The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Monday, November 18, 2024

Episode Date: November 18, 2024

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:13 - 14:43)Cabinet Controversies: Some of Trump’s Potential Appointments Incite Major Furor on Political and Moral GroundsPart II (14:43 - 22:13)So What’s the Message About Abortion? Trump Nominates a Kennedy Scion and Iconoclast, RFK Jr., to Head the HHSPart III (22:13 - 27:05)The Conservative Impulse to Look Beyond Disorder: A President Should Appoint for Loyalty, but Trump’s Appointments Need to Bring Even More to the Table and Serve Him (And the Nation) WellSign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

It's Monday, November 18, 2024. I'm Albert Moller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Well, there is no doubt that the biggest domestic news story before the weekend, during the weekend, and well in two days ahead, is going to be the roster of nominations that the president-elect has announced when it comes to major White House and administrative positions, the positions that come under the nomination authority of the president's. of the United States. When it comes to the announcements about impending nominations made by President-elect Donald J. Trump, the reality is that some of them are very much settled figures. When you're looking at, for instance, Florida Senator Marco Rubio as the designee to be the Secretary of State. That is such an important position, as I have indicated historically the most important cabinet position. But Marco Rubio, as the United States Senator of many years now and is one who has a lot of international experience through his involvement as the United States Senator, there is no doubt that Marco Rubio is a credible

candidate. That is an understatement. But when it comes to several of the other announcements made by the Trump transition team or the former president, the now president elect himself, several of these announcements are extremely problematic and the problematic dimension is not becoming less of a factor as we've gone through the weekend and are pressing into the week ahead. If anything, the controversies concerning at least four of these nominees are likely to grow. Those four announcements have to do with the President-elect's intention to name former Florida Congressman Matt Gates as Attorney General of the United States, Fox News figure Pete Hegsef as the Secretary of Defense, Tulsi Gabbard as the Director of National

Intelligence, and Robert Kennedy Jr. as the Secretary of Health and Human services. Those four are blowing up, and they're blowing up for very different reasons, but each of them is blowing up according to a common theme. That theme is disruption. That theme of disruption has to be added to the absolute assurance of absolute personal loyalty to Donald J. Trump. President Trump learned during his first term in office that he could be subverted by members of his own cabinet, and he felt himself personally to have been betrayed by several members of his own cabinet. Now, even looking at his first cabinet, it was a mix of people with obvious experience and people who obviously had less experience. But in the president's memory, a lot of it has to do, if not virtually

all of it has to do, with the loyalty or perceived lack of loyalty to the president by members of his cabinet. But when it comes to these four figures, there are other issues that have to be added to the mix. Not only are they assured a personal loyalty to the president of the United States, by the way, It's not wrong for a president to expect personal loyalty, but there have to be limits to that personal loyalty. Just think of Richard Nixon and the Watergate crisis in the United States. There has to be a limit because, after all, those who assume these positions also swear an oath on the U.S. Constitution. Or at the very least, they are bound to protect the U.S. Constitution. But looking at these four figures, again, there are some commonalities, one major commonality,

but there are also some differences. Let's start first with perhaps the most controversial, and that is President Trump's designate to be the Attorney General of the United States. That's former Florida Congressman Matt Gates. Now, I say former, even though just a matter of days ago, we were talking about the fact that Matt Gates had won re-election to his congressional seat. Running as a Republican, running for re-election, he won convincingly, but he did not win without controversy.

