A weekly discussion about politics, hosted by The New Yorker's executive editor, Dorothy Wickenden.
WNYC Studios and The New Yorker
Listeners of The New Yorker: Politics and More that love the show mention: david remnick, dorothy, new yorker, mayer, political scene, cassidy, polls, editor, magazine, liberal, mature, brief, political podcast, figures, campaign, bias, politics, writers, beliefs, national.
The New Yorker: Politics and More podcast is truly a treat for those who appreciate intelligent and forward-thinking journalism. Hosted by the brilliant Dorothy Wickenden, the show offers insightful discussions and thought-provoking questions that guide the conversation in a way reminiscent of The New Yorker magazine. Alongside Wickenden, David Remnick also hosts the show, adding his own expertise and charm to the mix.
One of the best aspects of this podcast is how it sheds light on important issues from different perspectives. For example, a recent episode highlighted the story of parents sending their children from war-torn Spain to Mexico for safety. It drew parallels to Jewish parents during Nazi occupation who sent their children on kinder transports as a means of saving them from certain death. This kind of historical analysis provides depth and context to current events and encourages listeners to think critically about global issues.
Furthermore, this podcast does an excellent job at promoting objective truth and justice with a liberal slant, ensuring that all lives are equally valued. This commitment to equality is crucial in today's world, where voices need to be amplified for marginalized communities. The show brings important conversations into focus and pushes for policy changes that can address fundamental societal problems.
On the downside, some listeners may find that the podcast lacks diversity in terms of political beliefs. While it does offer valuable insights from a progressive perspective, it could benefit from occasionally featuring guests or engaging in discussions with differing viewpoints. This would create a more well-rounded listening experience that encourages critical thinking and open dialogue.
In conclusion, The New Yorker: Politics and More podcast is essential listening for anyone interested in staying informed about current affairs through intelligent reporting and analysis. It captures the essence of The New Yorker magazine with its insightful interviews and thought-provoking discussions led by Dorothy Wickenden. While there are some minor drawbacks, such as limited representation of diverse opinions, overall this podcast offers valuable insights into key political issues that are relevant to Western civilization in 2019.

The Washington Roundtable reflects on the first year since Donald Trump's second win before a live audience at Harvard University's Institute of Politics, on November 20th. The panel considers how cracks in the MAGA firmament may shape what's next for the President and the Republican party. “American politics the last ten years have been dominated by this very singular disruptive figure of Donald Trump,” the staff writer Susan B. Glasser. “So what we define as the new abnormal, for a whole generation of Americans is, in fact, the new normal.” This week's reading: “Dick Cheney's Long, Strange Goodbye,” by Susan B. Glasser “The Darkest Thread in the Epstein E-mails,” by Jessica Winter “The Meaning of Trump's Presidential Pardons,” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “Kash Patel's Acts of Service,” by Marc Fisher “How M.B.S. Won Back Washington,” by Isaac Chotiner “Donald Trump Can't Dodge the Costly K-Shaped Economy,” by John Cassidy Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Please help us improve New Yorker podcasts by filling out our listener survey: https://panel2058.na2.panelpulse.com/c/a/661hs4tSRdw2yB2dvjFyyw Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker contributing writer Anna Russell joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the rise of family estrangement in mainstream culture. Recent studies have found that more than a quarter of all Americans are currently estranged from a relative. They talk about how the idea of going “no contact” has gained traction in mainstream culture, the personal and generational shifts that can lead people to distance themselves from relatives, and why family bonds feel less inviolable than they once did. They also look at the political disagreements that can lead to decisions to cut off contact, whether close family relationships can survive deep ideological divides, and what therapists and researchers say about the prospects for reconciliation following estrangement. This week's reading: “Why So Many People Are Going ‘No Contact' with Their Parents,” by Anna Russell “The Meaning of Trump's Presidential Pardons,” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “Nick Fuentes Is Not Just Another Alt-Right Boogeyman,” by Jay Caspian Kang “The Darkest Thread in the Epstein E-mails,” by Jessica Winter “Kash Patel's Acts of Service,” by Marc Fisher Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts.Please help us improve New Yorker podcasts by filling out our listener survey: https://panel2058.na2.panelpulse.com/c/a/661hs4tSRdw2yB2dvjFyyw Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

When President Donald Trump began his tariff rollout, the business world predicted that his unprecedented attempt to reshape the economy would lead to a major recession, if Trump went through with it all. But the markets stabilized and, in recent months, have continued to surge. That has some people worried about an even bigger threat: that overinvestment in artificial intelligence is creating a bubble. Andrew Ross Sorkin, one of today's preëminent financial journalists, is well versed in what's happening; his début book, “Too Big to Fail,” was an account of the 2008 financial crash, and this year he released “1929: Inside the Greatest Crash in Wall Street History—and How It Shattered a Nation.” He tells David Remnick that the concern lies in the massive borrowing to build the infrastructure for a future A.I. economy, without the sufficient revenue, currently, to pay off the loans. “If I learned anything from covering 1929, [and] covering 2008, it is leverage,” Sorkin says, “people borrowing to make all of this happen. And right now we are beginning to see a remarkable period of borrowing to make the economics of A.I. work.” Sorkin is the co-anchor of “Squawk Box” on CNBC, and he also founded the New York Times' business section, DealBook. Please help us improve New Yorker podcasts by filling out our listener survey: https://panel2058.na2.panelpulse.com/c/a/661hs4tSRdw2yB2dvjFyyw Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Washington Roundtable discusses the trove of Jeffrey Epstein correspondence released by Congress this week, the fractures it has caused in the Republican Party, and the potential political ramifications for President Trump. Their guest is the investigative reporter Michael Isikoff, who has spent decades reporting on major scandals in American politics, including the affair between President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, and Russian interference in the 2016 election. The panel considers the factors that made other scandals in the past, such as Watergate, break through the public consciousness and change the course of Presidencies. This week's reading: “The Epstein Scandal Is Now a Chronic Disease of the Trump Presidency,” by Susan B. Glasser “Did Democrats Win the Shutdown After All?,” by Jon Allsop “Socialism, But Make It Trump,” by John Cassidy “Governments and Billionaires Retreat Ahead of COP30 