2025 Begins With an Act of Terror in New Orleans
23:42 Share

This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Forget the frustration of picking commerce platforms when you switch your business to Shopify, the global commerce platform that supercharges your selling wherever you sell. With Shopify, you'll harness the same intuitive features, trusted apps, and powerful analytics used by the world's leading brands. Sign up today for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash tech, all lowercase. That's shopify.com slash tech.

From the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. Islamist terror appears to have returned to the United States with an attack in New Orleans on New York.

New Year's Day morning that killed 15 and injured dozens more. What do we know about Shamsa Din Jabbar and his motives for driving a truck through pedestrians on Bourbon Street? Plus, the 119th Congress convenes on Friday with Speaker Mike Johnson's hold on his job.

still in doubt. What happens if he loses that vote and what would it tell us about the Republican ability to govern with both houses of Congress and the White House under their control? Welcome to Potomac Watch and happy new year. I'm Paul Gigo, the editor of the Wall Street Journal Opinion Pages, and I'm here with colleagues Bill McGurn and Kyle Peterson to kick off

the new year and a sad one with the attack in New Orleans. The FBI has identified the driver of the truck that sped around a police car barricade and down a sidewalk and killed 15 people as 42-year-old Texan

and Army veteran Shamsud Din Jabbar. Police say he traveled from the Houston area where he was active in a local mosque to New Orleans to carry out his attack. Details have been coming with some caution, but trickling out Thursday, the FBI had another press conference and made it clear that Jabbar had posted

messages saying that he was loyal to ISIS or Islamic State. An ISIS flag was on his truck. So it would appear that his motivation was Islamist radicalism inspired by Islamist State. No word on whether he

had any associates overseas or any connections overseas. The FBI now say that he acted alone after a day earlier saying that they did not believe that that was the case. Let's listen to New Orleans Police Superintendent Ann Kirkpatrick describe how Jabbar committed his act of terror. Ann Kirkpatrick: This particular terrorist drove around onto the sidewalk

and got around the hard target where we did have a car there, we had barriers there, we had officers there, and they still got around. Now, the wedges that you see out there as well, we knew that that had malfunction problems. And I want you to understand, let's say we put the wedge up and it got stuck.

There is no way that ambulance could get in or out. People couldn't get in and out. So we knew that these were malfunctioned.

So, we did indeed have a plan, but the terrorist defeated it. The reference to the wedges is to these barriers that have been put up in places around the country and in parts of New Orleans to protect pedestrians from exactly this kind of event. The good news though, Bill, is that the FBI now says he acted alone. This means that they don't believe there's an active terrorist cell.

And it would appear, if that's the case, to have been an example of essentially self-actualized radicalization. Yeah, there's a lot more of that going on. If you look back 25 years to 2001, you know, we had hijackers trained overseas to

boarded planes in the US, had plotted it for a long time, took pilot lessons, and then commandeered the planes and ran them into buildings. We're not seeing that kind of stuff in recent years. It's very difficult to do that.

What I think some of the terror groups found is that they put all this stuff on the internet. People can self-radicalize. And sometimes with the help of the local mosque, if there's a particular imam there or something that gives kind of supporting sermons and so forth. But it's much more of a danger because...

Yes, it means they're not doing the high-level things like knocking down twin towers or destroying the Pentagon, but they do cause terror, as the people of New Orleans found out by a simple truck.

just drove in among them, mowed them down. So it's very hard in a free society to harden all our targets. In fact, it's impossible. So we have to be more aware of what's going on on the internet, in mosques, in different associations, so we can monitor people that go on the grid and we at least know what

who they are and what kind of stuff they're listening to. Well, it's much harder to do if they're not talking to others, right? If they're alone, that's harder to discover if they're working alone. Once they start to communicate in groups, there's a much better chance that one of the listeners in that group may be, "Kyle, I'm an FBI agent." That's how the FBI has discovered some of these cells that they have prosecuted over the years.

