like the origins of COVID, if that threat of prosecution is taken away from someone like Dr. Fauci under federal law, they, to some degree, lose the ability to claim Fifth Amendment protection because there is no jeopardy of them incriminating themselves if they've already been pardoned of that hypothetical crime.
Jordan, what are your two thoughts on those angles? The question is, though, is that if the state, which, again, the pardon doesn't apply to state laws, can find any jurisdiction, do you still rely on that when you're testifying to say that, you know what, I could be incriminating myself? Because while it's clear the federal government has pardoned me and made this speech clear, and so that's been lifted, if states are showing any interest in taking action against him individually when he tried to use that, and then, of course, that ends up usually getting litigated.
Are callers, right? Usually, when you get this kind of pardon in a federal direction and it's a singularly kind of federal case or situation, that means that you can no longer rely on that not to answer questions in a court of law or a congressional hearing because it cannot be used against you to prosecute you. This is a little different because you have officials here whose acts not only impacted the federal government, but of course they impacted citizens in states around the country. And we'll just see, there's always gotta be a balance here, but we'll see how people, and this is about, you know, Republicans, but how they look in the past and how they look forward, and how much time do we wanna spend looking backwards and how much time do we wanna spend looking forward at getting things accomplished and not just beating up on those who, thankfully, are no longer part of the government. That's right.
And we are running short on time, but our three callers, Bob, Hallie, and Joseph, thank you so much for calling. Very similar in line with that. A lot of people are interested in what happens to those officials that are, you know, still have questions lingering about some of their conduct.
But I think we gave a good overview. Now we'll see what Congress does and we'll see what states do. But also it can't be lost.
Sometimes you have to look forward because if you get stuck looking on the past, sometimes you get caught up in it and then you can't get forward with the work that we need to. And you know that the left is already trying to stop that work. They're filing lawsuits. The ACLU and states are suing against this clarification on birthright citizenship. This group, National Security Counselors, are suing over the Department of Government Efficiency. They'd rather a more inefficient government be left in place. That's effectively what their lawsuit is asking for.
I can't think of a single human that really wants a less efficient government, except for those on the left that will sue over it. But you can join us today as we get to work. As Jordan mentioned, he's in D.C. He's working with our legal team, crafting the plan. You be a part of it. ACLJ.org slash sign and join us today.