Climate Talks,” by Elizabeth Kolbert “Laura Loomer's Endless Payback,” by Antonia Hitchens “J. B. Pritzker Sounds the Alarm,” by Peter Slevin Tune in wherever you get your podcasts.Please help us improve New Yorker podcasts by filling out our listener survey: https://panel2058.na2.panelpulse.com/c/a/661hs4tSRdw2yB2dvjFyyw Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker staff writer Eric Lach joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss Zohran Mamdani's victory in the New York City mayoral race, and what his time in office might look like. They talk about some of his early appointments to his administration and how his ambitious agenda may be at odds with other wings of the Democratic Party. They also look at how members of both parties are interpreting Mamdani's win, and how the new mayor might respond to President Donald Trump's threats to withhold federal funds from the city. This week's reading: “The Mamdani Era Begins,” by Eric Lach “Did Democrats Win the Shutdown After All?,” by Jon Allsop “Laura Loomer's Endless Payback,” by Antonia Hitchens “In Gaza, Home Is Just a Memory,” by Mohammed R. Mhawish “The Mess at the BBC Will Never End,” by Sam Knight Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Few Democratic officials have been more outspoken in opposition to the Trump Administration than J. B. Pritzker, the governor of Illinois. He seems almost to relish antagonizing Trump, who has suggested Pritzker should be in jail. Meanwhile, ICE and Border Patrol have targeted Chicago, and elsewhere in Illinois, with immigration sweeps more aggressive than what Los Angeles experienced earlier this year; they refused to pause the raids even on Halloween. The President has called Chicago a “hell hole,” but, in Pritzker's view, immigration sweeps do nothing to reduce crime. “He's literally taking F.B.I., D.E.A., and A.T.F.—which we work with all the time—he's taking them out of their departments and moving them over to ICE, and they're not . . . helping us catch bad guys,” Pritzker says in an interview with the reporter Peter Slevin. “He's creating mayhem on the ground because you know what he wants? He wants troops on the ground in American cities, and the only way he can get that done is by proving that there's some sort of insurrection or revolution or rebellion.” And yet, as Slevin tells David Remnick, a governor's power to resist the federal government depends largely on the courts. Thus far, “the district courts have acted quite favorably toward the plaintiffs in various lawsuits against these actions by the federal government.” New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Join host David Remnick as he discusses the latest in politics, news, and current events in conversation with political leaders, newsmakers, innovators, New Yorker staff writers, authors, actors, and musicians. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Washington Roundtable kicks off the 2026 election season by answering questions from listeners about the forces most likely to shape next year's midterm elections. They discuss the ascendancy of Zohran Mamdani in New York City, bitter redistricting battles in the states, the high number of elected officials retiring, and much more. Plus, the hosts reflect on the legacy of former Vice-President Dick Cheney, who died on Monday. This week's reading: “America Begins Clapping Back at Donald Trump,” by Susan B. Glasser “California Strikes Back in the Redistricting War,” by Jon Allsop “How Far Can Donald Trump Take Emergency Power?,” by Jeannie Suk Gersen “A Next-Generation Victory for Democrats,” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “The N.Y.C. Mayoral Election, as Processed in Therapy,” by Tyler Foggatt “What Zohran Mamdani's Bid for Mayor Reveals About Being Muslim in America,” by Rozina Ali “Voting Rights and Immigration Under Attack,” by Jelani Cobb Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker staff writer Benjamin Wallace-Wells joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss Democrats' sweeping victories in the first major elections of Donald Trump's second term. They talk about what the results—from Zohran Mamdani's record-turnout win in New York City to victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races—reveal about Trump's weakening hold on voters and a generational shift inside the Democratic Party. They also explore how a focus on affordability and economic anxiety fuelled Democrats' success, and how these outcomes may shape the strategies of both parties heading into next year's midterms. This week's reading: “A Next-Generation Victory for Democrats,” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “What the Democrats' Good Night Means for 2026 and Beyond,” by Isaac Chotiner “California Strikes Back in the Redistricting War,” by Jon Allsop “The Mamdani Era Begins,” by Eric Lach “The N.Y.C. Mayoral Election, as Processed in Therapy,” by Tyler Foggatt Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Jon Stewart has been a leading figure in political comedy since before the turn of the millennium. But compared to his early years on Comedy Central's “The Daily Show”—when Stewart was merciless in his attacks on George W. Bush's Administration—these are much more challenging times for late-night comedians. Jimmy Kimmel nearly lost his job over a remark about MAGA supporters of Charlie Kirk, after the head of the F.C.C. threatened ABC. CBS recently announced the cancellation of Stephen Colbert's program. And Stewart now finds himself very near the hot seat: Comedy Central is controlled by David Ellison, the Trump-friendly C.E.O. of the recently merged Paramount Skydance. Stewart's contract comes up in December. “You're going to sign another one?” David Remnick asked him, in a live interview at The New Yorker Festival. “We're working on staying,” Stewart said. “You don't compromise on what you do. You do it till they tell you to leave. That's all you can do.” Stewart, moreover, doesn't blame solely Donald Trump for recent attacks on the independence of the media, universities, and other institutions. “This is the hardest truth for us to get at, is that [these] institutions . . . have problems. They do. And, if we don't address those problems in a forthright way, then those institutions become vulnerable to this kind of assault. Credibility is not something that was just taken. It was also lost.” In fact, Stewart also directs his ire at “the Democratic Party, [which] thinks it's O.K. for their Senate to be an assisted-living facility.” “In the general-populace mind, government no longer serves the interests of the people it purports to represent. That's a broad-based, deep feeling. And that helps when someone comes along and goes, ‘The system is rigged,' and people go, ‘Yeah, it is rigged.' Now, he's a good diagnostician. I don't particularly care for his remedy.”This episode was recorded live at The New Yorker Festival, on October 26, 2025. New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Join host David Remnick as he discusses the latest in politics, news, and current events in conversation with political leaders, newsmakers, innovators, New Yorker staff writers, authors, actors, and musicians. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