They've just infiltrated it by having an agent sound sympathetic notes. Right. And you can hope that the FBI is going to double down on efforts like that in the days and the weeks to come. Though, in fairness, Islamic Jihad terrorism has fallen from the public view, the public consciousness a little bit in recent years, but it hasn't necessarily fallen from the FBI's view. I mean, Christopher Wray, the head of the FBI, has been warning about this for months.

He said in testimony in October of 2023 that the Hamas attack on Israel and unfolding events in the Middle East were probably going to provide impetus perhaps for people who are homegrown terrorists or people who are communicating with others abroad to perpetrate attacks like this. In the United States, there have been arrests.

Before the 2024 election, October 8th, the Justice Department charged a citizen of Afghanistan residing in Oklahoma City for conspiring to conduct an election day terrorist attack in the United States. And so this has been a little bit off of the

public's agenda, but this is the bread and butter of why we have an FBI and the kind of activity that the FBI is supposed to be tracking. And I think Bill's right. It's impossible to harden every public space. And if you have somebody who is self-radicalizing and not communicating in a group in that way, it's not necessarily easy to find those people. But that's what we have an FBI and federal agents to do their best at doing. Well, but we know that they uncover Bill Plott's

that they don't get credit for because they never discovered, you know, break things up. And frankly, they get some criticism when they make arrests. Sometimes they say, oh, well, you led these people on. They weren't really a threat, but you kind of encouraged them to cross a line and therefore you arrested them unduly. Or you mentioned this earlier, infiltrating a mosque, say, if they hear that there's a

radicalization going on, or perhaps a particularly volcanic imam preaching somewhere, they can get criticized for that. Yeah. And not only can they get criticized, they are criticized. When I was in the Bush White House, it seemed that every anti-terror initiative, you mentioned the monitoring of the mosque, was fought very hard by these liberal activist groups, you know, where the U.S. government was the enemy, not

the bad guys plotting against us. The courts mostly upheld what the president's doing. Popular progressive sentiment was decidedly operating the other way. I mean, the good news is that in today's world, it's very hard

to go off the grid, to really go off the grid and not have identifying fingerprints. I don't mean just your fingers, but numbers like credit card numbers, birthdays, and so forth. And so once they suspect you, if they suspected Paul Gigo, they run...

a different number, your credit card numbers, they see a nexus of any links you might have with other people who are suspects. So they can learn a lot fast when they have someone to focus on. Of course, that's the whole issue, focusing on the right person before he's able to attack. Right. And we're not talking here about surveilling mosques or Muslims simply because they're a mosque or a Muslim. You have to have some probable cause to do that. But

That can be important. We'll learn more about what Jabbar's motives were, where he worshiped, apparently a mosque in Houston, and other links that he may have or may not have had. We have had these cases of just individual self-radicalization before. We're going to take a break. And when we come back, we'll talk about the explosion in Las Vegas on New Year's Day when we come back. Welcome back. I'm Paul Gigot here on Potomac Watch, our daily podcast.

of the Wall Street Journal Opinion Page, and I'm here with Kyle Peterson and Bill McGurn. This quieting as well on New Year's Day was the explosion of a Tesla explosion

in Las Vegas. A man died on the scene, was now identified as Michael Livelsberger, a special forces soldier. It's not clear if this was an accident or intentional or if there are any links at all to terrorist intent. The FBI said on Thursday morning that there was no

known link between the New Orleans and Las Vegas events. But certainly, it did lead to some concern because of the two events on the same day. And, you know, it does, I think, underscore the fact, Kyle, that the Islamic terror threat, though it has been downplayed in recent years in the public mind, still very much with us. And many groups overseas, Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, various branches of Al-Qaeda and different

countries is still active, a terror group that a branch of Al-Qaeda that had formed in Afghanistan staged bombings in Moscow, for example, in recent years. So vigilance is very much still required. And you have to think that Kash Patel, President Trump's nominee to run the FBI, the minute he takes that job, he's gonna be responsible for anti-terror activities.

and crime. And my recommendation to him would be focus on those and not on political revenge against Donald Trump's opponents. Absolutely. Vigilance always needed. And the importance of having a federal bureau of investigation that is focused on these kinds of things

is not to play down any FBI scandals or misbehavior in the past, but it's a big organization, something like 40,000 people work for the FBI. And again, I think this just underscores the importance of having an FBI that is functioning. I mean, the other thought that I would add is just,

also underscores the U.S. interest in not having a vacuum in Syria, in the Middle East, in places that would allow for the reconstitution of ISIS that is acting as an inspiration to so many of these lone wolf attackers.