And just to state the name Matt Gates, Congressman Matt Gates, now former Congressman Matt Gates, is to invoke controversy. There was almost immediate applause from the House Chamber when it was announced that Gates would become, or at least would be nominated by President Trump to become the U.S. Attorney General because that meant they would not have to deal with them as a colleague in the House. He hasn't been much of a colleague in the house. He has been known most famously for a lack of collegiality, but it's also fair to say he has seen himself as a disruptor. But if he were merely a disruptor, if he were merely a law school graduate with not too much legal experience, there still would be far less controversy attached to Matt Gates than

actually is very much attached to him. This has to do with rumors of a sex scandal that also involved illicit drug use. Now, here's where the timing becomes incredibly interesting and more than a little bit convenient for Matt Gates. He was re-elected on Election Day to his congressional district, But then the announcement came, and apparently inside sources say the announcement came due to a sudden decision by the president-elect to appoint Matt Gates or to nominate Matt Gates to be U.S. Attorney General. This came as a shock even to many in the Trump administration coming into shape. And as you look at this, you understand that was a very unpredictable nomination. But it is also a matter of crucial timing.

Even before the question of timing, there were very credible accusations. made against Matt Gates so credible that even Republicans in the House demanded an investigation. That investigation has been looking into charges of Gates being involved in sex parties that may have included the use of illicit drugs and may have included, at least by some allegations, underage participants. But then came the surprise news about the intention of President Trump to name Matt Gates as Attorney General. Then came the news that the House Investigation Committee was just about to release its report, even perhaps by the end of this week. That was used to explain why Matt Gates resigned so precipitously from the House because that resignation means that the investigative

committee in the House now has no jurisdiction over Matt Gates because it doesn't have jurisdiction over former members of the House of Representatives. But then the public pressure came very clearly on the Senate, saying that the Senate must fulfill its responsibility of advice and consent, certainly about a nomination to an office this important Attorney General of the United States, and when it comes to a nominee, in this case, Matt Gates. You're looking at maximum controversy, but you're also looking at maximum exposure to potential scandal. Now, over the course of the weekend, even several Republicans in the House and in the Senate said that the House Committee's report should be released. The results of its investigation should be made public. Now, most people

inside the House of Representatives don't believe that that is likely to be done officially. On the other hand, it is likely that at least Democratic members of the Senate and even some Republican members of the Senate are going to demand, if not the report, then the information that is behind the report. It's also just a matter of fact that when you look at the reality of political battle in Washington, D.C., and you understand the fact that the Democrats, though outnumbered in the Senate, are not without press platform, The likelihood is that there will be leaks or some form of information concerning what's in that report that will get into the public square, and that is likely to be, let's just say, dominating in the headlines ahead. This is a very strange situation. When it comes to presidential appointments, this kind of controversy at this stage, if not unprecedented, it is extremely unusual.

And one of the big questions here is just how serious President-elect Donald Trump is about this nomination. I guess the bottom line is we're about to find out. But Americans are likely to have very grave concerns about a nominee for this kind of office that has this kind of allegation live behind him. It's not just the fact that he's a disruptor. We'll talk more about that in a moment. It is the fact that he might have been involved in what is frankly, morally disqualifying from this kind of office, if not from any major office in the United States government at all. When it comes to former Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, announced by the president-elect as his designate to be the Director of National Intelligence, that's an office with vast access to and supervision over the entire intelligence operation of the United States government.

The big issue that's been raised there is the fact that she has been, at least, accused by some of being rather cozy when it comes to Russian President Vladimir Putin, not personally, but when it comes to support for Russia. She's also made some other rather unusual statements. But in the context of the controversy about other nominees, Tulsi Gabbard is likely to recede into the background of that controversy because, after all, President Trump seems to be putting his authority behind her nomination, so it's likely to move forward. But it's also likely that there will be some pretty hard questions asked. But it's telling. It's telling in a sad way that the Trump transition process seemed to be completely taken by surprise, by allegations of sexual misconduct alleged against Fox host Pete Hegseth, President Trump's designee to be the Secretary of Defense.