On August 7, 1985, five family members were shot dead in their English country manor, Whitehouse Farm. It looked like an open-and-shut case. But the New Yorker staff writer Heidi Blake finds that almost nothing about this story is as it seems. New Yorker subscribers get early, ad-free access to “Blood Relatives.” In Apple Podcasts, tap the link at the top of the feed to subscribe or link an existing subscription. Or visit newyorker.com/dark to subscribe and listen in the New Yorker app. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker staff writer Andrew Marantz joins Tyler Foggatt for the latest installment of “How Bad Is It?,” a regular checkup on the health of American democracy. Their guests are the Rutgers historians Mark Bray and Yesenia Barragan, a married couple who recently left the United States after Bray became the target of a right-wing doxing campaign. Bray and Barragan share the events leading up to their decision to leave the country with their family, including the death threats that followed Bray's addition to a right-wing “professor watch list” and the portrayal of his work in conservative media as promoting political violence. Bray, who is the author of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” also speaks with Tyler and Andrew about his research into militant antifascism and how those ideas resonate in Donald Trump's second Presidential term. They discuss the debates his work has sparked over political violence, free speech, and how his arguments about antifascism challenge conventional ideas of liberalism and academic freedom. This week's reading: “When the Government Stops Defending Civil Rights,” by Eyal Press “What if the Big Law Firms Hadn't Caved to Trump?,” by Fabio Bertoni “Trump and the Presidency That Wouldn't Shut Up,” by Jill Lepore “Why Biden's White House Press Secretary Is Leaving the Democratic Party,” by Isaac Chotiner “Why Trump Tore Down the East Wing,” by Adam Gopnik Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Since Zadie Smith published her début novel, “White Teeth,” twenty-five years ago, she has been a bold and original voice in literature. But those who aren't familiar with Smith's work outside of fiction are missing out. As an essayist, in The New Yorker and other publications, Smith writes with great nuance about culture, technology, gentrification, politics; “There's really not a topic that wouldn't benefit from her insight,” David Remnick says. He spoke with Smith about her new collection of essays, “Dead and Alive.” “The one thing about talking about essays,” she notes, ruefully, “is you find yourself saying the same thing, but worse—without the commas.” One of the concerns in the book is the role of our devices, and social media in particular, in shaping our thoughts and our political discourse. “Everybody has a different emphasis on [Donald] Trump and what's going on. My emphasis has been on, to put it baldly, mind control. I think what's been interesting about the manipulations of a digital age is that it is absolutely natural and normal for people to be offended at the idea that they are being manipulated. None of us like to feel that way. And I think we wasted about—whatever it's been since the invention of the Iphone—trying to bat away that idea, calling it a moral panic, blaming each other, [and] talking about it as if it were an individual act of will.” In fact, she notes, “we are all being manipulated. Me, too. . . . Once we can all admit that, on the left and the right, then we can direct our attention to who's been doing this and to what advantage.” New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Join host David Remnick as he discusses the latest in politics, news, and current events in conversation with political leaders, newsmakers, innovators, New Yorker staff writers, authors, actors, and musicians. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The swiftness and severity with which the Trump Administration has tried to impose its will on higher education came as a shock to many, not least university presidents and faculties from Harvard to U.C.L.A. But for conservatives this arena of cultural conflict has been a long time coming. The staff writer Emma Green has been speaking with influential figures in the current Administration as well as in the larger conservative movement about how they mapped out this battle for Donald Trump's return to power. “There's a recognition among the people that I interviewed,” Green tells David Remnick, “that the Administration cannot come in and script to universities: this is what you will teach and this is the degrees that you will offer, and just script it from top to bottom. First of all, that would be not legally possible. And it also, I think in some ways, violates core instincts that conservatives have around academic freedom, because a lot of these people have been on élite campuses and had the experience of being told that their views weren't acceptable.” Green also speaks with James Kvaal, an education official who served in both the Biden and Obama Administrations, and May Mailman, a conservative education-policy activist who worked in the Trump White House and coördinated its attacks against universities. “When you have federal grants, you do not need to be funding racism and racial hierarchies and violence and harassment,” Mailman told Green. “I think that line is: do what you wanna do, but we don't want to have to fund it.” Emma Green's “Inside the Trump Administration's Assault on Higher Education” was published on October 13, 2025. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Washington Roundtable examines the fragile Israel-Hamas ceasefire and the uncertain road ahead, asking to what degree the Trump family's business interests in the Middle East are shaping American foreign policy. The panel discusses the financial relationships between Qatar, the U.A.E., and Jared Kushner's private-equity firm, and analyzes the intertwinement of personal profit and global dealmaking in the President's approach. “The cliché about Trump is that he's a transactional President,” the staff writer Evan Osnos says. “He's basically putting that at the center of the diplomatic discussion.” This week's reading: “The End of Israel's Hostage Ordeal,” by Ruth Margalit “Donald Trump's Dream Palace of Puffery,” by Susan B. Glasser “How Will Americans Remember the War in Gaza?,” by Jay Caspian Kang “Donald Trump's Deep-State Wrecking Ball,” by Andy Kroll “The Last Columbia Protester in ICE Detention,” by Aida Alami Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker staff writer E. Tammy Kim joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss how the government shutdown is affecting the federal workforce. They talk about how the shutdown began and what it means for hundreds of thousands of civil servants who have been furloughed, laid off, or required to work without pay. They also examine the Administration's new “reductions in force,” or mass layoffs across key agencies, and how those cuts are being used in the effort to shrink and politicize federal agencies—and how those efforts could weaken not just essential public services but the long-term stability and nonpartisan functioning of the federal government itself. This week's reading: “Inside the Trump Administration's Assault on Higher Education,” by Emma Green “The Indictment of Letitia James and the Collapse of Impartial Justice,” by Ruth Marcus “The Real Problem Is How Trump Can Legally Use the Military,” by Jeannie Suk Gersen “The End of Israel's Hostage Ordeal,” by Ruth Margalit “What Zohran Mamdani Knows About Power,” by Eric Lach Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Next month, New York City may elect as its next mayor a man who was pretty much unknown to the broader public a year ago. Zohran Mamdan, who is currently thirty-three years old and a member of the State Assembly, is a democratic socialist who won a primary upset against the current mayor, Eric Adams, and the former governor Andrew Cuomo, who was trying to stage a political comeback. Mamdani now leads