I mean, there's a reason, again, even though it can be unpopular, there's a reason that the U.S. has some interest in those places and preventing the creation of safe harbors for terrorists, training camps, and so forth. We are going to take another break. And when we come back, we'll talk about the vote on Mike Johnson to be Speaker of the House for another term coming on Friday when we come back.

Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker. Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast. That is, play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast. From the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.

Welcome back. I'm Paul as you go with Kyle Peterson and Bill McGurn. All right. Let's turn to our other topic today, and that is the convening of the 119th Congress, which opens on Friday, January 3rd. And the first order of business in the House will be the vote for speaker, Mike Johnson being the current speaker and the candidate

to again be Speaker in the House, but he needs a majority to pass that and there's no guarantee he's going to get it. Donald Trump has endorsed him and has even said he'd be willing to make calls on his behalf if need be. But the House majority bill is only gonna be two seats, the smallest majority in I think 70 some years.

And Thomas Massey, a Republican from Kentucky who opposes just about everything, is going to oppose Johnson, he says. So that means that if there are one or two others that decide that they want to take Johnson down, they can. And Democrats have sworn that we're not going to help him this time. We helped him on a budget or two votes last Congress, but not this time. Let's listen to Mike Johnson, the speaker, talk about his chances.

It's a numbers game. We have the smallest margin in U.S. history. We'll have a margin of probably two votes tomorrow during that. So can only afford to lose one or two. But I think we'll get it done. I really do. I've talked to every single one of those friends and colleagues over the holidays. We'll be talking about process reforms inside the House. And I've encouraged all of them. And I think the reason they're all going to vote yes is this. We're shifting into a brand new paradigm.

We have unified government that begins tomorrow. We have the White House, the Senate and the House, a totally different situation than we dealt with over the last 14 months since I've been Speaker. That bill is a very important point the Speaker makes, which is that when they only had one House at Congress, the House, and the Democrats ran the Senate and the White House, voters could say there was split responsibility. The chaos in the House that prevailed in the last Congress

Well, it didn't hurt them, it seems, too much anyway in the election in November. But now, Republicans are in control. If they can't govern, voters will see it and they're gonna say, "Oh, can't blame Democrats." Yeah, the speaker is exactly right. If we didn't have this tight majority where every vote is potentially the defining vote, no one would know Thomas Massey's name.

It's only this tight margin that gives him the power to make the threats he does. Previously, my understanding of the Republicans that opposed the speaker deals was they were mad they were insufficiently pro-Trump, Trump's agenda. Now Donald Trump's on board and Congressman Massey still opposes it.

And with all this being said, I support some of the things Massey wants with the budget, but the way he's going about it brings the Republican Party no closer to his so-called objectives than they are today. You have to get things done and you have to get votes. And as you say, Paul, there would be good reasons for the Speaker if he doesn't get his agenda, if Massey and one other congressman said, it doesn't matter what he says, we're going to

oppose it, be a reasonable explanation. But the voters are likely not going to buy it. They're going to say you had majorities in the Senate, you had the White House. It's your fault you couldn't get things done. And it's amazing to me, after all we've been through, all the changes in policy that Republicans want,

They're going to risk it all. I shouldn't say they. A handful of people would risk it all for what? An empty gesture. They don't even have an alternate candidate. They just say, we don't want Mike Johnson. But they'll have an alternate candidate or agenda. Right. And the

most prominent alternatives, members of the leadership, Steve Scalise, Jim Jordan, Tom Emmer, they could all be potential speakers, but they were running up the flagpole the last time. They had 30 or 40 members oppose them. So it isn't clear that they would be able to get a majority. Other immediate issue is if you, let's say that Johnson loses