Just to state the obvious, there are few positions more crucial in our national government than the Secretary of Defense. That is, the person who has the highest civilian authority other than the President of the United States over the entirety of the armed services of the United States of America. You can just do the math and figure out what is then and there. stake. But understanding the charge against Pete Hegeseth, it raises some very interesting questions. One of them has to do with the fact that even as the allegations came to light, the Trump

Transition Committee says they did not know about these allegations. Now, let me just state something that is not perhaps said, but should be understood. It was the responsibility of Pete Hegeseth to bring this to the attention of the former president and his transition committee. It is unconscionable that a potential nominee to be announced by a president-elect of the United States could have this kind of issue behind him and not bring it to the attention of the president-elect himself. Not only that, but also to the attention of the transition committee. People close to the former president and to that transition process said they were completely surprised by the rise of these allegations. And the allegations obviously have something to them because even as the accuser herself seems not to be

making public statements, the reality is that it is a matter of record at this point that some kind of agreement was made between Pete Hegseth and a woman who had accused him of misconduct. Let me be clear, I'm in no position to tell you or to state as a matter of fact or opinion as to whether any such misconduct happen. I am saying that it is unconscionable and irresponsible for someone who would accept nomination to this kind of office and evoke this kind of confirmation process not to bring that to the attention of the President-elect of the United States. That in itself, I would think, would shake the confidence of the President-elect when it comes to this kind of candidate for that kind of office. At the very least, at the very least, at this point,

Pete Hegseth appears not to have served the President-elect well. That's a bad way to start this process. But I say for last, the consideration of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., announced by President Trump as his choice to be. the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. This is a stunning surprise. Or at least it's a stunning surprise given the history of that department. It's probably not a stunning surprise given the blossoming friendship between Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Donald J. Trump. So the president-elect has made this announcement. And as it was very clear in the final weeks of the campaign, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was taking an active role toward the election of Donald Trump

to a second term as president of the United States. So in that sense, there clearly was an alliance, there clearly was a friendship, but what exactly does it mean that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is to be the president's nominee for this office. Now, let me just start by saying something that may appear to be a slight detour. Let's talk about the Department of Health and Human Services before we talk about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The Department of Health and Human Services was known a generation ago is the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. It was understood to be the federal agency, the federal department that had primary oversight and coordination of and budgetary control for all kinds of social services. Services related to health, services related to,

what we would call welfare, services related to the war on poverty, services related to all kinds of issues related to health, education, and welfare. It was President Jimmy Carter, who spun off, by the way, at the insistence of and under the power of teachers' unions, spun off education to be a separate department. So you really can't have the Department of Health Education and Welfare known pervasively in Washington as H-E-W. You can't take the E out and just be left with HW. So it was renamed the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department of Education went in a different direction. And we'll be talking more about that in days to come, I assure you. But looking at the Department of Health and Human Services, just consider how many programs it supervises,

consider the breadth and the dimensionality of its work, and understand why conservatives have had many, many reasons to be concerned and sometimes even outraged by the Department of Health and Human Services. It has largely been under the direction of those who had a far more liberal agenda than conservatives would accept from the get-go. But it's also clear that it has a very important role to play in government, And its supervision over the H part, that is the health part, well, that's what leads to a lot of the controversy. And all of that, virtually all of that was brought to the fore, basically a lit with neon lights when it came to the COVID pandemic. The Department of Health and Human Services was on the front line of aggravating millions upon millions of Americans, even as it

was the frontline agency given total supervision of the departments that had to do with health in the United States government. So it certainly had its successes, but it also has its controversies. And quite frankly, there are a lot of questions that still remain to be asked. So before we get to the individual announced as the president's designee to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services, before we get to Robert of Kennedy, Jr., we'll get there. Let's just talk about the problems with the Department of Health and Human Services, and the likelihood that there's going to be a lot of controversy addressed to that department from the get-go. Just consider the fact, and this is also very interesting,

Consider the fact that Republican Senator Rand Paul, a medical doctor from the state of Kentucky, has announced that he is going to be using his committee's power in the United States Senate to thoroughly investigate our government's role in the COVID pandemic. Senator Paul, Dr. Paul, has been very clear in making accusations of misconduct and mismanagement and worse when it comes to the federal government and to the Department of Health and Human Services. Let's just say it's going to be a very interesting ride. But that's the political background. When you look at the current controversy, it has to do with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., as much as it has to do with the Department of Health and Human Services. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the son of the late Robert F. Kennedy, who was himself a former