the race by around twenty percentage points in most polls. His run for mayor is a remarkable story, but it has not been an easy one. His campaign message of affordability—his ads widely tout a rent freeze in the city—resonates with voters, but his call for further taxing the top one per cent of earners has concerned the state's governor, Kathy Hochul. In Congress, Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have yet to even endorse him. “There are many people who will say housing is a human right, and yet it oftentimes seems as if it is relegated simply to the use of it as a slogan,” Mamdani tells David Remnick at his campaign headquarters, in midtown Manhattan. “It often comes back to whether you're willing to fight for these ideals that you hold.” Donald Trump, for his part, dubs Mamdani a Communist, and has threatened to withhold federal funds from New York if he's elected, calling such a vote “a rebellion.” An attack by the President “will be an inevitability,” Mamdani says, noting that the city's legal department is understaffed for what may be an epic battle to come. “This is an Administration that looks at the flourishing of city life wherever it may be across this country as a threat to their entire political agenda. And New York City looms large in their imagination.” Zohran Mamdani's campaign was chronicled by Eric Lach, a staff writer covering New York politics and life for The New Yorker. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Washington Roundtable discusses the President's use of the military for political ends, and the “almost unlimited” powers he would unlock by invoking the Insurrection Act, with Kori Schake, the director of foreign-and-defense-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Donald Trump's decisions—sending the National Guard into American cities over the objections of local leaders and firing Judge Advocate General's Corps lawyers who help determine if an order is legal—send a message to the historically apolitical armed forces. “What he's trying to do is circumvent the disciplined senior leadership and appeal for personal loyalty to the younger, noncommissioned and enlisted soldiers,” Schake says. “The pressure from this Administration—there's been nothing like it since at least the constitutional crisis of 1866-68.” Schake is the author of the forthcoming book “The State and the Soldier: A History of Civil-Military Relations in the United States.” This week's reading: “Trump, the Self-Styled ‘President of PEACE' Abroad, Makes War at Home,” by Susan B. Glasser “Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, and the ‘War from Within,' ” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “Nixon Now Looks Restrained,” by Ruth Marcus “Hope and Grief in Israel After the Gaza Ceasefire Deal,” by Ruth Margalit “The Volunteers Tracking ICE in Los Angeles,” by Oren Peleg Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker contributing writer Ruth Marcus joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss Donald Trump's “revenge tour”—his effort to use the levers of government to settle personal and political scores. They talk about the indictment of the former F.B.I. director James Comey, why legal experts see the case against Comey as alarmingly weak, and how Trump's campaign of retribution has expanded to include prosecutors, lawmakers, and even the families of his critics. They also consider how Trump's quest for vengeance is testing the limits of American law, and whether the country can avoid a permanent cycle of political retaliation and lawfare.This week's reading: “The Flimsy, Dangerous Indictment of James Comey,” by Ruth Marcus “What Will Bari Weiss Do to CBS News?,” by Jon Allsop “Who Can Lead the Democrats?,” by Amy Davidson Sorkin “The Volunteers Tracking ICE in Los Angeles,” by Oren Peleg “Why Israel and Hamas Might Finally Have a Deal,” by Isaac Chotiner Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Robert P. George is not a passive observer of the proverbial culture wars; he's been a very active participant. As a Catholic legal scholar and philosopher at Princeton University, he was an influential opponent of Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage, receiving a Presidential medal from President George W. Bush. George decries the “decadence” of secular culture, and, in 2016, he co-wrote an op-ed declaring Donald Trump “manifestly unfit” to serve as President. Although George disagrees with the Administration's tactics to change universities' policies by punishment, he agrees with its contention that campuses have become hotbeds of leftism that stifle debate. He regards this not as a particular evil of the left but as “human nature”: “If conservatives had the kind of monopoly that liberals had,” George tells David Remnick, “I suspect we'd have the same situation, but just in reverse.” His recent book, “Seeking Truth and Speaking Truth: Law and Morality in Our Cultural Moment,” tries to chart a course back toward civil, functioning debate in a polarized society. “I encourage my students to take courses from people who disagree with me, like Cornel West and Peter Singer,” the latter of whom is a controversial philosopher of ethics. “Cornel and I teach together for this same reason. Peter invites his students to take my courses. That's the way it should be.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Washington Roundtable discusses how this week's government shutdown can be best understood by looking at the background and influence of Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. Vought is a Christian nationalist who served in the first Trump Administration. He was a chief architect of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, and has written that the country is in a “post constitutional moment.” Amid the shutdown, Vought has threatened to lay off federal workers en masse and to withhold funds from Democratic-leaning states. The panel considers whether these moves are not just an expansion of Presidential power but a fiscal “partitioning” of America. This week's reading:“Donald Trump's Shutdown Power Play,” by Susan B. Glasser“Can the Democrats Take Free Speech Back from the Right?,” by Jay Caspian Kang“Why Democrats Shut Down the Government,” by Jon Allsop“Is Donald Trump's Sweeping Gaza Peace Plan Really Viable?,” by Robin Wright“Eric Adams Slips Out the Side Door,” by Eric Lach“The Politics of Faith After Charlie Kirk,” by Michael Luo“Grace and Disgrace,” by David Remnick Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker contributing writer Jeannie Suk Gersen joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the Supreme Court's new term and the cases that could test the boundaries of executive authority and separation of powers. They talk about challenges to Presidential power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, disputes over voting rights and racial gerrymandering, and a First Amendment fight over state bans on conversion therapy. They also consider the Court's increasing reliance on its emergency docket and what John Roberts's twenty years as Chief Justice reveals about the conservative legal movement's influence on the Court.This week's reading: “Harvard's Mixed Victory,” by Jeannie Suk Gersen “Is Donald Trump's Sweeping Gaza Peace Plan Really Viable?,” by Robin Wright “Why Democrats Shut Down the Government,” by Jon Allsop “Have Cubans Fled One Authoritarian State for Another?,” by Jon Lee Anderson “The Age of Enshittification,” by Kyle Chayka Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The author and podcaster Ezra Klein may be only forty-one years old, but he's been part of the political-culture conversation for a long time. He was a blogger, then a Washington Post columnist and editor, a co-founder of Vox, and is now a writer and podcast host for the New York Times. He's also the co-author of the recent best-selling book “Abundance”. Most recently, Klein has drawn the ire of progressives for a column he wrote about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, in which he praised the late conservative activist for practicing politics “the right way.” He's also been making a case for how the Democrats can reëmerge from the political wilderness. But some of his other ideas have also invited their share of detractors. Klein tells David Remnick, “I try to take seriously questions that I don't love. I don't try to insist the world works the way I want it to work. I try to be honest with myself about the way it's working.” In response to criticism that his recent work has indicated a rightward shift in his thinking, Klein says, “One thing I've been saying about the big tent of the Democratic Party is the theory of having a big tent doesn't just mean moving to the right; it also means accepting in the left.