Transcript

Preborn has helped to rescue over 67,000 babies through ultrasounds

Jenna Ellis: Because of listeners like you, PreBorn has helped to rescue over 67,000 babies. Your $28 to sponsor one ultrasound doubled a baby's chance at life. Your tax deductible gift saves lives. Please join us in this mission. To donate, go to preborn.com afr Jenna.

 : Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.

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

 : This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.

Ron DeSantis will give his State of the State address on January 13

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, January 13th and Florida, my home state, has long been heralded as the greatest state in the union because we have an excellent Governor, Ron DeSantis who plans to outline his key goals in the State of the State address before lawmakers today around 11am and a lot going on in his final legislative session as governor. He's also announced a special legislative session over redistricting. So all of these priorities, of course someone like Governor DeSantis can cram into one legislative cycle. But let's welcome in Governor Ron DeSantis to give us his view and overview of what he plans for the state. So good morning Governor and what, what is the preview of what you plan to address in the state of the state?

Governor DeSantis: Well, I'm mindful of 2026 represents America's 250th anniversary. And when the founders, made that fateful leap to seek independence and later created a constitution, they were well aw, that they were going against the tide of history. Republics had typically failed. but they also knew that what they did was just setting the foundation that it would ultimately be future generations of Americans that would have to cultivate the freedom. I mean Ben Franklin said a republic if you can keep it. So I think as we're in this year, we look around the country and see so many examples of you know, can these self government endure and the failures that we see in a lot of these leftist states. I think Florida is an example of showing what can be done in a successful way. I think we're faithful to the founders vision of the type of society and opportunity and freedom that they wanted to see. I think that we've been able to address huge, huge issues and deliver really, really big results. So I think one, it'll just be a time to reflect on the achievements and on the success. so much of modern politics is fluff, so much of it is posturing. what are you actually doing to deliver meaningful results? And we've done that more, than any place in the country. you know, you did mention some of the issues that we're going to be talking about. I mean, one is, you know, we have, probably the strongest budget situation the state has ever had. We want to continue doing that. Since I've been governor, we've paid down half of the state's 180 year debt over 180 years. We've done half of it, gotten rid of half of it just in my tenure. We want to keep that momentum up. We've obviously cut a lot of taxes. We have very low spending. but, we also have an issue with local governments and property taxes. And so, that has pinched a lot of homeowners. That's not anything that we control at the state level directly. but what we are going to do is work with the legislature to get a ballot initiative on the constitution or on the ballot so that voters will have an ability, to vote themselves, exemption, particularly on their personal residence, from these crushing property taxes. and there will be a lot of other things that will be dealing with in the course of the session. But you know, the reality is, self government is not easy. You, see it failing in California and NewSong York and Chicago. Florida is an example where it's succeeding and shows what can be done if you have the right philosophy and you have the courage of your convictions.

Jenna Ellis: So well said and what you're actually doing for Florida and what Blaze Angolia, what James Uthmeyer, you know, and so many other great, conservatives in Florida are doing to deliver real results. I think the voters see that so many people have moved to this state because of Florida's leadership. And one of the big questions that will be, over this next year is, is the future of Florida and who will succeed you and your Lieutenant governor Jay Collins announced his run for governor. Former House Speaker Paul Renner is in. there are, you know, a couple of other candidates. You've said that Byron, Donald's doesn't reflect, your policy. Do you currently see a candidate that in your view does, and do you plan to jump into that race for the, in terms of an endorsement for Florida's future?

Governor DeSantis: Well, I could. I mean, I think if you look since I've been governor. you know, I get involved in primaries, you know, when I have someone I believe in and someone that really reflects, what I think the state needs. and that is really bold in that. And, you know, that's just something people have to prove as they announce candidacies and get out there, and do it. you know, I think the lieutenant governor was a senator in, Florida. you had a really strong conservative record, supported us on a lot of key things that were really meaningful. Obviously has a great history, as a Greene Beret and serving in Special Forces, which I know a lot of people in Florida, you know, really appreciate. Paul, Renner was the speaker when I was governor my, first two years and my second term. And I think if you look at that, probably there's, not. Not a single state in the history of the Republican Party that delivered more meaningful reforms during that period of time. And so he deserves credit for that. So, ultimately, you know, these guys got to get out there and make the case. But I do think that there are a lot of insiders, there are a lot of people, who, you know, the voters would never necessarily see that they're kind of behind the scenes. You know, a lot of them have resisted everything I've done at every turn. I mean, they just. They haven't had the popular support to actually win any of those fights. but I do think that, there's kind of an appetite that's whetted in kind of the internal bowels of Tallahassee and some of the swamp of Florida politics. they want to go back to the good old boys and business as usual. There's no question about that. and so I think that's an underlying thing that the voters are going to have to, sort out as this thing, starts to move forward.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I think that also represents and reflects national politics as well as we head into the midterms and then also, 2020. And it's fascinating to me that anyone would see what has happened in Florida over the last, two terms that you have been governor and want to go back, to anything prior or the two terms of Donald Trump and want to go back to kind of an establishment gop. And so what is your strategy heading into this legislative session to deliver on those priorities and, to overcome maybe some of those challenges that the resistors in Tallahassee gave, even as early as last cycle?