Attorney General of the United States under his brother, John F. Kennedy. He served as the United States Senator, a Democrat from New York, and he was running hard for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in 1968 when he was assassinated in June of that year. He was assassinated the very night he won the California primary. It appeared at that point that Robert F. Kennedy, father, the former attorney general, current then U.S. Senator from New York, was headed for his party's nomination when it came to the summer Democratic National Convention and a likely win in his run for the White House as the Democratic nominee. But all that was cut short by an assassin's bullet, and it, of course, was haunting to the United States not only in the sheer

horror of his assassination, but the fact that it had happened just years after the assassination of his brother, the president of the United States, John F. Kennedy. It was very clear, by the way, that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was horribly traumatized by his father's death. That's quite understandable. That's a natural response. It is also important that we remember that the entire Kennedy dynasty has a very important role to play in American history. And it was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s father, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who was largely an architect for the expansion of government and the expansion of programs, such as those that are currently under the Department of Health and Human Services. services. Robert F. Kennedy, the father, the U.S. Senator from New York, former Attorney General, was a very classic liberal in the form of the 1960s. He wasn't so much a leftist as he was a

classic big government liberal. Now, the Kennedy family is still very, very liberal. And at least some members of the family have moved more or less from being liberal to being more leftist. But the mainstream of the Kennedy family is just classically committed to the Democratic liberal project. And that's why the family clan gathered together in common opposition to the idea that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should be running for the office of president of the United States. He was basically ostracized by his family. And then when he came to endorse Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee is president of the United States, well, that put him as the odd man out in the Kennedy family. Just looking at the photograph, you could ask the question, what's wrong with this picture? You wouldn't look at this

kind of Republican administration coming into shape and put any Kennedy into it. But if you were going to insert a Kennedy, well, this would be the Kennedy you would figure would be on that list. Now, at this point, just given the politics of the situation, things get really, really interesting. So who will be against Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., when it comes to, say, his various positions on health issues? Well, the fact is, he'll have opposition from the left, of course. He'll have opposition from Democrats, even apparently opposition from his own family, but he will also have odd sources of support. When it comes to his battle against big business and corporate food, he's going to have friends on the left as well as on the right. When it comes to his war, as he says, on a lack of

basic nutritional knowledge when it comes to Americans, he's likely to have something like a bipartisan consensus. When it comes to his anti-vaxing, he is likely to scare just about everyone on the left, and frankly, he'll probably divide some on the right. But when you come to other issues, it's also very clear that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an iconoclast. That is to say, he smashes all the normal profiles. He has some positions that would be on the right. He has other positions that would be on the left. The one position that, no doubt, put him at the very center of this list that has to do with the nominations list, is that he has developed a close relationship with Donald Trump. and it's simply a matter of the electoral situation to understand that even as the campaign was getting into its final days,

the now-president-elect was pretty clear about the fact that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would have an important role in his administration when it comes to health policy. And again, that is scaring some people nearly to death. It is offending other people. It's encouraging some, and even some who would be counted among those as opponents of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are at least proponents of many people. the points he's trying to make. But almost no one other than Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is happy with all of them. But I must end when considering Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by saying the big issue to me, and I think the big issue to conservative Christians ought to be the fact that the question of abortion looms large over Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Now, honestly, it may loom large over some other Trump nominees as well. But we are talking here about the Department of Health and Human Services. So it is particularly germane. It's particularly relevant. It's particularly urgent to know exactly where

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. stands on the issue of abortion. And there are signs that this is big trouble. At least at some point in recent months, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has indicated that he believes that government should not interfere with what he characterized as a woman's right to an abortion, basically all the way up through pregnancy. Now, that's a radical position that we've criticized roundly and comprehensively, when it comes to someone like Minnesota Governor Tim Walls, well, it is only fair and right to offer the same criticism when it's held by someone who may be appointed this kind of office by President-elect Donald Trump. It is the issue that matters. It's the truth that matters. It is not the candidate, the individual, or in this case, the party that matters.

Former Vice President Mike Pence has come out squarely against Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s nomination, citing the abortion issue and called upon other conservatives to do the same, there are also, at least some, in the political structure of the pro-life movement, who have given qualified support to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for this role, I would argue that for Christians, and I'm speaking here particularly to Christians who are right on the pro-life cause, Christians who contend for the dignity and sanctity of human life and fertilization until natural death, we bear the responsibility to hold every single nominee accountable on the issue of abortion. And that means that we should demand a full accounting on this issue. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. must state clearly and without

equivocation his defense of unborn life, or quite frankly, we are in no position to support this nomination and have every reason to oppose it. But let's just state this. It is fair for the designee of this office to be asked for a public accounting of his position on these issues, on the question of abortion, on the question of life, frankly on other major questions of life, having to do not only with the beginning of life, but the end of life, and to demand an accounting to make that accounting on these issues public and then to call upon the United States Senate, the Republican majority in the United States Senate, to uphold the dignity and sanctity of unborn life in light of this nomination and hold the candidate, the nominee, accountable. But here's where I also want to say

that a conversion to the pro-life position at this point is not to be taken at face value, but it's also not to be discounted. In the political process, even on these issues for the last several decades, interesting things have happened. I recall what happened during the Republican National Convention in the 1980 campaign cycle when former California Governor Ronald Reagan and won the Republican nomination and chose his running mate. He chose as his running mate, someone who had run against him in the primaries, and that was George H.W. Bush. George H.W. Bush, who later was elected, the 41st president of the United States on his own, George Herbert Walker Bush, had lived his entire adult lifetime as an advocate for legal abortion

and basically a supporter of Roe v. Wade. But he changed on that position overnight in order to accept the Republican vice presidential nomination. He and President Reagan then of course won. He served eight years as vice president, later four years as president. The point I want to make is that there were huge questions about his position on abortion and the credibility of that position. But I also want to state that in office, George H.W. Bush, as president of the United States, was a vocal defender of unborn human life. His actions were not always what pro-lifers had wanted, but he was markedly committed to the pro-life cause, and he made a difference in history for that cause.

But I want to end not looking just to these nominees and the controversies around them, I want to look to the larger question of the leadership team that is being put into place for the Trump administration during this second term. My great fear here is not so much the controversy related to individual candidates. It is the fact that the president of the United States

deserves and should demand the very finest candidates available for these positions. Now, at the same time, they should be loyal to the President of the United States, personally loyal, within proper constitutional bounds. I affirm that. And President Trump was often ill-served by some of the members of his earlier cabinets. But looking at this, you do recognize that the president is setting himself up in this case to be less than well-served by the quality of some of the candidates he has mentioned for these It's not just that there's controversy about them. It just raises a huge question as to whether

these particular individuals are in a position genuinely to help the President of the United States in the fulfillment of his constitutional duties. The President-elect has no shortage of enemies, and they're going to have, politically speaking, the long knives out. He needs to be served by those who are not only loyal, but who are unquestionably competent and whose positions are consistent with the conservatives who elected Donald Trump as president of the United States. Christians also, of course, have a deeper level of concern here, because it has to do with deeper moral issues that transcend even the political. And that comes down, especially in this case, to the sanctity and dignity of human life at every stage, including in the womb.

If that conviction becomes expendable, well, just imagine the tragedy that means for this nation. Those are the stakes, as we face at least some of these issues. Clarification at the very least is necessary right now, but that clarification needs to be followed with genuine credibility. It goes without saying, but perhaps we just ought to go ahead and say it. The stakes in these offices are too high to be handled irresponsibly. Stay tuned. Thanks for listening to the briefing.

For more information, go to my website at Albertmohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter or X by going to be Twitter.com forward slash Albert Moller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbtsk.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to voicecollege.com. I'm speaking to you from Dallas, Texas, and I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.