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Washington Roundtable discusses how, in the wake of the reinstatement of Jimmy Kimmel's show, public resistance has a chance to turn the tide against autocratic impulses in today's politics. They are joined by Hardy Merriman, an expert on the history and practice of civil resistance, to discuss what kinds of coördinated actions—protests, boycotts, “buycotts,” strikes, and other nonviolent approaches—are most effective in a fight against democratic backsliding. “Acts of non-coöperation are very powerful,” Merriman, the former president of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, says. “Non-coöperation is very much about numbers. You don't necessarily need people doing things that are high risk. You just need large numbers of people doing them.” This week's reading: “Donald Trump Keeps Finding New Ways to Shock the World,” by Susan B. Glasser “Is Trump's Attack on the Media Following Putin's Playbook?,” by Joshua Yaffa “Where Should the Democrats Go from Here?,” by Jon Allsop “Donald Trump's Firing of a Federal Prosecutor Crosses the Reddest of Lines,” by Ruth Marcus “Seeing Enemies Everywhere,” by Jonathan Blitzer “Can Progressive Mayors Redeem the Democratic Party?,” by Bill McKibben Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker contributing writer Dhruv Khullar joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss how Donald Trump is transforming the nation's approach to vaccines and immunization during his second term. They talk about the repopulating of federal agencies and advisory panels with skeptics, the politicization of once technical debates under the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, and what happens when people distrustful of the medical establishment end up running American public-health policy. They also examine how states are stepping in to fill the vacuum left by Washington, creating a patchwork of approaches to vaccines across the country.This week's reading: “A New Era of Vaccine Federalism,” by Dhruv Khullar “Can Progressive Mayors Redeem the Democratic Party?,” by Bill McKibben “Donald Trump's Firing of a Federal Prosecutor Crosses the Reddest of Lines,” by Ruth Marcus “What Trump Wants from a TikTok Deal with China,” by Clare Malone “Can Liberalism Be Saved?,” by Isaac Chotiner Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

“The Constitution gives the states the power to set the time, place, and manner of elections,” the election lawyer Marc Elias points out. “It gives the President no [such] power.” Yet, almost one year before the midterms, Donald Trump has called for a nationwide prohibition on mail-in voting, an option favored by Democrats, as well as restrictions on voting machines. The Justice Department has demanded sensitive voter information from at least thirty-four states so far, with little explanation as to how the information will be used. Will we have free and fair congressional elections in 2026? “I am very worried that we could have elections that do not reflect the desires and the voting preferences of everyone who wishes they could vote and have their vote tabulated accurately,” Elias tells David Remnick. “That may sound very lawyerly and very technical, but I think it would be a historic rollback.” Elias's firm fought and ultimately won almost every case that Trump and Republican allies brought against the 2020 election, and Elias continues to fight the latest round of incursions in court. And while he rues what he calls “re-gerrymandering” in Texas—designed to squeeze Texas's Democratic representatives out of Congress—Elias thinks states run by Democrats have no choice but to copy the tactic. “Before Gavin Newsom announced what he was doing, I came out publicly and said Democrats should gerrymander nine seats out of California, which would mean there'd be no Republicans left in the delegation. . . . At the end of the day, if there's no disincentive structure for Republicans to jump off this path, [then] it just continues.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Washington Roundtable is joined by the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Keren Yarhi-Milo, the dean of the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, to discuss why interpreting the psychology of world leaders such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping is essential to understanding global crises. Clinton also shares her thoughts on Gavin Newsom's plan for redistricting in California, the Trump Administration's free-speech crackdown in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, and ABC's decision to pull “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off the air. “Jimmy Kimmel and all of the late-night comedians have certainly said a lot of things about me that I found painful, offensive, outraging. It never crossed my mind that I could call up and say, ‘Hey, get rid of this guy,' ” Clinton says. “It's all at the behest of the President, who wants to stifle and remove any opposition, and certainly anyone who makes fun of him.” Clinton and Yarhi-Milo's new book, “Inside the Situation Room: The Theory and Practice of Crisis Decision-Making,” was published this week.This week's reading: “The Grave Threat Posed by Donald Trump's Attack on Jimmy Kimmel,” by Isaac Chotiner “Israel's New Occupation,” by Ruth Margalit “J. D. Vance, Charlie Kirk, and the Politics-as-Talk Show Singularity,” by Andrew Marantz “What the Video of Charlie Kirk's Murder Might Do,” by Jay Caspian King Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker staff writer Andrew Marantz joins Tyler Foggatt for the latest installment of “How Bad Is It?,” a monthly series on the health of American democracy. Their guest is the Brazilian filmmaker Petra Costa, whose documentaries explore the country's democratic backsliding. They discuss what the United States can learn from Brazil's struggles with political violence and the rise of authoritarianism, and they respond to the recent conviction of Jair Bolsonaro for his role in a coup attempt. Tyler and Andrew also consider the possible ramifications of the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, including the Trump Administration's threats to target liberal groups.This week's reading: “Charlie Kirk and Tyler Robinson Came from the Same Warped Online Worlds,” by Kyle Chayka “What the Video of Charlie Kirk's Murder Might Do,” by Jay Caspian King “The U.S. Government's Extraordinary Pursuit of Kilmar Ábrego García,” by Cristian Fairas “Donald Trump's Assault on Disability Rights,” by E. Tammy Kim “How Jessica Reed Kraus Went from Mommy Blogger to MAHA Maven,” by Clare Malone Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