Governor DeSantis: Yeah, look, I think we're probably in pretty good shape. I mean, I think Some of the things that, you know, you do. I mean, the redistricting that's going to get done, there's going to be something on the ballot for property tax. The voters are demanding it. I don't think these guys would be able, to go back and run in their primaries and run for reelection without giving voters an opportunity, to do that. And I anticipate, you know, things that we've been able to accomplish in education and budget and tax, all that is going to continue. So I feel confident about that. but I think, you know, obviously in the future. And the one thing that I've noticed, you know, Trump's first term, you know, a lot of the establishment Republicans didn't think he could win, and then he won. It was, like, a big surprise. But a lot of them were not necessarily supportive. I mean, the Russia collusion investigations were started by Republicans, back then. Now, I opposed that. At the time, I was one of the few, but that's kind of where it was. And so when I first became governor, a lot of those guys, you know, they kept their distance from Trump. I think what's happened now is the squishes. they view, you know, saying they're for Trump rhetorically wearing a Make America Great Again. They view that as their inoculation, against conservative voters who may not like that. They're squishy. Right. And so they think as long as they do that and say the rhetoric, then they can behave in ways that are not conservative. And I don't think the voters, are going to accept that. you did see that last year a little bit in some of the things you mentioned, but I see that around the country where it's just a different posture. And I think the folks that don't want to be conservative, they think if they just rhetorically lean in and say they support President Trump, then the voters aren't going to look any deeper than that. and I don't think that ultimately is going to fly. I think the voters are going to look to see what you did, especially when you're in a midterm situation where President Trump's not going to be on the ballot. so you've got to show that, you know, you deserve their support. And I think the only way you get a strong enough turnout to be able to salvage Congress, is to run on a good conservative record of accomplishments. And I know certainly in Congress, they have some more work to do there.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis will give State of the State address today

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. I'm speaking with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. The head of the State of the state address, today around 11:00am And Governor, at the end of last year, there was kind of this clash between, you know, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlsen, and a few others, I think, that represent kind of where the conservative movement is at this tipping point leading into 2026. And it's kind of a realignment of what actually shapes conservatism, conservative values, and where we're at as a country moving forward. how would you advise the country and the base of genuine conservatives who love your policy, who love the action that Florida has accomplished, to actually define what it means to be a conservative in 2026? Because I think when we have all of these different factions of America first versus America, only Florida is great. And then there's maga. I mean, kind of a lot of this is getting lost in some of the fluff that you wisely said is most politicians.

Governor DeSantis: Yeah, I mean, look, I think some of these influencer wars, I have a tough time keeping up with it. I must confess. I do not follow it. I really don't find a lot of the stuff that's out there to be informative or entertaining. And it's interesting. You know, yesterday was Rush Limbaugh's birth, and I think Rush was a friend of mine, so I'm a little bit biased. But Rush was somebody first. He was very entertaining, but he was also very thoughtful and very conservative. And he would always make the point that, look, conservatism is. You can't change it. It's just the truth. It's the recognition of the founding principles that our country was founded on about human nature and about the proper role of government. You know, those underlying values and principles, do the belief that we're endowed by God with inalienable rights, not given rights from the government, none of that changes. And so I think the question is, how do you apply, that conservative set of values, to the issues, before you? And, you know, I think we've had times where you've kind of had these milquetoast establishment Republicans who just refused to fight, for the values that the people wanted to see. They were almost embarrassed about standing for conservative principles. You know, what I showed in Florida, I came in, a lot of people thought we were about to become a blue state. Certainly we were a purple state, we were not a red state. And, a lot of people told me, hey, trim your sales. You got to have a delicate balance because the state's so evenly divided. And I was just like, you know, what? You only live once. I'm going to do what I told the voters. I do what I believe. I'm going to be bold. And I guarantee you, if I'm successful, people are going to follow. And that's exactly what happened. When I got in, there were 300,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans. Today we have 1.4 million more registered Republicans, than Democrats. I won the biggest victory that any Republican has ever won in a governor's race in 2022, on the heels of us having a decade of races that were decided by one point at the state level. So, bold, colors, not pale pastels, is what President Reagan used say. You know, I think ultimately that that is what sells and what wins. but you got to be able to apply that in ways, I think, that are. That are coherent and that are delivering results for voters. And so, you know, we've done that across the board. That's part of the reason, you know, we fought Fauci on Covid and kept the state open. That's part of the reason, you know, we've done things like eliminate dei, the first state to do that in our public education. That's part of the reason we're leading on immigration enforcement. We just had, almost 20,000, apprehensions from, and local, in Florida that are in addition to what DHS is doing. Because we know the rule of law is important, so that's what it is. But the underlying values, you know, Ecclesiastes, there's nothing new under the sun. There's nothing. Conservatism is what it is. It's just the truth. It's the enduring principles, that make our country great. And I think the task of elected officials, is to apply those principles, in a way that are advancing the ball, for the people that you're elected to serve.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, an application of principles into actual policy is where the sticking point is and where a lot of politicians and their rhetoric fail to advance.

Florida is holding a special session to redraw its congressional districts

And so, you've also talked about the redistricting special session. of course, the left is pushing back on that and suggesting that, that is, you know, somehow trying to rig elections and all of their different talking points on that. But what's actually going on with redistricting, for this special session, and why is that an important application of conservative principles?

Governor DeSantis: Well, first of all, there's really three things to point out. One, we, should have had two seats in the last census. We only got one because Biden came in and changed, the analysis. Texas should have had three. They only got two. So it's already been rigged against us, because of how Biden published, the census. Second, there is a Supreme Court decision pending on the Voting Rights act and whether that mandates racial gerrymandering or even prohibits it. And that's going to impact Florida's map. So, almost assuredly we're going to have to redraw because we have some of those VRA districts that in previous iterations, people said, hey, you have to do this this way. Supreme Court's likely going to say no to that. And so that's going to change things. And then the third thing is, Florida has had 10, 15 years worth of population growth just in the last four years. So our districts are not well apportioned. Floridians, you know, are not getting equal representation based on where they live because people have moved into different parts of the state. so doing that, I think, is going to be more of a fair representation. Now, the Democrats don't like it. Now, Florida, you don't do the gerrymandering like California. You have to draw coherent districts. That's how the Constitution is. And I'm sure that's what the legislature will enact when they do it. But the reality is, you know, when you go from 300,000 more Democrats to 1.4 million more Republicans, the state is just a lot more Republican, than it was. So any coherent map is going to reflect the underlying changes of the political demography.

Jenna Ellis: Well, well said. And Governor Ron DeSantis, we'll take a break here, but I so appreciate, your time this morning, and we'll be interested to tune into the State of the State address and look forward to everything, that will be accomplished still in Florida. And, I think it's really wise advice that the people of Florida need to look for ourselves. I'm a voter here in Florida and look at the candidates, look at their record, ah, for every office, but especially for, someone who's going to succeed, ah, such a great, legacy and the last eight years of Governor Ron DeSantis and, decide for ourselves who deserves to be the next governor of Florida. We'll be talking about that, of course, a lot, throughout this year. And we'll be right back with more.

Preborn Network helps women choose life through a free ultrasound

We're m living in a time when truth is under attack. Lies are easy to tell, easy to spread and easy to believe. But truth, truth is costly. And nowhere is the cost greater than for mothers in crisis. When a woman is told abortion is her only option, Silence and lies surround her. But when she walks into a PreBorn Network clinic, she's met with compassion, support, and the truth about the growing life inside her. That moment of truth happens through a free ultrasound, and it's a game changer. When a mother sees her baby and hears that heartbeat, it literally doubles the chance she will choose life. PreBorn Network clinics are on the front lines, meeting women in their darkest hour, loving them, helping them choose life, and sharing the truth. Friend, this is not the time to be silent. It is the time for courage, for truth, and for life. Just $28 provides one ultrasound and the opportunity for a mother to see her baby. To help her choose truth and choose life. Please donate today. Call £250 and say, baby. That's £250, baby. Or give online@preborn.com forward/afr. That's preborn.com forward/afr.

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

Justice Department opens criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, Trump's DOJ has opened a probe in to the Federal Reserve, Powell drawing backlash from lawmakers. That's the headline from Politico. The move, they say, is a sharp escalation of Trump's clash with the Fed chief who he has pushed to lower interest rates. The Justice Department has opened that criminal investigation, in to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell statements to Congress regarding renovations of the Fed's headquarters in Washington. According to Powell, making a sharp escalation of President Trump's crusade against the Fed chief. He's long pushed Powell to cut interest rates rates. And the central bank leader framed the latest action in starkly political terms, arguing that the administration was solely motivated by the president's desire for dramatically lower borrowing costs. This coming as Trump has said that he is going to cap, any credit card interest at 10% for the whole year, making some other moves on the economy. But what does this actually signal about the priorities for America heading into 2026? Well, let's welcome in Jim Nels, who is an author. You can follow him at. Ah, real Jim Nels on social media. And Jim, good morning.

Are we on stable economic footing or are some headlines mask deeper structural problems

where are we actually heading into 2026? Are we on stable economic footing or are we just kind of masking some of these deeper structural problems with, some of these headlines?

 Jim Nelles: Oh, I think the country's in great economic shape right now. we'll see what the consumer price index is in a few minutes when that gets released. But last, month's number was, was very good. If you look at the cross tabs in the jobs report that came out last week, we're seeing, more American born Americans getting jobs. We're seeing better jobs. We're seeing more people return to the workplace because they want to go back to work. we're also seeing wages start to go up as we deport illegals who are in this country, thus driving the wages up because they depressed wages and also they are reducing the demand for rental housing, which is causing rental housing prices to come down for Americans. So I think we're in good shape there. Some of these other headlines, I don't know if they're just noise to distract from other things or just, personal vendettas. I am not a fair fan of Chairman Powell, but I think this is probably a mistake to be going after him criminally at this point. So I think that is going to ensure that once his chairmanship is up, he will refuse to resign from the Board of Governors and he'll be a thorn in the President's side for the rest of the President's term.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, you know, some of these, some of these fights aren't necessarily the fights perhaps that Trump needs to be fighting. And some of these other things that the DOJ could actively look into, like the Minnesota fraud seems to be a little bit stronger of a priority there.

Jim King: A lot of Americans are looking for Trump to get economy back

But Jim Nels, what are the indicators that you're watching that will, tell us where the economy is headed for 2020 and whether this is actually getting strengthened or weakening? I think a lot of Americans, especially the conservative voting base are looking for Trump to, as much as possible get us back to where we were. pre Covid.

 Jim Nelles: Yes, absolutely. And you know, it's a hard message for anyone in the administration to get through when you have to sell something that you're trying to do in 10 and 15 second sound bites. The challenge with getting us back to pre Covid levels is that we had about, 28% inflation during the Biden administration. So even if Trump is able to cut prices, you know, reduce that inflation in half, you're still up 14%. So even though we're seeing great activity in the price of gasoline coming down to two lows, we're starting to see the housing market tick up, we're seeing the rental market get better. People still go to the grocery store and they see how much it costs to leave the grocery store and that becomes the kitchen counter issue, the kitchen table issue that people talk about. There needs to be more messaging about what they're doing there. Needs to be more messaging about what's coming. And again, I think if you stop picking fights with people like Jerome Powell and just let him go away, then you'll have more time to get that message across.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah, really well said. And, you know, there's a, ah, lot of, I think, frustration as well, that while, you know, Trump is focused on some things that are good priorities, some things we could say, you know, might be not quite the correct, fights and all that, it doesn't really seem like Congress is, prioritizing, really doing anything, that is even close to codifying some of Trump's executive orders or really taking that mandate from the American people and looking toward, any legislation that actually benefits Americans. so heading into the midterm year, what, what are some important priorities that Congress should set as an agenda, that would benefit and boost the economy? especially when we're looking at, you know, how much Doge uncovered and, you know, all of this, this fraud in Minnesota. I mean, there's billions and billions of taxpayer funds that obviously are being misused and could, be either appropriated elsewhere or, or, you know, hey, maybe we could not have as, as much, as high of a federal income tax rate. I mean, I think that would be something that literally everybody would rejoice about. And if Democrats think that they want to give more to the irs, hey, they're welcome to send a check.

 Jim Nelles: There you go. I think that if Congress could actually do something, which I'm very dubious about them being able to do, I would love to see them go after more of this waste, fraud and abuse and try to get billions of dollars that way. but they don't want to do that because it's primarily the Democrat constituents who are committing the waste, fraud and abuse. So they're not going to attack their own constituents. I would love to see Congress start talking about another tax cut. I would like to see the corporate tax rate come down, I'd like to see the death tax come down, and I would like to see the federal income tax come down. There's no reason why we can't lower taxes for Americans, give them more money to spend and collect more money in things like sales tax, as opposed to just personal income tax, which is basically you taking my money before I have a chance to do anything with it, which I'm very much opposed to. but I think that that's going to not happen. I think that they're going to spend all their time fighting about Obamacare, subsidies. They're going to spend their time saying that we're not going to approve the new Federal Reserve chairman because you attacked Powell. They're going to spend their time doing that because that gets them on the air on places like CNN and msnbc. what Trump needs to also be doing, though, is selling what he's done with foreign policy. We got rid of the dictator in Venezuela. Cuba is days, if not weeks, away from falling, and the regime in Iran looks like it's done. That's a huge accomplishment basically before Martin Luther King Day in January. Right. So, you know, sell those things and then ask Congress to act, come back with a prioritized list for Congress, say this is what I want done before the midterm elections and let them have to explain why they can't get it done.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, it does seem like there is, is more of an emphasis, at least right now, from the Trump administration on some of these foreign policy wins. Absolutely. But do you think that, the message of actually trying to, to change or lower, income taxes and, some of these things that he started out his second term with, like, related to Doge. I mean, it seemed like the economy was a much bigger priority at the beginning of 2025 than it appears to be in 2026. And how does the administration needs to balance that, heading into the midterms, where I think, you know, people are very happy with what's, going on in, in the foreign policy world, if you're a conservative, obviously. but I think there is a real lack of prioritization of some of these domestic issues. And where's the balance?

 Jim Nelles: the balance is really, really difficult to do that. And gosh, Jennifer, I had the perfect answer that I'd write the book or go make a ton of money as a consultant, in D.C. but, you know, what they really need to do is, look, let people like Marco Rubio continue to get out there and talk about what they've done from a foreign policy perspective and what they've achieved, and then have Trump and J.D. vance so you can set J.D. vance up for re election, in 2028. Let them talk about, you know, affordability, which is the new catchphrase.

 : Right.

 Jim Nelles: like I said, the Consumer Price Index just came out. It's at 2.7% for the year, still above the 2% rate we're looking for, but. But it's coming down and holding steady. So that's good.

 : People.

 Jim Nelles: Most people don't know what the Consumer Price Index means, but what they have to talk about is things like the price of gas has come down. You know, $2 a gallon is now the lowest it's been since 2017. The price of a has been cut by, you know, a dollar fifty a dozen since Joe Biden left office. This is more money in your pocket, America, if you want more of the same. We cannot let the Democrats take control of Congress, because if they take control of Congress, all we're going to do for the next two years is watch impeachment after impeachment after impeachment of the president.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and everybody sees that, Jim Nels. I mean, everybody is kind of screaming at the top of our lungs like, hey, if Democrats get control of Congress in 2026, there's just going to be a slew of impeachments. A total distraction. But I think the frustrating part of that for me, not only is it does it seem like Congress just really doesn't care. And I've made the argument that maybe they actually want to lose, because they want to cripple the, Trump administration and try to kind of go back to the establishment, heading into 2028. But I think one of the overall bigger frustrations, even, you know, than just what's obvious is that it seems like Democrats are just, so much quicker at actually requiring their version of accountability, which amounts to nothing more than lawfare. But amount. I mean, it was like days after, all of the fraud in Minnesota, and then the, you know, the woman who used her car as a weapon to try to run over an ICE agent and was shot and killed. And Democrats are already suing ice, calling for impeachment of Kristi Noem. And here we are a year into the, to the Trump administration second term, and it's like there have been zero arrests of people who actually deserve accountability. Not this whole retribution, you know, law fair nonsense. I'm not for lawfare, regardless of what party, but actual accountability for things. It seems like the Republicans are just so slow, and all they do is, are these strongly worded letters, these hearings in Congress, and then it never amounts to anything because then the Democrats just distract with the next news cycle.

 Jim Nelles: I mean, Democrats fear nothing more than that strongly worded letter.

 : Right.

 Jim Nelles: you know, seriously, what the Democrats are good at and why, and what the Republicans say can't seem to do is messaging and alignment. Think about it. When the Democrats decide to get behind an issue, they all get behind the issue. You don't hear, you know, their version of, say, you know, Ram Paul or Massey or any of these guys coming out there with their moral superiority, and I'm going to, you know, take a, no vote on this, just based on principle. They fall in line because they're afraid of not having the support of the Democratic machine for fundraising. Republicans don't do the same thing. And they're not good at the messaging. The messaging on this whole stuff with ICE should be what other crimes should go unpunished? Should we let murderers walk free? Should we let rapists walk free? You tell us where the line is. Right? Because if you look at who they're deporting, they're deporting mostly rapists and killers and child molesters. But if you happen to be hanging out in a child molester's house and you're there illegally, when the ICE guys come in, they're not going to let you go. They're going to take you, too. And the argument of, well, you're separating families. Every time someone goes to jail, a family gets separated. Again, where do you draw the line?

Tom Holman: Republicans are not good at communicating messages to average American

But the Republicans are not good at that 15 second soundbite about that message and communicating that message in a way that the average American will understand. The best person at that right now is probably Tom Holman and he doesn't get as much airtime as he probably should.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah, so, so well said. And you know, Governor DeSantis, joined me earlier in the program and one of the great things that he said as is that so many politicians just have kind of this fluff and this rhetoric. But then when it comes to taking decisive action and putting principles into action, that's where the failure is. And I think that perfectly encapsulates largely where the Republican Party is and the frustration on the federal level that Trump probably has right now with Congress. but he is doing as much, I think, from the executive, probably as he can. I mean, maybe, you know, we could critique one or two things or say, obviously the doj, I think could be doing a lot more.

Jim Nels: Trump pushing for strategic partnership agreement with Greenland

but in the last few minutes I have with you Jim Nels, I also wanted to ask you about Trump's push, for Greenland. The headline, from Fox News was Trump says Greenland's defense is two dog sleds as he pushes for US Acquisition of the territory. And he warned that, ah, Russia and China will move in if the US doesn't act. And it looks like more of a strategic partnership agreement, rather than an actual like, like territory or certainly not statehood sort of acquisition. But, where do you see this potentially going in 20, 26. And, and, and could it be as early as this year that we see some kind of movement there?

 Jim Nelles: I think you're going to start seeing movement towards, like you said, a strategic partnership. you know, maybe there's room for Greenland as the 52nd state after we take over Canada. Let's see where that goes. But, but quite frankly, if you look at what's in Greenland, you have some rare earth minerals, you have a strategic location, when it comes to the defense of the Arctic, as well as early warning for submarines and missile launches should that happen, coming out of there. Greenland's always been strategic. Denmark's never cared about Greenland until we showed interest in them. So I think if it comes down to the people of Greenland having an opportunity to have their impact put, put into this, they're going to say, hey, we'd much rather align ourselves with the United States and have that protection than have Denmark be the ones who are going to protect us against Russia and China.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well said. Well, we got to take a break here, but Jim Nels, really appreciate your time this morning. And again, you can follow him at Real Jim Nels. And, he has a lot of really great articles out all the time. So go and read, everything that he writes. And you know, for a lot of the people that I have come on this show and commentators, you know, like Jim Nels, it's because they write really good commentary that I think is worth reading. And so definitely follow, you know, some people if you want your algorithm on social media to maybe be a little bit better, you know, follow the people who are worth following. So, he is at Real Jim Nels and we will be right back with more.

US Supreme Court to hear arguments over trans athletes in girls sports today

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

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, it's 2026 and we are still talking about what the definition of sex is, which is utterly ridiculous because even children know there is a difference biologically, inherently, immutably, between men and women. But yet somehow we're still talking about it. And we're talking about it today at the US Supreme Court as they hear arguments over trans athletes in girls sports. And, this is a, actually two cases for oral arguments that could determine, according to Fox News, whether states, states can ban transgender athletes who identify as women from competing on girls and women's sports teams. A legal fight that could have far reaching implications on transgender policies across the country. So the arguments in those two cases, Little vs. Hecox and West Virginia vs. BPJ, will examine state bans on transgender athletes participating in school sports under, Title 9 and the Constitution's equal protection clause. So at issue is whether the laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit transgender athletes who identify as women from playing on teams that match their gender identity discriminate based on sex. So it'll be very interesting to see especially where Justice Gorsuch stands on this. And oral arguments, start today at 10am you can listen now to those live or go back and listen to them. I prefer C Span because it actually tells you which justice or attorney advocate is, speaking at that time. So it's a little easier to keep track because you don't have video. but the other gender question mark at the Supreme Court, was filed late last week when the Thomas Moore Society filed an emergency request with the U.S. supreme Court after the 9th Circuit allowed California gender secrecy policies to resume. So for more on that, let's go to Paul Jonna, who is special counsel for the Thomas More Society and a partner at Lamondrie and Johnna llp. And you might remember him as my former colleague with the Thomas More Society and representing Pastor John MacArthur. Paul is just such an excellent attorney. And so Paul, really appreciate you joining. And what is the basis of this emergency request?

 Paul Jonna : Great to be with you, Jenna. Yes, so we obtained a kind of a, one of its kind statewide class wide permanent injunction blocking the state of California from enforcing these, what we call gender secrecy policies in schools which were state mandated. And the permanent injunction we obtained was on behalf of basically all parents and teachers statewide who object. And Attorney General Rob Bonta mutely asked the ninth Circuit to stay that ruling. And the three judge panel of the ninth Circuit did grant that emergency request sort of during the holidays. And so now we are asking the Supreme Court to vacate that stay and in the alternative to take the case up on the merits as well. So that's a very short overview.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And so, you know, so these policies are basically, you've termed it California's parental deception scheme. And I think that's, that's a really wise articulation of what's going on. And so, you know, among the plaintiffs, as Thomas Mer Society has laid out, are devout Catholic parents who were never told their junior high daughter was being treated as a male at school for nearly a year. They only learned the truth after she attempted suicide. And so, you know, when you're talking about, these gender secrecy policies, it really means that these state funded schools are not telling parents the truth. About what's happening in schools.

 Paul Jonna : They're very dangerous, very dangerous policies. Essentially, they require schools to unhesitatingly accept a student's assertion of their gender identity and not to disclose the gender identity to the parents unless the student consents. And these are kids as young as five. they can ask to be referred to with new names, new pronouns. No questions are asked, no mental health assessment is made. They just have to go with the new name and pronouns that the five year old tells them and the parents are left in the dark. And in fact, the school has two sets of rosters. They have one that they go, you know, one set of names they use at school. And then if the kid doesn't want the parents to know, they have to use the legal names and biological pronouns when speaking to parents. So it's, it's actively deceiving parents, leaving them in darkness. Something that's so fundamental to their child, like their identity. And in the case of the one that you mentioned, child poe, in our case, tragically, we see how these policies can affect kids in real life. She literally was so disturbed and so distraught by all of this, she tried to take her own life. And it was only after her failed suicide attempt, the doctor said, did you know she was actually identifying as a boy at school? And they had no idea. So these are dangerous policies.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it's just, it's so obviously wrong and obviously not in the best interests of, the child, but also overriding, parental rights to know what's going on with their own child at school. And this is just, you know, furtherance of the leftist mentality that children belong to the state, not the parents. but what is California's argument that somehow this is, even the best interest of, of the child to leave the parents in the dark? I mean, it doesn't seem like they would be even be able to mount that type of argument just on the merits anyway.

 Paul Jonna : Yeah, their arguments really don't hold up. They've been rejected not only in federal court, but in state court. Their main argument is, well, students have privacy rights and under the privacy clause of the California constitution, you know, they, they don't have to, you know, parents don't have to know this information. Little kids have these privacy rights where the whole school essentially knows their identity, but the parents will get to know. It's really a nonsensical argument. State courts have rejected it. Our federal court rejected it. they've also said, you know, there's equal protection arguments, anti discrimination, but all of Those don't hold up when you're comparing them against, you know, federal constitutional rights of parents and of teachers, the First Amendment, the 14th Amendment. So the judge in our case did a very detailed analysis, said, look, whatever rights you think justify this scheme are obviously trumped by the federal constitutional rights of parents and teachers. And so our case kind of has the full spectrum of claims represented. We have First Amendment claims for parents, 14th Amendment claims for parents, and then First Amendment claims, for teachers as well. Free speech and free exercise. And so it's a great vehicle to have this issue kind of, of addressed once and for all because these policies unfortunately are nationwide now.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. This isn't just, California, even though that has seemed to be the tip of the spear with, you know, a lot of this, gender, you know, priority nonsense. but in terms of the posture of the case, and so this is an emergency request, after the ninth Circuit allowed, you know, the gender policies to resume. So basically just saying, you know, halt everything until we get, get to the merits, what is the likelihood of the Supreme Court just taking this up on the merits at this point? Or how do you anticipate, the procedural, all of this to play out?

 Paul Jonna : So we're actually in a pretty favorable posture here because we already prevailed at the trial court and the 9th Circuit sort of took the extraordinary step of staying a well reasoned 52 page permanent injunction ruling after a full, period of discovery, 25 depositions. So we're not, you know, asking the Supreme Court to, to do anything really, incredible here. It's just to vacate that 9th Circuit order so that our trial court order can stay in force during the appeal. So I think that, I think the standard there is pretty favorable for us as far as taking up the case. I actually think there's a decent chance that they'll seriously consider that because there's another case pending before the Supreme Court. Actually there's been six, cases that have sought Supreme Court review dealing with these issues. But there's I think three active cert petitions and one in particular that's being conf. 2 actually that are being conferenced, in the near future. So I think this is an issue that circuit courts have sort of wrestled with and gotten wrong. And, and I think there's a good chance that they're just going to want to resolve this once and for all, especially since these circuit courts are really ignoring controlling Supreme Court precedent on this stuff.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, it does seem like the, the Supreme Court is eager to take up and Resolve you know, some of these questions on gender and you know, yet you have the, the recent, I think it was 2018 case, in Bostock where you know, Gorsuch for the majority just inexplicably, reading into the term sex, in, in federal law that obviously just meant you know, the difference between men and women and reading into that sexual orientation, gender identity. are some of these cases in your mind an opportunity to revisit that and sort of stop all of this you know, gender confusion, nonsense once and for all?

 Paul Jonna : Yeah, I think it'll be very interesting to see what happens with the, the case that you mentioned. That's going to be the cases that are going to be argued today.

The ACLU is challenging California's gender secrecy policies on First Amendment grounds

I think there's lots of different ways to look at these issues and I think, I think we've presented one of the easiest for this, for this specific issue of gender secrecy policies. And that's a First Amendment, challenge for parents under the Mahmoud case, you know, which is a very strong opinion that came out last year and I think the circuit courts are just ignoring the opinion essentially in that case it was parents had the right to opt out their children from from lessons that were reading, you know, these same sex story book to kids. And so there was a First Amendment right, the Supreme Court said to opt out of that instruction. And so you know, how much more serious is it, you know reading those books to kids is serious, but how much more serious is it where you're allowing schools to secretly transition your kids? So we're arguing parents should obviously have the right to opt out of those, of those policies. So I think that that's a very easy way for the Supreme Court to deal with this. And so I think as far as the broader gender related issues, I agree there's a whole, there's different strategies for different types of cases but this one really is focused on the First Amendment and then the 14th Amendment.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, and it's a great point that while you know, we hope as conservatives and you know, and for protections under the Constitution, God given rights, pre political, all of that, that the Supreme Court should you know, stop these ridiculous gender related policies. and that's one side of the coin, but the other is to strengthen parental rights and the fundamental rights of parents to not only know what's going on with their child but make the best decision on behalf of their minor child. I mean to say you know, this happening with kids even 5 years old. I mean, that's just utterly absurd. And so how would you define the constitutional boundary between parental rights and what the, the allegation is here of a state interest in student confidentiality, or safety. I mean there, there are some obvious, you know, limits. But overridingly, the Supreme Court should be strengthening parental rights as well.

 Paul Jonna : Yeah, I mean this is, you know, there's, there's the Supreme Court jurisprudence on scope of parental rights goes back, you know, to, you know, 1800s. There's so many cases, discussing the importance of the parents role in directing their children's upbringing, directing, you know, their formation. In this case, it's actually also directing their medical care. I mean, because as we've seen these policies, you know, allow socially transitioning a kid has serious psychological and mental health effects. And we have expert testimony. In fact, I forgot to mention this in response to your earlier question. The state's own experts could not defend these policies. I mean, everyone has to acknowledge kids are going to do better if their parents are informed, aware and supportive. I mean, no kid is going to do better off with living a double life where their parents don't know their identity at school. It's so obvious and so crazy that we have to have litigation over this. But no, I do think this is one of those clear areas where this is within the scope of the parental right. And we're just, you know, we have to establish that once and for all before more harm is done to young kids.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, and the left always consistently says, you know, there's no, evidence of you know, of harm as it relates to like the parents. But there's so much, you know, that can harm the child and all that if you don't allow all this gender nonsense. But, but the facts bear otherwise that clearly when, and especially in, in the instance that you described of one of your own plaintiffs, that this type of delusion and for adults, participating in that type of delusion and advancing it and then creating this wedge between teachers, and parents and all this, I mean, none of this just makes sense logically. And yet, this is just clearly an advancement of, of politics and, and policies and a world view that California and other leftist states want to advance. And so the, you know, the harm really only goes one direction. And I don't see how, the left can in good faith argue otherwise.

 Paul Jonna : Well, that's actually something that I found quite ironic, which is that their emergency petition to the 9th Circuit said this order is going to sow chaos throughout the state. We need an emergency, you know, stay of the order. And if you look at the order, it's like so clear. Don't lie to parents, tell them the truth. Don't let, don't force teachers to deceive parents. if parents ask for records, give them records. I mean, so complying with that injunction is going to sow chaos in the state of California. That's what the attorney general said. So, yeah, it's, it's, I think they need to be called out and I think that's what, you know, that's what we're doing. And hopefully the Supreme Court steps in and, and we can get this resolved once and for all.

Jenna Ellis: Well, thanks so much Paul Jona. And we do need to be praying for the Supreme Court to do the right thing, protect the fundamental rights of parents, act in the best interests of children in both of these cases. And so you can follow Paul Jona at pauljana on X and also the Thomas Moore Society. And as always, you can reach me and my team JennaAFR.net. PreBorn's whole mission is to rescue babies from abortion and lead their families to Christ. Last year PreBorn's network of clinics saw 8,900 mothers come to Christ. Please join us in this life saving mission. To donate, go to preborn.com afr.