Okay, so the House is thrown into a tumult. The Republicans either have to scramble to have another vote for Johnson to see if he can get through and persuade the no's, or some other candidate has to come to the fore. And if you can't vote for a speaker, Kyle, then you can't have a House.

sitting house because the speaker swears in the other members. And if you don't have a house, you can't on Monday, on January 6th, then have a certification vote for the president, Trump, and vice president, J.D. Vance. So Chuck Grassley, president pro tem of the Senate, would become president for a while. And I'm sure that Senator Grassley, if not for the honor of it, would just as soon pass

and be able to have President Trump in place. But this is kind of where we stand. So the stakes are not, even in the immediate issue, never mind the agenda going forward, but just in organizing the House, the stakes are pretty high. Yeah, they definitely are. And that ought to keep some of these members in line, I guess, even if they don't like Mr. Johnson or would prefer somebody else as Speaker. But the other problem with their argument, it seems to me, is that any Speaker that they would put in his place is going to face the exact same consequences

political problem that Mike Johnson does now. And by the way, the problem that Mike Johnson faces is the same one that Kevin McCarthy was facing, which is when you have a small majority, you still have to pass bills. So Johnson's choices are he can pass a bill and

with Republicans only and keep all the Republicans in line if he can do that, or he has to go and get some Democratic votes in order to keep the government open, in order to raise the debt limit coming next year so that the U.S. doesn't default on its obligations.

And the issue to me, it seems, is that there are some members of the Republican Party who are more interested in getting attention and raising their profile. And so maybe you could get a vote of all Republicans to cut the budget by 5%, let's say, but there's always going to be one or two who are going to say 5%.

what a sellout. It should be 10. It should be 15. And no matter what the number is, they just have an incentive to get intention to suggest that it ought to be higher and anything less is a sellout. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the U.S. government works. I understand the frustration. I mean, I've been talking for a smaller government longer than most of these guys have been alive, and yet they don't understand that the U.S. government, to get anything done, it's very rare that you have these big

episodes where you have enormous change. Usually American change is incremental. And the fact is that the Republicans here have been handed this great opportunity, as narrow as their majorities are,

They don't have to deal with Chuck Schumer blocking a budget reconciliation bill, which allows it something to pass a Senate with only 51 votes, for example. Still has a filibuster, but you can get some important things done. Not everything. You can't balance the budget immediately, but you can get some very important things done if you have the coherence and stick together. Now, one good change bill, which the Republicans are proposing in the rules package,

that they will put on the floor, assuming Johnson is voted in as speaker, would change the number of votes needed to vacate the chair of the speakership. Currently, in the last Congress, it was one vote

which is how they did in Kevin McCarthy, the rule change would mean nine members would have to have at least nine members come to introduce a motion to vacate the chair. And that would, I think, mean it's a much more difficult proposition to be able to topple the speakership mid-Congress. Yeah, I think that was designed deliberately, right? Yes, absolutely. They want to take Speaker McCarthy hostage.

and basically controls every motion by having this threat hanging over him. You can't run anything that way, much less the House of Representatives. And so I think it would be a vote for sanity to do as they do and require a lot more support. Really, it's kind of crazy how a few people in the House that are pretty inconsequential on their own

get to decide the whole institution right now because of the way it's structured. Yeah, and they can claim to be outsiders who want to shake things up. But again, I mean, shake things up how and to what end as opposed to just making a statement or a gesture? Well, we'll see if Republicans can marshal the votes for Johnson. It'll be a real test of whether or not they're serious about governing and their ability to govern. Will they use this opportunity for unified government or will they just blow it all up

and set the stage for losing the majority in 2026, if not earlier to Hakeem Jeffries and the Democrats. All right. Thanks, Kyle Peterson. Thanks, Bill McGurn. Thank you all for listening. We're here now every day as we will chronicle the new Congress and the soon-to-be-with-us Trump administration. Thanks for listening.