For decades, the United States backed efforts to achieve a two-state solution—in which Israel would exist side by side with the Palestinian state, with both states recognizing each other's claim to contested territory. The veteran negotiators Hussein Agha, representing Palestine, and Robert Malley, an American diplomat, played instrumental roles in that long effort, including the critical Camp David summit of 2000. But, in their new book, “Tomorrow Is Yesterday,” they conclude that they were part of a charade. There was never any way that a two-state solution could satisfy either of the parties, Agha and Malley tell David Remnick in an interview. “A waste of time is almost a charitable way to look at it,” Malley notes bitterly. “At the end of that thirty-year-or-so period, the Israelis and Palestinians are in a worse situation than before the U.S. got so heavily invested.” The process, appealing to Western leaders and liberals in Israel, was geared to “find the kind of solutions that have a technical outcome, that are measurable, and that can be portrayed by lines on maps,” Agha says. “It completely discarded the issue of emotions and history. You can't be emotional. You have to be rational. You have to be cool. But rational and cool has nothing to do with the conflict.” “What Killed the Two-State Solution?,” an excerpt from Agha and Malley's new book, was published in The New Yorker. New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Follow the show wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Washington Roundtable discusses the fatal shooting of the right-wing activist and Donald Trump ally Charlie Kirk, who was killed on Wednesday during a speech on a college campus. The panel considers whether the United States risks tumbling into a spiral of political violence, and how the Administration might use this moment to justify a crackdown on political opponents.This week's reading: “Did Trump Just Declare War on the American Left?,” by Susan B. Glasser “MAGA Reacts to the Assassination of Charlie Kirk,” by Antonia Hitchens “Charlie Kirk's Murder and the Crisis of Political Violence,” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “The Epstein Birthday Book Is Even Worse Than You Might Realize,” by Jessica Winter Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Fergus McIntosh, the head research editor at The New Yorker, joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss how the magazine is approaching fact -checking in the second Trump era. They talk about how the spread of disinformation and deepfakes has changed the work of verifying facts; why Trump has been more aggressive, in his second term, about restricting the release of government data; and what makes his particular style of spreading falsehoods so difficult to counter.This week's reading: “The Latest Phase in Trump's War on Data,” by Fergus McIntosh “Inside the Chaos at the C.D.C.,” by Charles Bethea “Social Media Is Navigating Its Sectarian Phase,”by Kyle Chayka “Brazil Braces for a Verdict on Its Ex-President—and on Its Democracy,” by Jon Lee Anderson “Does Society Have Too Many Rules?,” by Joshua Rothman Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Speculation, analysis, and commentary circulated all summer, after the announcement, in June, that Anna Wintour would step back from her role as the editor-in-chief of American Vogue. This changing of the guard is uniquely fraught, because Wintour's name has become nearly inextricable from the magazine, to a degree almost unknown today. And, as New York Fashion Week was set to begin, Wintour spoke with David Remnick about choosing her successor, the Vogue.com editor Chloe Malle. “It felt like this was the right time,” she says. With an unusual number of new creative directors in positions at major fashion houses, “It seemed like a good moment to bring in someone with a different perspective and a different generation who could look at things in a new way.” Wintour was appointed editor-in-chief in 1988, and generations of designers have come up under her famously acute and decisive judgments. She comes from a publishing family; her brother is a well-known journalist, and her father was the editor of the London Evening Standard. She credits him with steering her into a career in fashion, even suggesting that the teen-age Anna write down “editor of Vogue” as her career aspiration on a school form. “Working my first jobs in London, there [was] no money, there's no staff, there's no teams, so that you have to learn how to do everything,” Wintour says. “So, when I came to the States and there was a shoe editor and an underwear editor and a fabric editor, it was all so siloed. I felt very confident because I sort of knew how to do everything.” Wintour is also known for bringing politics to Vogue; she's a noted Democratic supporter and donor. “I've been impressed by Governor Newsom, I think he's certainly making a stand, and obviously I'm sure there'll be many other candidates that will emerge, hopefully soon.” But, in this political environment, Remnick asks, “How do you make a case that fashion is important?” Fashion, she replies, “is always important. It's a question of self-expression and a statement about yourself. . . . And, forgive me, David, but how boring would it be if everybody was just wearing a dark suit and a white shirt all the time?”New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Follow the show wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Washington Roundtable, hosted by the staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos, is back in season. The co-hosts reflect on the news of this summer, discussing President Trump's imposition of tariffs on nearly every major U.S. trading partner; his deployment of the National Guard on the streets of the capital; and his purges of agencies including the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They also discuss what Trump might use emergency powers to do in the near future. “You don't acquire all this power, and go to all this effort, and then not start to use it,” Glasser says.This week's reading: “How Many Court Cases Can Trump Lose in a Single Week?,” by Susan B. Glasser “Trump's Department of Energy Gets Scienced,” by Bill McKibben “Texas Democrats' Weapons of the Weak,” by Rachel Monroe “Do State Referendums on Abortion Work?,” by Peter Slevin Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker contributing writer Ruth Marcus joins the guest host and staff writer Clare Malone to discuss Marcus's recent profile of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. They talk about Bondi's political origins and her unprecedented reshaping of the Justice Department, and how she delivers on President Trump's desire to use the legal system for revenge and retribution. They also touch on Bondi's mishandling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, which has drawn the ire of both Democratic politicians and core parts of the President's base. This week's reading: “Pam Bondi's Power Play,” by Ruth Marcus “Texas Democrats' Weapons of the Weak,” by Rachel Monroe “Do State Referendums on Abortion Work?,” by Peter Slevin “Why Don't We Take Nuclear Weapons Seriously?,” by Rivka Galchen “How Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,'s Anti-Vax Agenda Is Infecting America,” by Isaac Chotiner Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The term “culture wars” is most often associated with issues of sexuality, race, religion, and gender. But, as recent months have made plain, when Donald Trump refers to the culture wars, he also means the arts. He fired the board of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which Republicans want to rename for him. His Administration fired the national archivist and the Librarian of Congress, and pressured the director of the National Portrait Gallery to resign; it is reviewing the entire Smithsonian Institution, looking for what the President calls “improper ideology.” Some view these moves as low-hanging fruit for Trump, and a distraction from bad press about Jeffrey Epstein, the Putin meeting, and tariffs. But Adam Gopnik believes that interpretation is a misreading. The loyalty purge at institutions such as the National Portrait Gallery is a key part of his agenda. “Pluralism is the key principle of a democratic culture,” Gopnik tells David Remnick. Could we be following the path of Stalinist Russia, where a head of state dictated reviews of concerts, Remnick asks? “I pray and believe that we are not. But that is certainly the direction in which one inevitably heads when the political boss takes over key cultural institutions, and dictates who's acceptable and who is not.” Gopnik recalls saying after the election that “Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert would be next.” “You would see them disappear,” he added. “Each time, we find a rationale for it or a rationale is offered. And it's much easier for us to swallow the rationale than to face the reality.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Democratic strategist Lis Smith joins the guest host Clare Malone, a New Yorker staff writer, to discuss the state of the Democratic Party, and how a decade of reliance on anti-Trump rhetoric has left Democrats reactive and directionless. They consider why groups that Democrats once counted on—from young people to communities of color—are shifting rightward, and what new strategies politicians from Gavin Newsom to Zohran Mamdani are testing to prove that the Democratic Party stands for more than opposition to Trump.This week's reading “The Trump Administration's Efforts to Reshape America's Past,” by Jill Lepore “How Former Biden Officials Defend Their Gaza Policy,” by Isaac Chotiner “The Endless August Recess,” by Antonia Hitchens “The Enormous Stakes of Trump's Effort to Fire the Fed Governor Lisa Cook,” by John Cassidy “What's Life Like in Washington, D.C., During Trump's Takeover?,” by Margaret Talbot Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Since the end of the Cold War, most Americans have taken U.S. military supremacy for granted. We can no longer afford to do so, according to reporting by the staff writer Dexter Filkins. China has developed advanced weapons that rival or surpass America's; and at the same time, drone warfare has fundamentally changed calculations of the battlefield. Ukraine's ability to hold off the massive Russian Army depends largely on a startup industry that has provided millions of drones—small, highly accurate, and as cheap as five hundred dollars each—to inflict enormous casualties on invading forces. In some other conflict, could the U.S. be in the position of Russia? “The nightmare scenario” at the Pentagon, Filkins tells David Remnick, is, “we've got an eighteen-billion-dollar aircraft carrier steaming its way toward the western Pacific, and [an enemy could] fire drones at these things, and they're highly, highly accurate, and they move at incredible speeds. . . . To give [Secretary of Defense Pete] Hegseth credit, and the people around him . . . they say, ‘O.K., we get it. We're going to change the Pentagon procurement process,' ” spending less on aircraft carriers and more on small technology like drones. But “the Pentagon is so slow, and people have been talking about these things for years. . . . Nobody has been able to do it.”Read Filkins's “Is the U.S. Ready for the Next War?”New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Follow the show wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Washington Roundtable speaks with Jeffrey Rosen, the president and C.E.O. of the National Constitution Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit, about how America's founders tried to tyrant-proof their constitutional system, how Donald Trump's whim-based decision-making resembles that of the dictator Julius Caesar, and what we can learn from the fall of the Roman Republic. Plus, how the Supreme Court is responding to the Trump Administration's broad claims of executive power. Rosen, a professor at George Washington University Law School, hosts the “We the People” podcast and is the author of “The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America.” This episode originally aired on March 7th, 2025 Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker staff writer Andrew Marantz joins Tyler Foggatt for the latest installment of “How Bad Is It?,” a monthly series on the health of American democracy. Their guest is David D. Kirkpatrick, whose new investigation details the many ways President Donald Trump has profited during his second term—from a reported private jet gifted by Qatar to soaring valuations of Trump Media and a flood of crypto ventures. They discuss whether these attempts at self-enrichment amount to ordinary political corruption or whether they represent tools for consolidating power which could accelerate democratic backsliding in the United States, much like in kleptocracies and oligarchies abroad.This week's reading: “How Much Is Trump Profiting Off the Presidency?,” by David D. Kirkpatrick “Can Donald Trump Police the United States?,” by Christian Fairas “Pam Bondi's Power Play,” by Ruth Marcus “The Troubling Lines That Columbia Is Drawing,” by Eyal Press “The Texas Democrats' Remote Resistance” by Peter Slevin Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Mohammed R. Mhawish was living in Gaza City during Israel's invasion, in the immediate aftermath of the October 7th attack. He witnessed the invasion for months and reported on its devastating consequences for Al Jazeera, The Nation, and other outlets. After his home was targeted in an Israeli strike, which nearly killed him, he fled Gaza. In The New Yorker, he's written about mental-health workers who are trying to treat a deeply traumatized population, while themselves suffering from starvation, the loss of loved ones, their own injuries—and the constant, remorseless death toll around them. “They were telling me, ‘We cannot wait for the war to stop to start healing—or for ourselves to heal—to start healing others,'” Mhawish relates to David Remnick. “I understood they were trying to heal by helping others heal.”New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Follow the show wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker staff writer Jonathan Blitzer joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss how Donald Trump's second-term immigration agenda has shifted from border enforcement to an unprecedented campaign of interior deportations. They talk about the expansion of detention through military bases and state-run facilities, the changes to long-standing arrest protocols, and the strategic transfers designed to separate detainees from their families and lawyers. Plus, they examine how these tactics have eroded due-process protections, why Democrats have struggled to mount an effective response, and whether public outrage could slow the Administration's most aggressive deportation measures.This week's reading: “Can Democrats Fight Back Against Trump's Redistricting Scheme?,” by Jonathan Blitzer “How Much Is Trump Profiting Off the Presidency?,” by David D. Kirkpatrick “Can Donald Trump Run a Mile?,” by Zach Helfand “What Happens to Public Media Now?,” by Oliver Whang “What If A.I. Doesn't Get Much Better Than This?,” by Cal Newport Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

From the attempt to end birthright citizenship to the gutting of congressionally authorized agencies, the Trump Administration has created an enormous number of legal controversies. The Radio Hour asked for listeners' questions about President Trump and the courts. To answer them, David Remnick speaks with two regular contributors: Ruth Marcus, who writes about legal issues and the Supreme Court, and Jeannie Suk Gersen, who teaches constitutional law at Harvard Law School. While the writers disagree on some significant questions—such as the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Trump v. CASA, which struck down the use of nationwide injunctions—both acknowledge the unprecedented nature of some of the questions from listeners. “They never taught you these things in law school, because he's pushing on areas of the law that are not normally pushed on,” Marcus tells Remnick.New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Follow the show wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker staff writer Andrew Marantz joins Tyler Foggatt for the latest installment of “How Bad Is It?,” a monthly series on the health of American democracy. Their guest is Roy Wood, Jr., the host of the satirical program “Have I Got News for You,” on CNN. The group discusses the significance of CBS's cancellation of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” a recent episode of “South Park” that is searingly critical of Donald Trump, and the President's deployment of lawsuits and the administrative state to try to intimidate his critics in the media and entertainment industries. “There's always going to be these petty, ticky-tack battles that the Administration fights,” says Wood. “But I don't think that's gonna stop the comedians from doing what Trump hopes this would do, which is silence them.”This week's reading: “‘South Park” Skewers a Satire-Proof President,' by Tyler Foggatt “What the Cancellation of Stephen Colbert's ‘Late Show' Means,” by Vinson Cunningham “How the Israeli Right Explains the Aid Disaster It Created,” by Isaac Chotiner “Should Police Officers Be More Like U.F.C. Fighters?,” by Sam Eagan “Is Brazil's Underdog Era Coming to an End?,” by Shannon Sims Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts.To discover more podcasts from The New Yorker, visit newyorker.com/podcasts. To send feedback on this episode, write to themail@newyorker.com. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The city of Los Angeles has declared itself a sanctuary city, where local authorities do not share information with federal immigration enforcement. But L.A.—where nearly forty per cent of residents are foreign-born—became ground zero for controversial arrests and deportations by ICE. The Trump Administration deployed marines and the National Guard to the city, purportedly to quell protests against the operation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, spoke of the government's intention to “liberate” Los Angeles from its elected officials. This week, David Remnick talks with the city's mayor, Karen Bass, a former congressional representative, about the recent withdrawal of some troops, and a lawsuit the city has joined arguing that the Trump Administration's immigration raids and detentions are unconstitutional. (A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order against the government.) “I've described L.A. as a petri dish,” Bass says. The Administration “wanted to . . . show that they could come in and do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and however they wanted. They were putting every other city in America on notice: ‘mess with us will come for you.' ” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Washington Roundtable's Evan Osnos interviews Katie Drummond, the global editorial director of Wired, about the publication's scoop-filled coverage of DOGE, and what Elon Musk's experience in Washington taught Silicon Valley leaders. “They know that they can operate with relative impunity, and they are now lining themselves up next to a President who will allow that to continue to happen,” Drummond says. Plus, a discussion of how artificial intelligence will shape our society and democracy, and transform the workforce in the years to come.This week's reading: “Trump Redefines the Washington Scandal,” by Susan B. Glasser “Donald Trump's Tariff DealmMaker-In-Chief” by Antonia Hitchens “Are the Democrats Getting Better at the Internet?,” by Jon Allsop To discover more podcasts from The New Yorker, visit newyorker.com/podcasts. To send in feedback on this episode, write to themail@newyorker.com with “The Political Scene” in the subject line. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The New Yorker contributor Jon Allsop joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss how President Trump's refusal to release the Epstein files has fractured his base, and how the Democratic Party has increasingly weaponized the Epstein conspiracy theory in its attempt to combat the MAGA movement. How do we proceed given that our country's politics are increasingly defined by conspiratorial thinking?This week's reading: “Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and Three Conspiracy-Theory Theories,” by Jon Allsop “Behind Trump's Jeffrey Epstein Problem,” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “What the Cancellation of Stephen Colbert's ‘Late Show' Means,” by Vinson Cunningham “Coldplaygate Is a Reminder That There's No Escaping Going Viral,” by Kyle Chayka “In an Age of Climate Change, How Do We Cope with Floods?,” by John Seabrook To discover more podcasts from The New Yorker, visit newyorker.com/podcasts. To send feedback on this episode, write to themail@newyorker.com. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The sense that the White House is covering something up about Jeffrey Epstein has led to backlash from some of Trump's most ardent supporters. Even after the financier was convicted for hiring an underage prostitute, for which he served a brief and extraordinarily lenient sentence, Epstein remained a playboy, a top political donor, and a very good friend of the very powerful—“a sybarite,” in the words of the journalist Michael Wolff, “in that old -fashioned sense [that] ‘my identity comes from breaking all norms.' ” Wolff got to know Epstein and recorded, he estimates, a hundred hours of interviews with him. After Epstein was arrested again, in 2019, and was later found dead in his jail cell in what was ruled a suicide, it has been an article of faith within MAGA that his death was a conspiracy or a coverup, and the Trump campaign promised a reveal. Attorney General Pam Bondi initially asserted that she had Epstein's so-called “client list” on her desk and was reviewing it, but now claims that there is nothing to share. Do the Epstein files have something incriminating about the President? “The central point from which this grew is the [Bill] Clinton relationship with Epstein,” Wolff tells David Remnick. But the MAGA believers “seem to have overlooked the Trump relationship [with Epstein], which was deeper and longer.” The men were “probably the closest friend either of them ever had,” until they reportedly fell out over real estate in 2004. Now Trump is frantically trying to control the narrative, pretending that he barely knew Epstein. This, Wolff thinks, “may be the beginning of Donald Trump's lame-duck years.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices