Podcasts about 1A

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington this week for his first visit to the White House since the war in Iran began.Former CDC head Anthony Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment rights as he sat in before Congress during a hearing led by Sen. Rand Paul concerning the doctor's COVID diaries.And Temporary Protected Status lapsed for hundreds of thousands of Haitians living in the U.S. this week.We cover the most important stories from around the nation in the domestic hour of the News Roundup.And, in global news, reports suggest that Russia is assisting Iran target U.S. troops as the war between the United States and Iran rages. There are few if any signs of diplomacy from either Washington or Tehran.Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Washington to meet with President Donald Trump.And in what could be a new normal, wildfires are raging across Spain and France.We cover the most important stories from around the world in the News Roundup.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

I set up the context for a new season covering the problem of evil, with a long detour discussing free will. Free Will: Free Will Podcast: https://thefreewillshow.com/ Freedom of the Will: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18923116-freedom-of-the-will?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=oh8V1io1tq&rank=1What is a Truly Free Will?: https://publicorthodoxy.org/2020/04/24/what-is-a-truly-free-will/Freedom and Belief: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1095873.Freedom_and_Belief?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=S1WFFMzcUj&rank=2Problem of Evil: Malum: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61246316-malum?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=paPzsluSl5&rank=2Wandering in Darkness: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9777316-wandering-in-darkness?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=4jYGNHzsuT&rank=1Consolation of Philosophy: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31837.The_Consolation_of_Philosophy?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=mDPZQn2ir1&rank=2Making Sense Out of Suffering: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/256138.Making_Sense_Out_of_Suffering The Doors of the Sea: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/863944.The_Doors_of_the_Sea?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=SxwkUGiFly&rank=1A huge thanks to Seth White for the awesome music!Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tourYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTd3KlRte86eG9U40ncZ4XA?view_as=subscriberInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/ Kingdom Outpost: https://kingdomoutpost.org/My Reading List Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/21940220.J_G_Elliot Thanks to our monthly supporters J Phillip Mast Laverne Miller Jesse Killion ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

If you've been on the internet lately, you've probably been fooled by AI at least once. Don't worry, you're not alone. One poll by the data security company, All About Cookies, found that 77 percent of Americans have been duped by artificial intelligence at some point.Sometimes it can seem harmless – like that viral TikTok video of bunnies jumping on a trampoline, which raked in over 25 million likes. But AI has also been used maliciously, creating misinformation in the realm of politics, health, and breaking news events.The use of AI has also duped people within the creative fields – from music to visual art. And it's being used within education as teachers raising concerns over widespread cheating.How can detection tools keep up with all the fast-changing technology and its varied uses?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Irish singer-songwriter Glen Hansard died today in a motorcycle crash in Ireland at the age of 56. We sat down with him in April to talk about his storied career and his final album, "Don+t Settle – Transmissions East and West." Here's what we wrote about that conversation at the time.–The song “Falling Slowly” first debuted in the 2007 indie romance film “Once” starring Irish singer-songwriter Glen Hansard and Czech-Islandic singer-songwriter Markéta Irglová. It tells the story of a dramatized version of their own musical partnership.That song won an Oscar for best original song and the musical duo became a hit in the U.S. when they recorded and toured as The Swell Season.But long before any success stateside, Hansard was a fixture of the Irish music scene, first busking on Dublin streets at age 13. And in 1990 he formed the Irish rock group The Frames.Today, Hansard is reflecting on his decades of music-making and looking ahead. His new two-part album is called “Don+t Settle – Transmissions East and West.” He sits down with us to talk about the first part.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Navigating a challenging moment in a friendship. Weighing a new job or changing your career. Seeing news about instability in our politics. A confusing diagnosis at the doctor's office. Tending to a loved one in the hospital or in hospice.Uncertainty strikes us in every part of our lives, big and small. And about three quarters of the world's more than 8 billion people turn to faith.In this edition of our series, “Pending,” we look at faith. When can it help with uncertainty? And how can we use it, whatever that means for us, in the face of problems we think we can't solve?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Video Version: What does it actually mean when disability advocacy is “level funded”? What are federal appropriations, and why are they such a big deal for disability rights? On this episode of National Disability Radio, Alden Blevins (Communications Manager), Stephanie Flynt McEben (Public Policy Analyst), and Eric Buehlmann (Deputy Director for Public Policy) pull back the curtain on the federal funding process and what it means for the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) network. They discuss the successful FY26 funding fight, why advocacy on Capitol Hill matters, and how everyday people can help. You also get the added bonus of hill-day survival tips, advocacy myths and truths, and a very important debate about coffee and tea. Transcript: Alden Blevins: Hello, and welcome to National Disability Radio. I am here today with two wonderful people who are about to introduce themselves. I am Alden Blevins, Communications Manager here at NDRN. I have my own lived experience with disability and I’m really glad to be here today. What about you guys? Who are you, What do you do? Stephanie Flynt…: Yeah, I’m Stephanie Flynt McEben. I am also one of your hosts of the podcast and NDRN’s Public Policy Analyst. And I have beef with a music streaming app, and I’m not going to talk about which one, but let’s just say that this [00:00:30] music streaming app told me that I was 67 for Christmas this year. And then it had the audacity to… Oh gosh, what was the playlist the other morning that was recommended? It was Old Camping Man Sunday Morning, and it was really weird. Why? I don’t listen to old camping man music unless James Taylor and Chappell Roan and Taylor Swift count as that. But anyway, hope everybody else is having a good day. And hey, if Spotify thinks [00:01:00] you’re old, you’re just… I don’t know. You’re young at heart, anyway. Alden Blevins: I think it clocked my age exactly. And I must say that I listened to a lot of Lady Gaga and Kesha in the last year. Stephanie Flynt…: Yes. Alden Blevins: And to be fair- Stephanie Flynt…: You were in the 2010’s era. Alden Blevins: They were still the two most popular artists when I was graduating from high school, so they clocked me. They clocked me for sure. Stephanie Flynt…: Oh my gosh. Time to introduce Eric, who is our Deputy Executive [00:01:30] Director for Public Policy. How are you doing? It’s great for you to be here. Eric Buehlmann: Great, it’s wonderful to be here. Evidently, your phone must be listening to my music then in that way [inaudible 00:01:44] Stephanie Flynt…: Maybe so. I don’t know what’s going on, but I don’t know how I feel about it. And also, I guess… I don’t know. I guess the Spotify age thing is eclectic because my top artist was Taylor Swift, so I don’t know. Anywho. Eric Buehlmann: So I’m Eric Buehlmann. I’m the Deputy Executive [00:02:00] Director for Public Policy. As Stephanie said, my first choice is not Taylor Swift, but my wife listens to it a lot. So when I’m in the car with her, that’s what I’m listening to. Alden Blevins: This is National Disability Radio. We are the official podcast of the National Disability Rights Network. The National Disability Rights Network works in Washington DC and around the country on behalf of the protection [00:02:30] and advocacy systems, the P&As and the client assistance programs or CAP. We are the nation’s largest provider of legal advocacy services for people with disabilities. The first thing we want to talk about is some big and good news. The P&A network was funded for the rest of FY26. Can we get a hallelujah? Stephanie Flynt…: Yay, woo-hoo! Alden Blevins: The first thing I was just going to ask is, Eric, can you explain to us why it’s a big deal that we were funded and level funded, [00:03:00] and kind of what it took for us to get to this point? Eric Buehlmann: In terms of being able to, why we were able to do this, it’s really our members reaching out to all the representatives, all the senators, making the case, all the good work that the P&As and the CAPs do, and showing all the examples and saying, “Look, if you don’t fund us, this is what’s going to happen, is that person with a disability is not going to be able to get accessible housing or accessible transportation, or the student’s going to be able to go to school or someone’s going to have an assistive [00:03:30] technology device or rampant abuse and neglect are going to be occurring in either the community or institution.” So they made those cases. Congress said, “We agree with you.” And the best we could hope for at this time was at least maintaining our funding and not losing it. Alden Blevins: I think it’s really important to remember that this is not just numbers on a spreadsheet, this has real world impacts on peoples’ lives, the lives of people with disabilities, whether or not they can access enforcement of their civil rights, so [00:04:00] super important. Stephanie Flynt…: Absolutely. Alden Blevins: Just to peel back the curtain and give a little more context for some of our listeners, I just want to go ahead and ask the kind of general question of what are federal appropriations and what does that really mean when we talk about them? Stephanie Flynt…: Yeah, sure. I’m happy to jump in a little bit here. Essentially what federal appropriations are is how Congress allocates funding. And so essentially, there is a long process as Eric kind of talked through a little bit [00:04:30] earlier, in terms of everything that’s been going on with the budget. And so individuals are able to make various appropriations requests to their office. But essentially in a nutshell, it’s essentially just how we get the funds that we need in order to do the work that we do. Alden Blevins: And just kind of practically, what are the steps in an appropriations process or what can people kind of expect out of appropriation season? Oh Stephanie Flynt…: Oh my goodness. Okay, so usually, [00:05:00] of course in the spring, we usually see a big influx of appropriations forms, which, we’re starting to kind of see that now with the House setting their committee deadlines for appropriations, so we’re starting to kind of see an influx of that now. In the Senate, we’ll probably see that a little bit later on as that comes down. But usually the offices will set their personal deadlines, their committee deadlines. And then the appropriations bills, just kind of depending on where they sit, which, all of ours sit on the subcommittee for Labor, [00:05:30] Health and Human Services, Education and related agencies on both the House and the Senate side on the Appropriations Committee. And so there will be a House markup usually around June, as well as a Senate markup in July with the hope that we are able to go ahead and pass the appropriations, the funding that we need for the next fiscal year that starts on October 1st. Alden Blevins: My next one is just why do you guys think advocacy on Capitol Hill matters [00:06:00] during appropriation season? The regular person might not realize how important this is and why. Stephanie Flynt…: Yeah. In my experience, like you said, Alden, a lot of people don’t realize how important and how crucial that kind of advocacy is. But really and truly, that kind of advocacy is what helps us acquire our funding for services, particularly advocacy. So it’s definitely super important to be continuing to follow up with your members. Of course, meeting with your members if you can, [00:06:30] and their staff. Having a steady contact in their offices, things like that. And even just building those relationships in my viewpoint is a good form of advocacy and just making sure that they know who you are, they know what your programs do. They know how it benefits folks in their state/district, et cetera, et cetera, the constituency that they serve. So just making sure that, those points. Eric Buehlmann: And the specific, the biggest requirement is staff [00:07:00] are always seeking information. You’re covering hundreds of programs, multiple issues. They don’t know everything that is going on. They can’t track everything at the same time because they just have information overload. So putting a face with a person, with the story, with the request in front of them makes the biggest difference, because then the staff begins to know who you are. But otherwise, they’re just overloaded with how much material they’re trying to cover and how much stuff they’re trying to do. And if you’re not in front of them, I mean, as [00:07:30] it’s basically said, if you’re not talking to them, you’re on the menu, you’re not the one that’s providing them the information. Stephanie Flynt…: You’re not at the table, you’re on the menu, yeah. Alden Blevins: That makes a lot of sense to me. I was also just going to ask, we’re all so excited and grateful that we were level funded for FY26, but what does level funding really mean? What has that looked like over the last couple years? And having that level or that stagnant funding, what does that mean in terms of the [00:08:00] P&A’s services or the take home impact? Eric Buehlmann: It’s difficult for the P&As because level funding really is in a way, a kind of a cut. Costs are going up continually, healthcare costs are going up. Cost of travel, cost of everything is going up. So level funding ultimately means that they’re able to do less or they may need to shift from doing as much individual case work to more systemic work where you’re helping multiple people by solving one problem. [00:08:30] So level funding is great, especially when you’re facing the potential of cuts. But ultimately if you do that for many, many years, it ultimately means that the P&As and the CAPs will have less staff and able to serve less people. Alden Blevins: Now that we’ve kind of grounded ourselves in a little bit of how this process works, we’re going to talk about the larger policy landscape that we’re all living in right now. What are some of the disability policy concerns we saw come to a head in 2025 and how do we think [00:09:00] that might influence our policy landscape for the rest of 2026? Stephanie Flynt…: Oh my goodness. Do you want to start or do you want me to? Eric Buehlmann: You go first. Stephanie Flynt…: Oh, goodness. I think for me, the biggest thing that comes to mind is the dismantling of the Department of Education. We’ve definitely seen different things that have kind of gone ahead in that regard. And so obviously, there’s a lot of different concerns that are there in those types of things. And so [00:09:30] just continuing to monitor that and what all of that looks like. Of course, I’ll leave a little bit of the healthcare stuff to Eric since that’s more of his specialty, but of course, that is something that I would be remiss not to mention. The various concerns around the Medicaid work requirements that will be taking effect and how that’s going to impact our community. So there are definitely a lot of different policies and a lot of different things that you don’t think about necessarily intersecting with [00:10:00] the disability community, but that are still having impacts on the disability community, particularly those who are members of multiple marginalized communities. Eric Buehlmann: I think building on that for Stephanie is, it’s not just the Medicaid work requirements that are going to hit people. It’s just the massive amounts of cuts to the amount of funding that the states are getting. It’s sort of a partnership between states and the federal government. And if the federal government cuts their share of funding, it means states are going to be cutting their share of funding. And what those cuts [00:10:30] really mean in the long run is that unfortunately, not required services or waiver services are going to be the ones that are going to get hit. If they have to do it, the state will pay for it. If they don’t have to do it and the state’s not willing to put up the money, then those services are going to go away. And in our case, that means home and community-based services for the most part. So not only are a number of people going to get kicked off of Medicaid because they’re having problems following the work requirements or understanding [00:11:00] what the work requirements are and/or having to go through getting re-certified every six months rather than every year, that’s going to mean more people are going to be kicked off. On top of it, you add in all the cuts and the states are going to look around and say, “Well, we’re losing $1 billion,” let’s say, in California, I think is the number they said. “How are we going to make up that gap?” And what they’re going to do is they’re going to say, “Well, these are required and required in the Medicaid program is institutionalized care versus [00:11:30] the ones that we choose to do on our own, which is home and community-based services. Well, if we have to do it, we’ll have to pay for it.” And that means there’s a gap and that gap is going to come out of home and community-based services. Alden Blevins: Yeah. And I think this is kind of a great connection to that home and community-based services piece. I was going to kind of ask, generally speaking, what themes might we be seeing in Congress right now that could affect P&A programs or disability justice as a whole? Eric Buehlmann: I do think one issue [00:12:00] that we’re encountering is more and more members that may not understand disability as well, or what the desires of people with disabilities are, and may listen to not just the person with a disability, they may be listening to their guardians or they may be listening to their parents. Not saying that they don’t know what the person with a disability wants, but if you want to go to the source, the source is the person with a disability. So I think one of the themes, and I think this is why it’s critically important for people with disabilities to be involved in these discussions and [00:12:30] doing this advocacy, is you’ve got to put yourself front and center. And you have to say, “This is what I desire, this is what I want. I want to live in the community, I want to live at home. I want to be able to work in an integrated environment. I don’t want to be paid subminimum wage.” And if they’re not hearing from people with disabilities about that, then that’s a problem. And I think what we’re seeing is sort of a return to sort of the old way of thinking, sort of pre-IDEA, pre-ADA. And people with disabilities should be [00:13:00] off to the side and not at the forefront. And so I think that theme is carrying over in a lot of the ways Congress and the administration are looking at these issues. And I think in terms of other themes, it’s, “We got to save money somewhere.” And their ideas of trying to save money is to cut programs, which actually in the long run, costs more. It costs more to be served in an institution than it costs to live and get served in the community. And [00:13:30] so we’ve really got to be making those cases. I think those are two themes that I’m thinking of. Stephanie Flynt…: Yeah, for sure. And I think that another theme really is just broader justice in the civil rights community, just not completely and fully understanding disability. And so I definitely think that if we’re not careful with everything going on, we definitely could regress back a little bit more into the medical model as opposed to the social model. And I think that some of the demonstration in the legislation [00:14:00] that could potentially be introduced, and of course that we are closely monitoring and making sure that we’re continually keeping an eye out. And of course, we’ll keep folks in the network apprised of those things. But all that to say, I think that’s kind of a demonstrated action when it comes to their understanding of what disability is. Alden Blevins: I love what you guys said, especially about people with disabilities being front and center and telling their own stories and determining, [00:14:30] telling the world what they really want and seek out in their lives. I think that that’s so important for people with disabilities to be in the driver’s seat. For those of you who don’t know, we do have a saying in the disability community that is, “Nothing about us without us.” So kind of speaking about some of the messages that have been happening in the last year, we know that a lot of things have become very polarized throughout the last year, 2025. What opportunities do you guys see for collaboration towards [00:15:00] a better future for people with disabilities? What efforts might be a good target for bipartisan support? Stephanie Flynt…: Yeah. I think for me, definitely always on the hunt for bipartisan opportunity. Because the truth of the matter is that disability, even though it is being portrayed as a partisan issue, it’s not a partisan issue. It’s a nonpartisan issue. And so just kind of keeping that in mind as we continue to do this policy work. I think [00:15:30] what it boils down to really, at least a part of it, is messaging. Because looking at the issues that are in the disability community, because they’re nonpartisan, I think that really, it comes down to it’s not about what you’re saying, it’s how you’re saying, it’s how you’re presenting it. When we’re talking to different offices, we want to emphasize different things that they are most concerned about or that may matter most to their particular constituency or the folks [00:16:00] with disabilities that they may serve. Those would be my things, but I definitely, even though it can be challenging at times, definitely just continuing to keep hope there. Eric Buehlmann: I mean, there’s always a lot of different things. And as Stephanie said, you have to sort of tailor your message around what people are interested in. I mean, things like the Transformation to Competitive Integrated Employment Act, I think there’s a large number of people, and we’ve seen it in the states, they’re phasing out the subminimum wage, even in some [00:16:30] very conservative states. And so that’s something that’s garnered bipartisan support, that people should be paid at least the minimum wage for the work they’re doing. And that they should be integrated into the employment environment and not just in segregated workshops. We were able to get a Republican co-sponsor for the Keeping All Students Safe Act this year, which would place some kind of federal restrictions on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools and provide money for [00:17:00] training, which is critically important so that the teachers know and the school personnel know what they do when they’re encountering tough situations. There’s a number of bills. I mean, ultimately disability is very bipartisan and it impacts everybody. So usually whether you’re a Republican, a Democrat or Independent, you either have a family member or know someone very close to you that has a disability. So you just got to frame the message right. Alden Blevins: I love that you guys both mentioned messaging and disability [00:17:30] being affecting everyone. That’s part of my core messaging that I always try to put out there, is that disability can come for anybody. You can be a person who has no disabilities one morning and your situation could be different by that evening, depending on what happens to you in your life. And even as you age throughout the lifespan, most of us are going to experience some degree of disability in our lives. So advocating for this [00:18:00] community now when you have the chance to is only going to benefit you when you inevitably become a part of it. I think that’s really important to remember. My kind of last question on this topic is just, what do you think you would want policymakers today to know most about our programs at the P&As? Stephanie Flynt…: I’m going to yield to the executive overseer to start. Eric Buehlmann: I mean, I think our members are hidden gems. I think that’s the biggest [00:18:30] thing, is that most people don’t know what a protection advocacy agency is and/or what it does. As I’ve said many times in my stories is I had met the Executive Director of the Vermont P&A for many times when I worked up on the Hill. Had no idea he worked for the Protection & Advocacy Agency. Talked to him about housing, talked to him about employment, talked to him about all these different things, had no idea that there was a Protection and Advocacy Agency. My second day at the job, I go into an NDRN board meeting and there he is, [00:19:00] sitting there. And I’m like, “Oh, that’s what a Protection & Advocacy Agency… Because I didn’t have a clue. So I think we’re sort of a hidden gem. And I think really, the big thing is that the P&As do a lot of work that other agencies can’t. We have these really strong… I hate saying we, but our members have strong authorities to go in and investigate and monitor for abuse and neglect. If that’s going on, they can go in unannounced. They could do these kinds of investigations that other places can’t. There are [00:19:30] story after story of the police being kept out of certain places or Child Protective Services or Adult Protective Services. But the P&A goes in and is able to sort of expose that abuse and neglect. And that’s really the important thing. And I think people just need to know they exist. But there’s more than just the systemic work. Individually, they are helping people around employment or education or accessible transportation and housing. So I just think there are ultimately hidden gems the more [00:20:00] you delve into it. And as you said, Alden, everyone’s going to become, in my opinion, a member of the disability community at one time in their life or not. Could be permanently, could be temporarily if you break your leg or something like that. And now all of a sudden, you begin to realize that yeah, curb cuts do make a heck of a lot of sense. And yes, automatic doors are very helpful and all those kinds of things. And so we just need to do a better job of sort of explaining the beauty of the work the P&As do and that [00:20:30] it’s not just these giant exposes of abuse and neglect, but there’s all the little individual work that they do that’s extremely important to families and people with disabilities. Alden Blevins: We know in this world that policy is never static. There’s always a lot coming at us, coming at you guys, to kind of figure out and think about how it impacts our community. So my next question is just what do we think might be coming in the landscape of 2026? [00:21:00] It’s hard to speculate, but what should we be looking ahead towards as a community? Eric Buehlmann: Election years are always a weird little duck. Stephanie Flynt…: Yes. Eric Buehlmann: Partly because Congress does not stay around that much, they like to go home and they like to campaign. Some would say they’re not here to do as much damage. But the administration’s still here, they could do plenty of damage. And so I mean, my expectation is there will not be [00:21:30] a lot that’s going to really occur. They’re going to do what they normally have to do, which is sort of the appropriations and try to get that done as well as they can before the elections. There may be some messaging bills that they try to work on, but I’m not expecting a lot of things to actually get passed and a lot of work to get done. But I think this gets back to the theme issue and that kind of discussion, which is you need to be laying the foundation for the members that are here now and those that are running, especially [00:22:00] in someone in a seat where a member’s retiring or if there’s an open seat. And you need to be making sure the candidates understand the needs and desires and wishes of people with disabilities so that when they do come here, they already have at least some based foundation. So I would really look at ’26 as you got to focus on funding because that’s going to have to happen no matter what. And then making sure that your candidates and then making sure that your members of Congress understand about disabilities so that when [00:22:30] they come back next year, that they’re really almost ready to get going on the issues of importance. Stephanie Flynt…: Yeah. Alden Blevins: So much of what we do is kind of playing a little bit of defense about whatever is going on in the larger policy landscape or the news cycle of that week. But we obviously also have our own policy priorities that we would like to see and that we would like movement on in the next year. So I was just going to ask, what are NDRN’s top three [00:23:00] public policy priorities? Eric Buehlmann: I think if you’re looking in the proactive world, that’s tough in this day and age. I think our policy priorities tend to be much more in the defensive world now, Which is, there’s sort of a 1A and a 1B. You always have the money aspect of it, the appropriations aspect of it, and making sure that our members have hopefully increased funding, but at least level funding. The second, as I talked about before, is our members have amazingly strong authorities [00:23:30] to sort of ferret out abuse, neglect, fraud and waste. And we got to make sure that those aren’t reduced. And so that’s sort of the other big thing. I think structurally, we’re looking at the administration and saying, “We need to make sure that disability is still centered here.” The Department of Education is extremely important for students with disabilities and the amount of work they do. And around employment because the vocational rehabilitation system is there. Health and Human [00:24:00] Services impacts people with disabilities in huge, humongous ways. And so we got to make sure that those structures stay strong, that are providing the training, the technical assistance, the support to all the different programs that support people with disabilities and that they’re strong. Alden Blevins: Yeah, absolutely. I heard education, I heard healthcare. I think these are all bread and butter issues for us and for the community at large. [00:24:30] It can just be tricky to decide when and where to focus your attention. Stephanie Flynt…: Right. And also too, again, going back to that, how do we mesh the priorities in a way that we could potentially try to work with folks and get stuff done? And I think that that’s kind of where that point of collaboration comes in. Figuring out what the priorities of various offices are and see, how can we kind of mesh ours together? Where’s the common ground? What can we work together [00:25:00] on in order to make things better for disabled folks? Eric Buehlmann: And I think as Stephanie said, this is where these relationships come into effect, because you have no idea what’s going to be the big issue of the day. Today it may be X, tomorrow it’s going to be Y. The day after it’s going to be Z, and the staff are just overwhelmed a little bit. But if you have those relationships with them, if something comes up and you need to get in touch with them, you shoot them that email, you send them that note [00:25:30] and they know who you are and they’re willing to look and listen to figure out what you’re saying and where it needs to fit in their priorities. They don’t know who you are, this gets back to the, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu, then they’re not going to understand why this is a problem because you’ve not laid that foundation. So that’s where those relationships come to be critically important, because you just never know what’s going to pop up. Alden Blevins: My next question is, what are kind of the strategies or things that [00:26:00] everyday folks can do to kind of help or support? There’s a lot of overwhelming information coming at folks on all sides. And it would just be really nice if we could know what would be most helpful in terms of getting that community support to advance our priorities. Stephanie Flynt…: I think for me, the biggest thing that I can think of there is just making sure that your voice is being heard and that you are able to kind of amplify your voice when it comes to these issues. [00:26:30] Making sure that you are reaching out to your senators and representative, things of that nature. Of course, there’s the number for the Capitol switchboard and we can certainly put that in the show notes if that’s helpful to people. But for everyday folks, it’s so interesting. I’ll be on Facebook and I’ll just see different things and it’ll be videos of people just calling their senators and representative. And it sounds scary, it sounds daunting, but I promise you, getting [00:27:00] constituent calls is definitely something that is super, super helpful in terms of advocacy there. So definitely, definitely recommend that. Eric Buehlmann: And as Stephanie said, take advantage of those action alerts, take advantage of those days. If you’re looking at your state and local legislatures, a lot of them have disability days where a number of groups will come together and they’ll go to the Capitol and they’ll talk up their issues. Take advantage of those. In terms of the federal, try to keep track of if they’re going to do a town hall or if they’re going to be having a [00:27:30] get together. And go and have a discussion with the staff and the members that are there. And then when it comes to the campaigns, get involved with the campaigns. Make sure that the candidates have some kind of disability platform as part of their work and what they’re doing. Because ultimately if you’ve, I’m going to say trained, trained them ahead of time, then when they come to Congress or they go into the state legislature, you don’t have to explain as much. You’re not having to spend your time explaining why this issue is important. [00:28:00] You get to jump to, “This is why we need to do this.” So you need to be working at those candidates. You need to be looking at their platforms and you need to be talking to them so that they know that you’re there. Alden Blevins: Absolutely. I think a lot of times people feel overwhelmed with just knowing how or why to help. And I love that you even mentioned people posting their calls onto social media, because I think that’s another avenue that folks can use. Talk to your friends, talk to your neighbors, talk to people that you talk with online about how these issues impact you [00:28:30] and your life personally. I think that hearing those stories from people with disabilities can be really impactful as well. All right, I’ve got some quicker round of questions just to kind of help folks get to know both you guys and your work. Stephanie Flynt…: Yay. Alden Blevins: The first one is just almost similar to two truths and a lie. If you could give me one myth and one truth about federal advocacy, what would you say? Eric Buehlmann: I think it’s sort of the flip side of the same coin. To me, [00:29:00] the myth that’s out there is, “My voice doesn’t matter.” And that, “Whatever I say isn’t going to be heard by the staff, isn’t going to be heard by the member and I’m not going to really have an impact.” It does. Again, as I said early on, staff are constantly looking for those sources of information. They cannot keep track of all the topics they cover, all the bills they have to do, all the differing appropriations they’re following. They can’t. They rely on the constituents to provide them information. And if you are a trusted resource and providing them good information, [00:29:30] you’ve got your in and they’ll understand and they’ll follow what you’re asking them to do as best they can. So I think that’s the myth, is that their voice doesn’t make any difference. To me, the flip side of that is the truth is it does make a difference. And so if you’re not engaged, then you’re automatically losing. The disability community needs to be and put itself front and center. Because as Alden said, people with disabilities are a majority of this country. You will eventually be a member [00:30:00] of the disability community. And so therefore, you need to make sure your voice is heard. And so I think the truth is your voice does matter, the myth is people think that it doesn’t. Stephanie Flynt…: I think for me, a myth that I would say, not as interesting as Eric’s, but I think a myth that I would say, and these are probably for people who are kind of newer or just more on the outskirts of things, is that a bill is going to pass overnight. That’s not how policy works. Usually it takes lots of reiterations of introduction [00:30:30] and stuff, but that’s how it’s designed. And so I think that’s kind of where my truth comes in or where the truth comes in for the myth versus truth, is that policy is designed to take a while, even though it can be frustrating at times, but that’s in order to ensure the appropriate checks and balances and whatnot. So no, you’re not going to enter in and pass a bill in two days. Hate to break into any hopefuls, but you know. Eric Buehlmann: No, that is a huge one. People think that policy moves at a lightning quick pace. [00:31:00] It is a snail. Stephanie Flynt…: Yep. Eric Buehlmann: It takes years. I worked eight years on election reform before we were finally able to get it through Congress. And reauthorizations, I mean, this is one of our smaller ones. The Assistive Technology Act program was last reauthorized in 2004. We finally got the next reauthorization done in 2021. So it moves slowly and you have got… I guess that’s another thing, sort of following up on what you’re saying. The truth is you have to stick to these people. Stephanie Flynt…: Yes. Eric Buehlmann: You can’t just say, ” [00:31:30] I talked about this once and it’s going to get done this year.” No, you’re probably back next year. Stephanie Flynt…: Not how it works. Eric Buehlmann: And you’re probably back the next Congress and you’re probably back the next Congress. So you will repeatedly have the same conversations. Stephanie Flynt…: Yes. Especially with staff turnover, too. There are going to be different staff members, folks may move back to the representative or the senator’s districts or their own home districts or change roles, what have you. But there can sometimes be a lot of that [00:32:00] turnover. But that can also be a good thing, too. Eric Buehlmann: But Stephanie, I think we’ve got another good truth and myth. Stephanie Flynt…: Oh, okay. Eric Buehlmann: Which is, the myth in my mind is if I feel like the member’s not supportive or following what I’m talking about and caring about disability, then it’s not worth my time. The truth is staff do a lot of work. Stephanie Flynt…: Yes. Eric Buehlmann: And you may encounter a member that is not really [00:32:30] interested in disability, doesn’t really care about disability, but the staff is very interested in disability. And so your message can get conveyed from the staff to the member. You may not always get everything exactly the way you wanted from the member, but you’ve moved him in a direction, or her, in a direction that they weren’t going to go without the staff. Stephanie Flynt…: Exactly, exactly. Staff definitely have a lot of influence when it comes to different member priorities and things like that, that might not usually be on their [00:33:00] radar, such as disability. Alden Blevins: Actually, I caught Eric saying something yesterday that I thought was so impactful. Somebody was expressing disappointment that their meeting was with a baby staffer. And I heard Eric say, “That baby staffer could be in charge in 10 years.” Stephanie Flynt…: I was going to say, like a Chief of Staff in five years- Alden Blevins: Yeah, you never know what inroads you’re making when you get into those rooms. And you should take the chance once you’re in that room, to make the case for people with disabilities. Stephanie Flynt…: Yes. Alden Blevins: This next one, I’m [00:33:30] hearing a lot of themes of perseverance, maybe having to stay on people, having to return year-to-year. This is just a silly question, but what is your Hill day fuel of choice? Is it coffee, is it tea? What keeps you going? Stephanie Flynt…: I think that mine is probably either, probably Celsius. And then I don’t know if y’all have ever had the Mary’s Gone Crackers, but I like to have little hummus things with me. And so I’ll do the Mary’s Gone Crackers with some hummus on the Hill. And so that’s really good to eat between [00:34:00] meetings and stuff, but they’re really good. They’re quinoa seed crackers, gluten-free, garlicky, basil. I don’t know, they’re really good, especially with hummus. So I guess for me, that’s my food and caffeine. Eric Buehlmann: And Stephanie no doubt, could tell any of everybody what mine is. Stephanie Flynt…: Anything gluten-free/unsweetened iced tea from McDonald’s. Eric Buehlmann: Yep, bingo. I’ve never had coffee in my life. Alden Blevins: Wow. Eric Buehlmann: Yeah, I’ve never had coffee in my life. Stephanie Flynt…: I thought you would at least- Eric Buehlmann: Nope, never had coffee in my life. Alden Blevins: Just not even curious? Stephanie Flynt…: Not a sip? Eric Buehlmann: I’m curious, [00:34:30] but I’ve never had it. I’ve now reached the age of, “Why should I now start?” Alden Blevins: This is so fair, because once you start, it’s hard to stop. Stephanie Flynt…: You’re not going to be able stop. Alden Blevins: It’s real hard to stop. Stephanie Flynt…: Especially when you find a roast that you really like. Eric Buehlmann: I’m a caffeine addict, don’t get me wrong. For many years it was Dr. Pepper, Diet Coke. Stephanie Flynt…: Diet Coke. Eric Buehlmann: Doctor said, “No.” Now I’m an unsweetened tea… Well, I’m not going to say always unsweetened tea, but it’s always usually some form of iced tea. Alden Blevins: [00:35:00] Yeah. And sometimes you sneak in the sweet tea as a treat, I assume? Eric Buehlmann: No, not really. I’m not a big fan of sweet tea. I find it too sweet. Alden Blevins: Wow. Stephanie Flynt…: You have to have the right sweet tea, though. Eric Buehlmann: Yeah, I’m not from the South. Stephanie Flynt…: I was going to say- Eric Buehlmann: I’m in Virginia, but I’m not the South. Stephanie Flynt…: They don’t make good sweet tea up in the DMV if you want good sweet. Actually, they just started carrying Milo’s at my local grocery store, so that’s what I recommend. Eric Buehlmann: I’ve seen Milos. Milos is good? Stephanie Flynt…: I love Milos, yes. Eric Buehlmann: Okay, I’ll have to get that one. Stephanie Flynt…: So good, yeah. I mean, it’s sweet, but it’s not too sweet. Anyway. Eric Buehlmann: See, I find it too sweet. I’ll [00:35:30] mix it with unsweetened iced tea at times. I grew my tea at home. And what I’ll do is I’ll pour a little lemon iced tea in and sort of mix it, but I find it too sweet. But yeah, I’ve never had coffee in my life. Coffee ice cream once or twice, but never- Stephanie Flynt…: Okay, but that’s really good. Eric Buehlmann: Nah, no. Stephanie Flynt…: No? Eric Buehlmann: No. Coffee smells great. I love the smell of coffee, but I’m not going to try it now if I can avoid it. Alden Blevins: Good for you. My next one [00:36:00] is just, what is your go-to story when speaking with folks on The Hill? Do you have a P&A story that you feel like you come back to? Do you speak about issues more generally or do you have a go-to story in your back pocket? Eric Buehlmann: Well, I mean, I think the one I always fall back on is the Kaufman House in Kansas. There was a place in Kansas. I think if you just Google Kaufman House in Kansas, you’ll find it. Basically, this is one of those examples where the P&A was the only one that got in. These [00:36:30] were a husband and wife that were running a, I guess I’d call it a group home, that were doing unspeakably horrible abuse and neglect of people with mental illness. And the state had been called in a number of times, the local people had been called in a number of times, and they just shut the door on them. The P&A went in and exposed the whole thing, basically showing what was going on there. They got convicted of a number of crimes, they were sent away to jail. To me, that’s the example that I will go [00:37:00] to a lot, is without the P&A, these people would’ve been just still going through abuse and neglect. I mean, I think the P&As are creating stories every single day, honestly. The number of reports that come out from P&As, we just got one from the Maryland… Maryland, wrong M. Minnesota P&A, about the use of seclusion with some amazing pictures of the various seclusion rooms in Minnesota that they had come upon. I think they’re occurring every single day and all these reports that are coming out. [00:37:30] Our members are in all sorts of facilities, just exposing abuse and neglect. Unfortunately, some of the stuff we really can’t talk about is they’re exposing the waste, fraud and abuse that’s occurring at times in the representative payee program because people aren’t using the benefits to the benefit of people with disabilities, to the beneficiaries. But the one, if you were going to ask me the one, it would be the Kaufman House. And Nancy Jensen testified [00:38:00] in front of Congress on the importance of the P&A program. She’s written some books on the issues that arose, but that would be the one go-to. Stephanie Flynt…: Yeah. I think for me personally, it really just varies from office to office and various priorities. I will say that one thing I do try to do before meeting with particular offices is I try to reach out to the P&A, just to see if there are any particular stories or any particular things that I should highlight going [00:38:30] on in their state for their senators or representative, or even if there’s anything specific in their district. Eric brought up the report that Minnesota did on restraint and seclusion. And one thing that staffers love is data. So if you’re able to kind of bring in a visual, say like the report or even send in a report of what’s been going on along with a story, along with data, that’s really going to get you far. And so those are things that I really [00:39:00] try to bring, just tangible stuff that they can take back to their higher ups in order to try to get different things up the chain, in order for us to get the support that we’re wanting to get from that particular office, whether the goal is co-sponsoring a particular bill or sponsoring something, or whether the goal is just general support or flagging something. Just making sure that you have those materials that folks can take back. Alden Blevins: Yeah, absolutely. And I [00:39:30] think what Eric said about the network generating stories all of the time, every day. Stephanie Flynt…: Yes. Alden Blevins: Where I sit, working in communications, is I try to share a story. At least every week, there’s a new, new story coming out about something that a P&A is doing, whether it be work related to abuse and neglect, whether it be work related to some states, they’re already talking about the Medicaid waiver programs and how they can apply some systemic advocacy to ensure that those are protected through the changes [00:40:00] coming in the Medicaid landscape. There’s just always something to be aware of that’s going on. And I think that really harnessing all of those stories together presents a really strong case for what our network is able to do. Stephanie Flynt…: Absolutely. Alden Blevins: Yeah. I’ve been told that maybe you’ll have a Hill day or appropriations pun and/or joke? Stephanie Flynt…: I always have a joke, you know this. Alden Blevins: Okay, so? Stephanie Flynt…: Oh my goodness. Alden Blevins: Let’s get a drum roll. Stephanie Flynt…: Yes. All right, [00:40:30] so it’s more of a question for Eric. Eric Buehlmann: Oh, no. Stephanie Flynt…: Are you ready? Eric Buehlmann: No, because we did not test this out beforehand. Stephanie Flynt…: Sorry, okay. How would you describe the appropriations process? Eric Buehlmann: How? Stephanie Flynt…: It’s fund. Alden Blevins: So much fun-d. Stephanie Flynt…: So much fun. Alden Blevins: So much fund. Stephanie Flynt…: Oh my goodness. Alden Blevins: Incredible. Stephanie Flynt…: But yes, that is my joke of the month. I’ll be here next month, assuming that I’m not kicked off the podcast [00:41:00] yet. Sorry, Michelle, you weren’t here for the joke, but I’m sure you’re actually laughing even though you pretend you don’t like them. Alden Blevins: Michelle is groaning from afar. Stephanie Flynt…: Yes. Alden Blevins: Yes. Eric Buehlmann: Stephanie’s puns get us through the day. Stephanie Flynt…: Yes, they do. See, I knew there was a… Yep, there we go. Alden Blevins: You got to laugh, you got to laugh. Stephanie Flynt…: Yes, exactly. Laughing is the best form of self-care when it comes to this kind of work, that’s for sure. Alden Blevins: Absolutely. It’s important to remember that congressional budgets and federal decision [00:41:30] making say a lot about whose rights are protected and whose are not, what voices are included, what voices are not. And I’m very grateful that I got the chance today to sit down with two of my amazing coworkers and hear more of their voices, get to share more about the amazing work that they do for our larger community. This has been National Disability Radio, where we highlight issues that impact people with disabilities. If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe and continue the [00:42:00] conversation at ndrn.org or anywhere you get your favorite podcasts. Thanks for listening. Until next time, let’s keep working together to create a world where people with disabilities can thrive. Stephanie Flynt…: Bye.

At least 18 American service members have been killed and hundreds more wounded since the start of the Iran war.On Tuesday, President Donald Trump spoke little of the troops who'd recently been killed before giving updates on the war:We feel very badly, but you know those great people, those great patriots who are out there fighting that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Iran has been very, very badly damaged. They've lost everything almost militarily. They've got very little left. They've got some missiles. They've got some drones. They've got some manufacturing ability, not much. We control the strait. They don't control anything, so we'll see what happens.We get into funding – whether Congress will exercise its powers over the flow of money and the president's war powers.The Pentagon is shutting out the free press and even downplaying troop deaths. Those four service members killed in Jordan and Iraq last weekend? The Pentagon scrubbed them from the war casualty record less than a week later. The Trump administration said their deaths don't count toward the official Iran war death toll because they were killed after the president declared a ceasefire in April.Over the weekend, after facing backlash from veterans and military families, the Pentagon restored those four soldiers killed in Iranian strikes last weekend to their casualty database and added more than 140 new wounded soldiers.Today on 1A, what responsibility does the Pentagon have to communicate transparently with the media and the American public?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! Por favor, inicia sesión en iVoox antes de escuchar o hacer comentarios. Los comentarios anónimos no son publicados. En esta entrega de Universo de Misterios, exploramos la fascinante vida y obra de Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, el físico que descifró el destino final de las estrellas. Analizamos cómo, siendo apenas un adolescente, calculó el límite de masa de 1,44 masas solares que determina si una enana blanca colapsa o explota como supernova de tipo 1A. Un recorrido por su lucha contra el escepticismo de la comunidad científica, la humillación pública por parte de Arthur Eddington y su eventual reivindicación con el Premio Nobel. Aunque a algunas personas, a veces, puede proporcionar una falsa sensación de alivio, la ignorancia nunca es deseable. Pero eso, tú ya lo sabes... Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

- Lãnh đạo Đảng, Nhà nước dâng hương tưởng niệm các Anh hùng liệt sĩ và vào Lăng viếng Chỉ tịch Hồ Chí Minh, nhân kỷ niệm 79 năm Ngày Thương binh - Liệt sĩ 27/7.- Bộ Công Thương thúc đẩy đối thoại với Hoa Kỳ sau kết luận thuế Mục 301.- Hà Nội tập trung giải phóng mặt bằng Dự án trục không gian Quốc lộ 1A.- Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo lấy ý kiến dự thảo Thông tư nhằm ngăn chặn dạy thêm, học thêm núp bóng môn tự nguyện.- Mỹ lần đầu tạm dừng không kích Iran sau gần hai tuần, song căng thẳng tiếp tục lan rộng từ Vịnh Ba Tư sang Biển Đỏ và Biển Ca-xpi.- Bão Noul sức gió mạnh cấp 14 đổ bộ vào tỉnh Quảng Đông, Trung Quốc khiến hơn 700 nghìn người phải sơ tán khẩn cấp.

VOV1 - Sau khi thành phố Hà Nội thông qua Nghị quyết phê duyệt chủ trương đầu tư dự án trục không gian quốc lộ 1A (tháng 5/2026), các phường, xã trong vùng dự án đang tập trung cao độ cho công tác kiểm đếm, đền bù, giải phóng mặt bằng, tái định cư. Là một trong những phường, xã khởi động sớm nhất các phần việc liên quan đến công tác giải phóng mặt bằng, ông Bùi Thanh Minh, Giám đốc Ban quản lý dự án đầu tư-Hạ tầng phường Định Công cho biết, Dự án trục không gian Quốc lộ 1A gắn với tái thiết và chỉnh trang đô thị đi qua địa bàn phường Định Công dài 1,49km, điểm đầu từ đường 2,5, điểm cuối là đường Nguyễn Hữu Thọ. Tổng diện tích đất giải phóng mặt bằng của Dự án trên địa bàn phường là hơn 92.200m2, liên quan đến 124 hộ gia đình; 4 tổ chức; đặc biệt trong phạm vi dự án có gần 47.500m2 đất thuộc ga Giáp Bát.Nhằm đảm bảo tiến độ giải phóng mặt bằng, cũng như quyền lợi chính đáng của người dân, phường Định Công đã tổ chức nhiều cuộc họp lấy ý kiến nhân dân, với tinh thần công khai, dân chủ, nhất là các chính sách liên quan đến đền bù, hỗ trợ, tái định cư… “Sau khi họp, tuyên truyền, các hộ dân tương đối đông thuận, ủng hộ dự án. Dự kiến trong tháng 7, UBND phường sẽ ban hành được trên 50 thông báo thu hồi đất trong tổng số hơn 124 hộ và một số tổ chức trên địa bàn. Và chúng tôi cố gắng hoàn thành công tác giải phóng mặt bằng trong tháng 9 theo đúng chỉ đạo của thành phố” - ông Bùi Thanh Minh nhấn mạnh.Tương tự, tại xã Ngọc Hồi, nơi Dự án trục không gian Quốc lộ 1A gắn với tái thiết và chỉnh trang đô thị đi qua dài hơn 3km, với khoảng 600 hộ bị ảnh hưởng, các quy trình thực hiện giải phóng mặt bằng đang được địa phương triển khai nhanh chóng, chặt chẽ, công khai, dân chủ, đảm bảo các quy định của pháp luật.Theo đó, UBND xã Ngọc Hồi đã rà soát, phối hợp thực hiện đo đạc thửa đất đối với các tổ chức, hộ gia đình, cá nhân có đất trong vùng dự án; ban hành Quyết định phê duyệt khái toán; họp dân thông báo chủ trương thu hồi đất...Dự án trục không gian Quốc lộ 1A gắn với tái thiết và chỉnh trang đô thị đoạn qua xã Ngọc Hồi

Nearly 100 U.S. service members have been injured since the resumption of hostilities between Iran and the U.S. The American death toll now stands at 18.In Maine, Democrats have chosen their replacement candidate to challenge Sen. Susan Collins. Troy Jackson is a former state lawmaker and is stepping in to fill the void left by Graham Platner. Platner stepped aside after allegations of sexual assault.And a Florida pastor is suing OpenAI over dangerous health advice he received from ChatGPT.We cover the most important stories from around the country in the domestic hour of the News Roundup.And, in global news, after the resumption of the war with Iran, both Washington and Tehran are digging their heels in over the Strait of Hormuz. This week President Donald Trump promising vengeance if Iran continues killing American service members.Ukraine sent more than 400 drones to Moscow after Russia targeted Kyiv with ballistic missiles.And French lawmakers approve a blanket social media ban for children under 15.We cover the most important stories from around the world in the News Roundup.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Extreme heat isn't just an inconvenience. It's a growing public health threat.More than 40 million people across the U.S. have remained under heat alerts this month. Heat remains the deadliest extreme weather event in the United States. At least 44 people have died as a result of July heatwaves. And in Europe, heatwaves killed more than 10,000 people in June, according to health data published this month.Climate change is making heatwaves hotter and more frequent. And high temps aren't just being reported in daytime. Nighttime temperatures are higher than ever. And scientists say that's raising the risk of heat exhaustion and heatstroke – and taking away crucial time for you and the planet to recover.What do you need to know about the effects of heat on your health? And how you can stay safe?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

How did you celebrate July 4 this year? What did the country's landmark 250th anniversary, in honor of the founding of the United States, mean to you?The next 50 years likely hold a lot of change for our country where democracy, economic uncertainty, technology, and our social fabric are concerned.What do we want that change to look like? We opened the phones so that you, our listeners, can tell us.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

You may have heard of a parasite that's causing some gastrointestinal distress.Cyclospora has sickened thousands of people across 34 states this summer – more than six times the number reported at this point last year. The CDC has linked a major cluster to shredded iceberg lettuce at Taco Bell in some states. And Taylor Farms de Mexico has now pulled all of its iceberg lettuce from the U.S. market despite an FDA finding that reports that its product contained the parasite were a false positive.We answer your questions about what cyclosporiasis is, how you get it, and why investigators have had such a hard time finding the source.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

One of the most critical parts of a democracy is the right to dissent. But if democratic norms weaken, that right can become harder to exercise. And when authoritarianism creeps into a government, dissent can get dangerous.Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison for resisting Apartheid before becoming South Africa's first Black president. Before becoming president of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel was jailed for his dissident writing under Communist rule.But there are also dissidents everywhere around us here at home. Protesters demonstrated against ICE in cities across the U.S. last week. And an estimated 8 million people turned up worldwide for “No Kings” protests in March.So, what does it actually take to stand up to a government that's stopped playing by the rules? And when does it make a difference? We speak with the authors of the new book “On Courage: How To Be A Dissident in an Age of Fear.”Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

As ICE ramps up its operations in and around American communities, its agents were involved in the deaths of three men in the last week.Trump Director of National Intelligence nominee Jay Clayton refused to answer Georgia Sen. John Ossoff's question about the results of the 2020 presidential election during a confirmation hearing.After weeks of silence, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell confirmed on Sunday that he was on the mend after suffering a fall and pneumonia. The 84-year-old posted a photo from the hospital this week to put an end to rampant speculation on his health. And, in global news, questions about the operational status of the Strait of Hormuz continue to echo around the globe. And President Donald Trump and Iranian leaders traded barbs following the lapse of the ceasefire and renewed strikes between the two combatants.Following devastating Russian attacks, June was the deadliest month for civilians in Ukraine since 2022.And U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that the U.S. will attempt to diplomatically dismantle the International Criminal Court.We cover the most important stories from around the globe on the weekly News Roundup.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Israel is expanding its command of Gaza and now controls almost 70 percent of the tiny enclave that's home to more than two million people.More than 1,100 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas nearly a year ago. Some 73,000 Palestinians have been killed in total since Israel's military offensive began after Hamas fighters killed 1,200 people on Oct. 7, 2023. Meanwhile, dozens of aid groups have been barred from operating in Gaza.Almost every Gazan is dealing with hunger, with 77 percent of the population facing high levels of food insecurity, according to the World Food Programme.So, what do these shifting lines of control mean for those in need? And how could changing political tides affect the situation?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

An Alzheimer's diagnosis can have a real impact on a person and their family. There's a lot to consider — what the future will hold, what symptoms they'll experience, and on what timeline.About 7.5 million people in the U.S. currently suffer from Alzheimer's. Every year, around half a million more are diagnosed with the disease or another form of dementia. As the population gets older, that figure will continue to rise.For decades, researchers have struggled to understand these kinds of diseases. But when it comes to testing and treatment, particularly for Alzheimer's, there have been significant advances in the past few years.In this installment of our series, “In Good Health,” we tackle the revolution in dementia research. What will that mean for patients?For more information on dementia research, find Pam Belluck's latest reporting at the New York Times. And Dr. Karlawish's “Neurotransmissions” column at STAT News, covering dementia care and research.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

What do gyms, TV shows, pet food, and smart doorbells all have in common?Nowadays, you might use a monthly subscription or other recurring membership to access these goods or services. The average American spends $219 every month on subscriptions. That's more than $2,600 a year. Those recurring payments mean predictable profits for companies. That is, unless you cancel.Enter: subscription traps. That's when companies make it easy for customers to sign up but difficult to be done. Some also use deceptive tactics to automatically enroll customers into a subscription after a free trial ends without making the terms clear. In recent years, cities and states have moved to crack down on subscription traps.They're also taking steps to regulate junk fees that companies can add to goods and services. That's caused prices to soar far beyond what's advertised. One of those leading the way is New York City, where authorities announced a ban on abusive subscription practices on Friday.How are regulators around the country working to protect consumers?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

The Trump administration is threatening top election officials with criminal prosecution if any ballot is cast by noncitizens in their state. That's according to a letter from the Justice Department sent last week to all 50 states and the District of Columbia.The president's threats raise the specter of noncitizen voting. In Michigan, for example, officials found that only 16 noncitizens voted in the 2024 election. That's 0.00028 percent of the state's total votes. And in Texas, their state investigation found about 100 potential noncitizen voters in 2024, though Gov. Greg Abbot initially suggested that there were over 1,900 potential noncitizen voters in the state.The Trump administration's efforts to sow doubt in elections doesn't stop there. Last Thursday, President Trump fired the remaining members of the bipartisan federal Election Assistance Commission, just months ahead of this year's midterms. And the Federal Emergency Management Agency warned states it will withhold a percentage of antiterrorism preparedness funds if states don't change the way they conduct elections, including implementing paper ballots, verifying citizenship, and running costly audits.In this installment of our weekly politics series, “If You Can Keep It,” we look at the administration's attacks on the election process. How is it affecting the way that Americans' perceive their elections — and what that all means for freedom and fairness of our elections.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

1. The Need of It 2. The Truth of It 3. The Joy of It Scripture: Romans 8:28-39 Psalters: 118C, 32B, 1A, 100C, 150F

Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner dropped out of the race for Maine Sen. Susan Collins' seat in Congress, after sexual assault allegations made by a former partner surfaced. Democrats are searching for a replacement.Calls for answers on Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell's whereabouts and wellbeing are growing. The former Senate majority leader has not been seen in three weeks, leading to speculation about his health.And the United States was knocked out of the 2026 FIFA Men's World Cup this week following a 4-1 defeat to Belgium.And, in global news, President Donald Trump said the MOU between the U.S. and Iran is over, calling Iranian leaders “scum.”At the annual NATO summit, Danish leaders underlined their commitment to Greenland after Trump claimed the territory would be better suited to American control.Brexit champion Nigel Farage abruptly resigned from his position in Parliament this week. He will run for office again. Critics say the situation is a ploy to avoid a formal inquiry over his finances.We cover the most important stories from around the world in the News Roundup.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Humans like to know what's coming next. How to plan for the future. And what the consequences of our actions might be.But the modern world is only becoming less certain — war abroad and political conflict at home, technological breakthroughs once only seen in science fiction, a volatile economy and labor market with the careers of billions at risk. And of course, the climate crisis, which rages on in the background, and now in the foreground of our lives?What exactly is uncertainty? And is it always a bad thing?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

At the end of June, the Supreme Court ruled six to three that the federal government can end Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for more than 300,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians currently residing legally in the United States.TPS is a program that allows people from designated countries currently experiencing crises, like natural disasters or civil war, to live and work in the U.S.Some Haitian TPS recipients have been in the U.S. for 16 years. They work in hospitals, warehouses, and factories nationwide. In Springfield, Ohio, they make up nearly a fifth of the city's population.But their time in America could come to an end as soon as late July.What does the future hold for TPS holders and their families? And what does it mean for the communities and jobs they leave behind?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Today we take a look at 4 socialists hiding behind personal ideologies to justify their 1A expressions of the right to “promote the insurrection of the Constitutional Republic of the United States”. Pastor Stan shares in detail how the Democratic Socialists of America just adopted a Radical New Platform. Finally, we take a look at how socialism comes first, then comes communism and finally your rights go with it! 00:00 Intro 00:54 Goals of their Movement 09:27 FBI Ready to Deploy 12:46 First Comes Socialism 15:48 Growing Cancer 18:20 Clouds in the Skies 22:41 Freedom to Dictatorship

Today we take a look at 4 socialists hiding behind personal ideologies to justify their 1A expressions of the right to “promote the insurrection of the Constitutional Republic of the United States”. Pastor Stan shares in detail how the Democratic Socialists of America just adopted a Radical New Platform. Finally, we take a look at how socialism comes first, then comes communism and finally your rights go with it! 00:00 Intro 00:54 Goals of their Movement 09:27 FBI Ready to Deploy 12:46 First Comes Socialism 15:48 Growing Cancer 18:20 Clouds in the Skies 22:41 Freedom to Dictatorship

Today we take a look at 4 socialists hiding behind personal ideologies to justify their 1A expressions of the right to “promote the insurrection of the Constitutional Republic of the United States”. Pastor Stan shares in detail how the Democratic Socialists of America just adopted a Radical New Platform. Finally, we take a look at how socialism comes first, then comes communism and finally your rights go with it! 00:00 Intro 00:54 Goals of their Movement 09:27 FBI Ready to Deploy 12:46 First Comes Socialism 15:48 Growing Cancer 18:20 Clouds in the Skies 22:41 Freedom to Dictatorship

Today we take a look at 4 socialists hiding behind personal ideologies to justify their 1A expressions of the right to “promote the insurrection of the Constitutional Republic of the United States”. Pastor Stan shares in detail how the Democratic Socialists of America just adopted a Radical New Platform. Finally, we take a look at how socialism comes first, then comes communism and finally your rights go with it! 00:00 Intro 00:54 Goals of their Movement 09:27 FBI Ready to Deploy 12:46 First Comes Socialism 15:48 Growing Cancer 18:20 Clouds in the Skies 22:41 Freedom to Dictatorship

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. 250 years on, are these words still guiding us?The Declaration of Independence marked the start of our American Experiment. Does that document still hold central tenets of who we are as a nation? Deep political polarization has made that question murkier than perhaps ever before.We reflect on what a shared civic gospel looks like for America today and what role faith plays in that search.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Actor Charlie Hall stops by studio 1A to discuss his latest dark comedy "Maximum Pleasure Guaranteed." Plus, Jenna and Sheinelle sit down with King Randall the founder behind a program out of Georgia that has gone viral for teaching practical skills to teenage boys. Also, one of King Randall's former teachers stops by to surprise him for his work in building an organization that uplifts teenage boys. And, Mikel Welch takes us inside his stunning home in Los Angeles and shares 3 D-I-Y projects to get some designer looks for less. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's been nearly a year since a major reshaping of the State Department. It was part of the Trump Administration's goal to overhaul the federal government and to streamline and reduce redundancies. On July 8, 2025 the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Administration's massive reduction in force plan. Days later, more than 1,350 employees, including foreign services officers were laid off from the State Department.At the time, the moves were criticized by current and former diplomats. The American Foreign Service Association said, “Losing more diplomatic expertise at this critical global moment is a catastrophic blow to our national interests.”As part of our If You Can Keep it series we ask what this reshaping has meant for U.S. global power, aid, and diplomacy. Also: how is the agency operating today and what happened to all those former employees?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

It's a milestone birthday for the U.S. this weekend. And we're marking the 250th by taking a look back at this year's Sounds of America series.Every year, the National Recording Registry at the Library of Congress selects 25 pieces of sound to add to its collection — songs, speeches, and beyond.In the past, we've partnered with the 14th Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, who oversaw this project for nine years. Each spring, 1A worked with Hayden and the Library of Congress to bring you a look at why those honorees matter to America.This year, the Library of Congress looks a little different. President Donald Trump fired Hayden in 2025. The White House cited her “pursuit of DEI” as reason for her dismissal.But we continued our annual series this year with a look at the 2026 inductees. And we'll continue to ask you: What are the sounds of America? Highlights have included Martin Luther King Jr.'s “I Have A Dream” speech, Tracy Chapman singing “Fast Car," The Giants' “shot heard round the world” walk-off home run in 1951. And the theme song from Super Mario. You can nominate your favorite piece of sound through the Library of Congress.Now to the class of 2026: First, we sit down with Rachael Stoeltje. She's the head of the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia, which houses and preserves the Library of Congress' audio and video artifacts. Then, we get the backstory on "The Devil Went Down to Georgia," by the Charlie Daniels Band. We bop along to "Beauty and the Beat" by The Go-Go's and meet members of the all-women rock band. And close it out with the radio broadcast of "The Fight of the Century" between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier.The Sounds of America series is produced by Jennie Cataldo of Accompany Studios.You can hear all our past Sounds of America interviews with Carla Hayden here. Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

OA1275 - As June ends and another Supreme Court Season wraps, it is time to look back and survey the damage: significant blows to voting and trans rights, harder times for immigrants throughout the system, and a vast expansion of executive powers. But we also go beyond the headlines to see what has been going on with some of the Court's more routine business. What can we learn from their more mundane 9-0 decisions--and can we actually find some good news here among the wreckage? Matt does his best. Finally, in today's seasonal footnote: why the world believed for exactly five minutes that Samuel Alito had closed Supreme Court Season by announcing his retirement on Tuesday, and what we can learn from this weird mistake about how mainstream media covers the Supreme Court. Executive Power / Immigration Trump v. Barbara — 25-365 (June 30, 2026)(birthright citizenship) Learning Resources v. Trump — 24-1287  (Feb. 20, 2026) (IEEPA tariffs) Trump v. Cook — 25A312 (June 29, 2026) (Fed removal) Trump v. Slaughter — 25-332 (June 29, 2026) (FTC removal) Mullin v. Doe — 25-1083 (June 25, 2026) (TPS) Mullin v. Al Otro Lado — 25-5 (June 25, 2026) (asylum at the border) Blanche v. Lau — 25-429 (June 23, 2026)(LPRs at the border) Urias-Orellana v. Bondi — 24-777 (Mar. 4, 2026) (asylum standard of review) Criminal Law Barrett v. United States — 24-5774 (Jan. 14, 2026) (§924(c)/(j) stacking) Bowe v. United States — 24-5438 (Jan. 9, 2026) (successive §2255 petitions) Ellingburg v. United States — 24-482 (Jan. 20, 2026) (restitution / Ex Post Facto) Chatrie v. United States — 25-112 (June 29, 2026) (geofence / 4A) United States v. Hemani — 24-1234 (June 18, 2026) (cannabis & 2A rights) Hunter v. United States — 24-1063 (June 18, 2026) (appeal waivers) Pitchford v. Cain — 24-7351 (May 28, 2026) (Batson / AEDPA challenge) Olivier v. City of Brandon — 24-993 (Mar. 20, 2026) — (§1983 rights with prior conviction) Case v. Montana — 24-624 (Jan. 14, 2026) (emergency-aid / 4A) Villarreal v. Texas — 24-557 (Feb. 25, 2026) (counsel during recess) Clark v. Sweeney — 25-52 (Nov. 14, 2025) (habeas / new-trial reversal) Civil/Voting Rights Landor v. Louisiana DOC — 23-1197 (June 23, 2026) (RLUIPA damages)  Louisiana v. Callais — 24-109 (Apr. 29, 2026) (Voting Rights Act §2) West Virginia v. B.P.J. — 24-43 (June 30, 2026) (trans student athletes) Wolford v. Lopez — 24-1046 (June 25, 2026) (2A concealed carry) Chiles v. Salazar — 24-539 (Mar. 31, 2026) (conversion therapy) NRSC v. FEC — 24-621 (June 30, 2026) (1A / campaign finance) Procedural Issues Enbridge Energy v. Nessel — 24-783 (Apr. 22, 2026) (removal deadline)  Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton — 24-808 (Jan. 20, 2026) (Rule 60(b)(4) finality) Other SCOTUSblog Stat Pack (2025-2026)[PDF] “NPR retracts story about Alito retirement,” Kelly McBride, NPR (June 30, 2026) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Throughout history, adulthood has often been defined by clear markers — turning 18, moving out of your parents' home, or getting married. But most of us know that being an adult by law is very different from being one in real life.Traditional markers of adulthood like purchasing a home or getting married are happening later and later these days. The average first-time homebuyer in 1981 was just 29 years old. But in 2025, the median age of a first-time homebuyer was 40. That's a historic high, according to the National Association of Realtors.People are also hearing wedding bells later in life. One and ten adults are now marrying for the first time between the ages of 40 and 59, according to the Wall Street Journal.What does it mean to be an adult, especially when our definition of adulthood has evolved? And what if you never really feel like a grown-up, even well into old age?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Put on your blindfolds, fill a wine glass to the brim and get ready to listen to the blather of a 35,000-year-old Lemurian god/warrior named Ramtha. It is only possible through the body of JZ Knight, a former cable television saleswoman who channeled that old dude after placing a paper pyramid on her head in 1977. And she has made millions off of it. Strange Country cohosts Beth and Kelly discuss the supposed enlightenment JZ shills as Ramtha's mouthpiece and whether channeling Ramtha might be the cure for Kelly's perimenopausal symptoms. Theme music: Big White Lie by A Cast of Thousands. Cite your sources: Aldred, Lisa. ""Money is just Spiritual Energy": Incorporating the New Age." Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 35, no. 4, 2002, pp. 61-74. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/money-is-just-spiritual-energy-incorporating-new/docview/195365462/se-2.  Braga, Michael. "FDA crackdown on alternative health - From fringes, growing distrust of feds' motives." USA TODAY (Arlington, VA), FIRST ed., sec. NEWS, 15 Sept. 2020, p. 1A. NewsBank: Access World News, https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=AWNB&req_dat=0FA0729FAB9D3500&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews/17D81F89B606B428. Accessed 23 June 2026.  Brunner, Jim. "Guess who's a big Trump fan? Ramtha, as channeled by Democratic donor JZ Knight." The Seattle Times, 4 April 2017, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/guess-whos-a-big-trump-fan-ramtha-as-channeled-by-democratic-donor-jz-knight/. Accessed 18 June 2026. Buchanan, Susy. "Ramtha Riled." Southern Poverty Law Center, 24 May 2014, https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/ramtha-riled/. Accessed 18 June 2026. Egan, Timothy. "Worldly and the Spiritual Clash in New Age Divorce." New York Times, 25 Sept. 1992. Gale OneFile: News, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A174939497/STND?u=nysl_sc_ahs&sid=bookmark-STND&xid=e41ec71f. Accessed 18 June 2026. Eric, Scerri. "What the #$'! Do They Know?" Skeptical Inquirer, September/October 2004, https://skepticalinquirer.org/2004/09/what-the-do-they-know/. Accessed 23 June 2026. Hosenball, Mark. "The guru and the FAA." Newsweek, vol. 125, no. 10, 6 Mar. 1995, p. 32. Gale OneFile: High School Edition, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A16642039/STOM?u=nysl_sc_cayuga&sid=bookmark-STOM&xid=07d4682f. Accessed 23 June 2026.  J. Z. Knight Divorce Trial Reveals Workings of Channeling Bu." The Skeptical Inquirer, vol. 17, no. 3, Spring, 1993, pp. 253. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/magazines/j-z-knight-divorce-trial-reveals-workings/docview/219263409/se-2.  Mackay, Rob. "Shocking allegations from former JZ Knight follower." FOX 13 Seattle, 18 April 2014, https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/shocking-allegations-from-former-jz-knight-follower. Accessed 23 June 2026. "Madame Blavatsky and Theosophy." Expedition Magazine 29, no. 2 (July, 1987): -. Accessed June 18, 2026. https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/madame-blavatsky-and-theosophy/ "Ramtha is Solely Knight's, Court Says." The Seattle Times, 12 June 1997, https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/19970612/2544252/ramtha-is-solely-knights-court-says. Accessed 17 June 2026. "Ramtha School of Enlightenment Promotes Natural Healing - Three Students report nontraditional recoveries from serious conditions thanks to RSE." PR Newswire (USA), 5 Apr. 2012. NewsBank: Access World News, https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=AWNB&req_dat=0FA0729FAB9D3500&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews/13DF7B30E8151FA8. Accessed 23 June 2026.  Reiss, Adam, and Dareh Gregorian. "Steve Bannon pleads guilty in New York 'We Build the Wall' case." NBC News, 11 February 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/steve-bannon-pleads-guilty-new-york-build-wall-case-rcna191672. Accessed 17 June 2026. RHODES, ELIZABETH. "STATE OF MIND JZ KNIGHT PREACHES SELF-LOVE THROUGH A 35,000- YEAR-OLD-SPIRIT." THE SEATTLE TIMES, SUNDAY ed., sec. SCENE, 25 Oct. 1987, p. K1. NewsBank: Access World News, https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=AWNB&req_dat=0FA0729FAB9D3500&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews/0EB5328A5EA73AE1. Accessed 23 June 2026.  Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World. pgs. 204-5, Random House Publishing Group, 1997. Sailor, Craig. "Ramtha channeler J.Z. Knight apparently has donated $10,000 to Mexican border wall campaign." The News Tribune, 21 December 2018, https://www.thenewstribune.com/latest-news/article223435620.html. Accessed 17 June 2026. "' School of Enlightenment' Subpoenas Facebook for Information on Former Members." Tacoma Examiner (WA), sec. Tacoma Private Schools Examiner, 30 Mar. 2013. NewsBank: Access World News, https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=AWNB&req_dat=0FA0729FAB9D3500&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews/1455FCEBF1D3C0A8. Accessed 23 June 2026.  Scott, Marion. "SHE'S SOME PROFIT!; The blonde who'll tell you the secrets of a 35,000 year old man ... for pounds 1,000 a go." Sunday Mail [Glasgow, Scotland], 23 May 1999, p. 20. Gale OneFile: News, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A60213035/STND?u=nysl_sc_ahs&sid=bookmark-STND&xid=ccd425a2. Accessed 18 June 2026.  Schrader, Jordan. "Appeals court upholds most of ruling for JZ Knight." Olympian, The (WA), 1st State ed., sec. News, 22 Jan. 2016, p. 14A. NewsBank: Access World News, https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=AWNB&req_dat=0FA0729FAB9D3500&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews/15A8BE1384485BF8. Accessed 23 June 2026.  Sommer, Will. "QAnon Teams Up With Alleged Cult Leader." Daily Beast, The, sec. Right Richter, 21 May 2019. NewsBank: Access World News, https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=AWNB&req_dat=0FA0729FAB9D3500&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews/173945FB34159670. Accessed 23 June 2026.  Sottile, Leah. Blazing Eye Sees All: Love Has Won, False Prophets, and the Fever Dream of the American New Age. Grand Central Publishing, 2025. "Testing Concludes That JZ Knight and Ramtha Have Distinct, Separate DNA - Results confirmed by three separate labs in different locations." PR Newswire (USA), 12 Mar. 2015. NewsBank: Access World News, https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=AWNB&req_dat=0FA0729FAB9D3500&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews/154063EF485623D8. Accessed 23 June 2026.  Williams, Allison. "The Ancient Spirit That Settled in Small-Town Washington." Seattle Met, 15 November 2022, https://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-city-life/2022/11/jz-knight-ramtha-yelm-washington-school-of-enlightenment. Accessed 18 June 2026.

A Special Industry Update, With Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond Jason and Mindy Diamond revisit how advisor due diligence is evolving—from AI and enterprise value to firm stability, ownership, and optionality—and why those questions matter more than ever. In Summary Due diligence has always been about finding the right fit. But what advisors are evaluating has expanded considerably. In this replay of an Industry Update, Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond revisit The Advisor Transition Playbook to explore how advisor priorities continue to evolve. Beyond the traditional reasons advisors consider change, they discuss newer factors shaping decisions today—from artificial intelligence and enterprise value to ownership structure, firm stability, and long-term optionality. The conversation reinforces that while every advisor's motivations are personal, the evaluation process has become far more strategic. Today's advisors aren't simply comparing recruiting deals or platforms. They're considering how today's decisions may influence the value, flexibility, and future of the businesses they're building. The Storyline For years, advisor movement was largely driven by familiar themes: bureaucracy, management changes, technology frustrations, and the desire for greater independence. Those factors remain important. But the conversations Diamond Consultants has with advisors today increasingly include questions that rarely surfaced just a few years ago. How should AI factor into firm selection? What is the long-term value of building enterprise value instead of simply maximizing a recruiting package? How important is a firm's ownership structure? And how should advisors think about stability in a marketplace where acquisitions, recapitalizations, and private equity investment have become commonplace? Jason and Mindy revisit the transition framework introduced in Part 1, focusing less on the mechanics of making a move and more on the evolving criteria advisors are using to evaluate their options. The result is a broader discussion about due diligence—not simply as a transition exercise, but as an ongoing strategic process for advisors seeking to build their best business life. Topics Covered Advisor due diligence Traditional vs. emerging drivers of advisor movement Artificial intelligence in wealth management Enterprise value and advisor ownership Recruiting deals versus long-term economics Reverse due diligence Firm ownership and stability Private equity in wealth management Advisor optionality Building a long-term advisory business Blubrry Player > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors Why are the traditional drivers of advisor movement still relevant? (4:00) Jason and Mindy revisit the longstanding push-and-pull factors that continue to influence advisor decisions, from bureaucracy and management frustrations to the desire for greater ownership and control. How has AI become part of the due diligence process? (13:50) The discussion explores why advisors increasingly expect firms to demonstrate a clear AI strategy—and why investment, integration, and vision may become meaningful competitive advantages. Why should advisors care about enterprise value, even if they don't technically own their business? (24:30) Jason and Mindy explain why more advisors are evaluating decisions through the lens of long-term business value rather than solely short-term economics. What does reverse due diligence really involve? (37:15) The conversation highlights why advisors should evaluate prospective firms with the same rigor firms use when evaluating advisors. How does firm ownership affect advisor optionality? (38:00) Private equity, acquisitions, and changing ownership structures have made it increasingly important to understand what happens if a firm's strategy changes after an advisor joins. Why has due diligence become more strategic than ever? (45:30) The episode concludes with a broader discussion about defining one's “best business life” and making decisions that align with long-term goals rather than reacting to short-term frustrations. Key Takeaways The reasons advisors evaluate change have expanded well beyond traditional frustrations such as bureaucracy and compensation. AI has become an increasingly important component of firm evaluation, not because it replaces advisors, but because it can enhance productivity and client service. Enterprise value is becoming a consideration even for advisors who currently work within employee models. Reverse due diligence is just as important as a firm's evaluation of an advisor, particularly when assessing ownership structure, capitalization, and long-term stability. The most effective transition decisions balance immediate economics with long-term flexibility, ownership, and optionality. Every advisor's definition of success is different, making clarity around personal goals the foundation of any due diligence process. https://youtu.be/WZbUZJZK1yc Quotable Moments “Every advisor deserves to live their best business life.” “Just because you're frustrated doesn't mean you should move. You need something worth moving toward.” “The question isn't simply what you're paid today. It's what you're building over time.” “Knowledge is power. Understanding what your business is worth should be part of every advisor's decision-making process.” FAQs Why are more advisors expanding their due diligence beyond compensation? While transition economics remain important, advisors are increasingly evaluating technology, AI capabilities, enterprise value, ownership opportunities, and long-term flexibility as part of the decision-making process. How should advisors evaluate a firm's AI strategy? Rather than looking for finished products, advisors should assess whether a firm has a clear vision, meaningful investment, and an integrated approach to using AI to improve advisor productivity and client experience. What is reverse due diligence? Reverse due diligence is the process of evaluating a prospective firm as thoroughly as the firm evaluates the advisor. It includes understanding ownership structure, financial stability, culture, technology, leadership, and long-term strategy. Why does enterprise value matter for employee advisors? Even advisors who do not currently own their businesses may benefit from understanding how different business models create opportunities for ownership, long-term value creation, and future monetization. How has private equity changed advisor due diligence? Private equity has introduced new opportunities for growth and capital, but it has also made it more important for advisors to understand ownership structures, investment horizons, and what future transactions could mean for their business. What does Diamond Consultants mean by an advisor's “best business life”? It refers to aligning an advisor's business model, goals, client experience, compensation, flexibility, and long-term vision in a way that best supports both the advisor and the clients they serve. While transition economics remain important, advisors are increasingly evaluating technology, AI capabilities, enterprise value, ownership opportunities, and long-term flexibility as part of the decision-making process. Rather than looking for finished products, advisors should assess whether a firm has a clear vision, meaningful investment, and an integrated approach to using AI to improve advisor productivity and client experience. Reverse due diligence is the process of evaluating a prospective firm as thoroughly as the firm evaluates the advisor. It includes understanding ownership structure, financial stability, culture, technology, leadership, and long-term strategy. Even advisors who do not currently own their businesses may benefit from understanding how different business models create opportunities for ownership, long-term value creation, and future monetization. Private equity has introduced new opportunities for growth and capital, but it has also made it more important for advisors to understand ownership structures, investment horizons, and what future transactions could mean for their business. It refers to aligning an advisor's business model, goals, client experience, compensation, flexibility, and long-term vision in a way that best supports both the advisor and the clients they serve. NOTE: The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Diamond Consultants. Neither Diamond Consultants nor the guests on this podcast are compensated in any way for their participation. Related Resources The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between – Part 1 Annual Advisor Transition Report Top 10 Tips for a Strategic Due Diligence Process Should I Stay or Should I Go? View the transcript of this episode… The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between – Part 2 A Special Industry Update with Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond. Jason Diamond: Welcome to a replay of one of the most popular episodes from our podcast series for financial advisors, The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between. It's Part 2 of a 2-Part Industry Update with Mindy Diamond. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner, well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our Annual Advisor Transition Report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: There’s been a noticeable shift in how advisors are approaching decisions about their business, not necessarily in whether they’re exploring change, but in what they’re focused on when they do. Mindy is back with me for a continuation of our earlier conversation on the Advisor Transition Playbook. Last time, we spent time on the mechanics, how due diligence works, what a move actually entails, and how to think through the process. What’s become more apparent since then is that the inputs into that process are evolving. The traditional drivers are still there, but layered on top are a set of considerations that didn’t carry the same weight before. AI is one of them, and not just as a tool, but as a differentiator that advisors are starting to diligence more seriously. Enterprise value is another. Showing up in conversations, even for advisors who don’t technically own their business, but are thinking more critically about what they’re building over time. And then there are questions around stability, ownership, and flexibility. What happens to the firm itself and whether advisors retain the ability to adapt again if circumstances change. None of this is theoretical. It’s showing up in real time conversations. What we want to do here is unpack those new triggers of advisor movement and what they suggest about how decisions are being made today. So let’s get to it. Mindy, the legend, thank you for joining me. So glad to have you on. Mindy Diamond: Thank you. I’m so happy to be here. Jason Diamond: Great. Let’s dive right in. I’ll set the stage really quickly one more time. When we spoke about this topic last, we talked about the drivers of movement, what we’ll call in this conversation as the old or the legacy drivers of movement, and we spoke about the mechanics of the move. Before we get into the new drivers of movement, which I want to be the meat of the conversation, remind us, when we talk about the legacy drivers of movement …. And by the way, by saying legacy, I by no means want to suggest that they’re not valid today, because they’re equally valid, if not more so today than they were then. But when you think of the classic drivers of movement in our industry, what are they? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I would say, first of all, let’s start by saying that for every advisor, they’ve got a unique set of needs. So the first thing to say is that while you and I can talk about the categories of frustrations or things that might bother an advisor, they show up differently in each advisor’s life. So it’s important to note that everyone is unique. But generally speaking, if I had to package them, I’d say it’s number one that shows up most of the time is too much bureaucracy. A feeling that a firm or a model is just too hypervigilant in terms of compliance and it’s too bureaucratic and too hard to get things done. Number two would be some sort of change in or frustration with management. Something is going on that the person or persons that are responsible for managing the business are just not … They’re not the wind at their back. They’re obstreperous. They’re causing difficulty and frustration. And probably the third one would be less about a pain point and more about the desire to be something that they couldn’t where they were. The notion that they want to be more independent, they want to be a business owner and they just can’t do that. That doesn’t exist within the model where they work. Those probably have been the three ones top of mind, but I bet you’ll have some … You’ll add to that. Jason Diamond: I’ll add a couple. But before I do, I’ve heard you talk about this topic, maybe said another way as pushes and pulls. Can you explain what you mean by that? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I think that we think about the pushes, the frustrations, the things pushing somebody out the door, the factors that make it less easy or less fluid to do business. And there’s almost always pushes that exist when somebody comes to us, where they’re frustrated to some degree or another about certain things. But we tell people all the time that just to be frustrated should never be enough, because if all you’re doing is running from one set of problems, you’re very likely to run into maybe a different set, but still problems elsewhere. So a move needs to be driven in equal part, if not more, by pulls. Being pulled toward an opportunity that can be needle moving enough or better enough than where you are now. Pushes and pull. Jason Diamond: I love it. So let me ask you a little bit of a pointed question. Is a recruiting deal a valid pull factor? Mindy Diamond: So look, it’s different for every person. We’ve had advisors come and say, “I just went through a divorce and the most important thing to me is to recapitalize. And so a recruiting deal is really important.” And while I would never be one to say that’s not valid, it can be … And by the way, any advisor should want to and expect to better their financial situation. There should be economic gain. But it shouldn’t be the only or the primary reason for the move. So you want to monetize. The notion of wanting to monetize in the short term should be a factor in what model you pick, but it shouldn’t be the primary driver for a move. Jason Diamond: I agree with that wholeheartedly. I was going to say something I think maybe would’ve surprised you a little, which is like, yeah, I think recruiting deal is a very valid pull factor because what we’re saying is, it shouldn’t be the only pull factor. And sometimes it is and it makes us a little bit sad, I think, when that’s the case. But all of these factors you mentioned, and the ones I would add, I think that maybe technology would be another kind of factor that drives movement, all of these factors are not one specific reason. If you did the exit interview, either actually conducted the exit interview with advisors or thought exercise exit interview, I think they would point to a confluence of all of these factors. Compliance was a headache. I wanted to launch a podcast. I wanted to be able to send a timely communication to my clients. We used to hear that one during COVID a lot, right? By the time compliance approved something to send to clients, it was already stale. So do you agree with that, that it’s generally a confluence or a combination of these? Or in your experience, is it advisors are like, “No, compliance or the tech is so bad, I’m out”? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So most often there’s a straw that breaks the camel’s back incident or thing where they’re willing to put up with a series of minor paper cuts, if you will. And then almost always there’s something that happens. You and I got a call the other day from a team that said that they had split from their partner and the management of the firm was favoring the ex-partner, making it harder for them to stay or making it less fun or feel good for them to stay. So while they gave me a laundry list of things that were imperfect, I don’t know that any one of the things that were imperfect up until then would’ve been enough to drive them out. But when that one thing, that feeling that they were a second class citizen came up, that was the straw that breaks the camel’s back and went from a minorly frustrated to, “I’m out of here.” Jason Diamond: Yeah. And there’s probably a hundred examples you could walk us through. And I wanted to just highlight too, this concept is not limited to the wirehouse or employee or captive firm world, this is equally relevant for independent advisors. Granted, some of the pushes and pull factors, some of the triggers are not necessarily the same, but the idea that advisors outgrow a broker dealer or an RIA or either need or want or desire in some way, shape or form, greater autonomy, flexibility, freedom, control is certainly not limited to the employee space. I just wanted to make that point. Mindy Diamond: And I think that’s absolutely right. I think the notion of that frustrations or limitations or bureaucracy only existed if you were a W2 employee at a bulge bracket firm. That went out the window. As the industry landscape has expanded and there’s more and more valid ways to be a financial advisor, there’s more and more ways for a firm or a model or an infrastructure to frustrate an advisor. And that’s not being overly negative. It’s just to say there is no perfection anywhere. Jason Diamond: Yeah, 100%. And by the way, to play a little bit of devil’s advocate on that, and then we’ll move on, I would just say there are pain points that might come from a firm being small and subscale as well. My firm doesn’t have efficient technology. They don’t invest enough in the business. They don’t provide a lead mechanism. They don’t have a robust banking and lending or investment solutions platform. So this stuff cuts both ways. An advisor can be frustrated or limited and an advisor can be excited. Pushes and pulls I think touch on, we’ve heard from advisors in every single pocket of the market, this is a relevant concept. Mindy Diamond: The theme of this is that every advisor deserves to live their best business life. That’s what people are in search of when they reach out to us or when they engage with us. What they’re looking for more than anything, and this is irrespective of where they work or how long they’ve worked or how much they manage, every advisor is in search of their best business life. And what defines their best business life is having the best quality of work life, but also the best ability to do what they want to do with their business, to serve their clients without limitations, to grow the way they want, to be paid a fair wage, and ultimately set up to maximize the value of the business they’ve built. Those are the definitions of one’s best business life. Jason Diamond: I used an even simpler definition of best business life and I stole it from you, which is the true north concept, which is if your true north is maximizing enterprise value and chasing the dollar and trying to build something that’s scalable and saleable, then great. If your true north is to build a lifestyle practice, there’s plenty of advisors who are successful and happy and content in that regard as well. And I think that’s what we’re talking about, is finding your true north and then it’s possible. I mean, that’s the beauty of the landscape. We’re talking about this, a lot of this is pain points or things that advisors experience. The exciting part of this is there’s never been a better time to be an advisor because of the breadth of choice they have and the ecosystem that’s been born to support advisors, to your point, across the spectrum. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. And it’s also, I think, worth saying that it starts with really good crystal clear clarity around not only what’s frustrating you, but what you want ideal to look like. Because I can’t tell you, or I can tell you because … I can’t tell our listeners, I can’t stress enough how often we get calls from advisors that tell us where they think they want to be or tell us they want to move. They have clarity about what’s frustrating them or what they want to change, but they don’t really have clarity about what they want it to look like. And the less clarity you have, the less likely you are to be successful in finding the exact right solution. So our work, the thing we probably do best is really work with advisors to help them. It doesn’t take long. In an hour conversation, we can help them to really get crystal clear on what they’re looking to solve for. Jason Diamond: Absolutely. All right. Great appetizer. We set the table. Let’s dive into the main course now. I want to talk now about what I’m calling the 2.0 triggers or the new triggers of movement. And to be clear, it’s not that these are more important or better or more significant drivers of movement. In fact, you could argue they’re probably at present less significant than the ones we just listed. But I think what we’re saying is these are triggers that are starting to come up more and more in conversations and we expect them to only proliferate further. And in that regard, they’re noteworthy and important for advisors because advisors should be reconciling not just what are the things I need to be worrying about today, but also what are the things I need to be potentially worrying about five years from now. So with that in mind, let’s dive in. I think the first one we have to start with is AI. And I always chuckle a tiny bit when we mention AI, we used to have to specify what are we talking about. Are we talking about artificial intelligence or alternative investments? And now it’s very clear. Everybody knows we’re talking about artificial intelligence. So the direction of the industry, no over-dramatization to say is at stake here. It’s that important of a topic. Let me ask you just very simply first, is this coming up in conversations with advisors? Mindy Diamond: Oh, all the time, but it’s almost table stakes. So I think the way it comes up is that people assume, advisors assume, and by the way, have the right to assume that AI is part of the tech stack. The notion that if I’m evaluating a firm and part of what frustrates me or part of what’s really important to me is cutting edge, really robust technology, part of what I am expecting is that a new firm is going to have really robust technology. And part of that is really robust access to AI. And has honed the AI in a way that’s user-friendly, that really answers or delivers on making me a better … Not replacing me as an advisor, but making me a better, more efficient advisor. Jason Diamond: 100%. And I would also add, so as I think about this AI topic, I don’t want this to become a conversation around, is AI going to replace advisors, because I think we both agree that’s not going to be the case. Especially at the top end of the market for quality advisors, I think they’re not going anywhere. But in my view, when we think about the trigger of movement, AI has the potential to be transformative because a couple kind of use cases or trigger cases come to mind, and I’d love to hear your thoughts. One is, do you think advisors will potentially consider a move because they’re worried about this? So in other words, play this logic out with me. I’m 55 years old and I’m like, “Oh man, AI might be coming from my job.” And there’s firms offering 400% of revenue to move my book. Maybe I should take that check and kind of de-risk and monetize while I can. What are your thoughts on that? Mindy Diamond: I absolutely think we’re already working with that fall into that category, but to say that is the only reason for the move would be wrong. I’m grateful that people trust us enough to be transparent with us. So they let us know that underneath the notion that they want to better serve clients, they ultimately want better access to A, B, and C, they want to be able to do D, E and F with less restriction, is really the main reason for the move. But underneath it, the notion that my book, I want to protect myself. My book may well be the biggest it’s ever going to be. It is going to be worth more today than it could be in the future if things don’t go my way. And if I know I’m going to move and one of my goals is to monetize, I might want to do that now. Jason Diamond: I agree. And that’s where the top deal story comes in also. Firms paying a top deal is a part of that story. It’s what you just said, plus advisors know firms are willing to pay incredible multiples. I mean, as we speak, UBS is in market with one of the largest deals in history. So those two narratives side by side, I agree. I think this becomes more of a kind of catalyst or driver movement. It’s come up in my conversations on both sides of the spectrum. It’s the tech savvy, AI savvy advisors who are excited about this, who are like, “I want to be the most AI enabled version of myself I can be. It’s going to make me a rockstar and it’s going to widen the gap with my peers,” but it’s also come up with the people who are, I think, rightly scared and fearful about what this might mean for their job. Mindy Diamond: Let me ask you, what are examples of the way you’ve seen some of the best firms who have embraced AI? What is their narrative? What is it that they’re saying to advisors that if you come here from a tech or AI perspective, you’ll be better because we’re able to do … Fill in the blank. Jason Diamond: Yeah. So a couple that come up. First of all, I want to make the important point. Advisors do not expect that firms, either their current firm or firms that they are diligencing prospectively, have this figured out or solved. Everybody understands this is a fairly new area that firms are still very much kind of developing their strategies in. What advisors want to see is a few things. They want to see though leadership, they want to see investment, and they want to see a strategy, right? Effectively, they want to see a step in the right direction, really. So I’ll give you a couple examples. There are a number of tech savvy RIAs, very tech-enabled, AI-focused RIAs, because I think this is easier to be nimble. I think where you’ll see this quicker probably is in the independent space. That what they’re doing is things like this. An advisor logs on to their workstation in the morning and their system queues them proactively, Mr. and Mrs. Smith may be good candidates for a Roth IRA conversion. And then if the advisor decides to contact the client in some way about it, the system will of course help them draft the communication, but then it’ll take it a step further and actually help them to process and transact that conversion. So soup to nuts, ultimately driving efficiency. That’s the name of the game. That’s why firms, I think, are excited about AI, at least the good firms. Because what I think they realize it will do is, the stuff that’s a waste of time that could be automated that advisors, and probably even more so their associates, client associates are spending time on, that should be a massive time saver for advisors. And I think if you play that story out, what does that mean? It should mean bigger books of business and therefore more productive advisors because they have more time to prospect and focus on their clients. Thoughts? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I think you said it perfectly, but it raises the question then. You say that the RIAs can be more nimble. You’re right. I mean, the big story around the biggest firms was like moving a battleship, it takes a long time to turn it. It’s not as nimble. So what and how are the bigger firms competing against the RIAs with respect to AI? And second question, we still always get questions, and rightly so, about Morgan Stanley has more money to invest… Jason Diamond: That was going to be part of my answer. Mindy Diamond: … than fill in the blank RIA. So how does that all work? Jason Diamond: That is absolutely going to be part of my answer, is that I have heard this question posed almost presumptively both ways. “Oh, it’s got to be that the RIAs are going to be the clear winners in this.” And I’ve also heard, “Oh, it’s got to be that the wirehouses are going to be the clear winners in this.” I don’t think it’s going to be channel specific like that. I think it is going to be firm specific. I think there’s going to be firms that are going to do this well and firms that are going to not do this well. But there’s going to be winners in the wirehouse space. There’s going to be winners in the regional firm space, with firms like Raymond James who are clearly trying to be on the cutting edge of this. There’s certainly going to be winners in the broker-dealer space. LPL is investing heavily in this, as are many of their broker-dealer competitors. And then of course the RIA space, where sometimes they may not have the budgets, but they have a couple things. They have private equity backing, sometimes. They have the custodians that they’re built on, right, or the tech vendors that they’re built on. So Schwab and Fidelity or Orion and Addepar. They have other ways to access these innovations. One of the things that comes up with this that your question I think gets at is, a similar question that was raised around technology stacks, which is strength of offering versus integration. And that’s where I think a firm like Morgan Stanley really will shine, is they should … Because they don’t put anything out that’s not well integrated. The big firms have generally done a pretty good job of that. Versus the RIAs. Sometimes we’ve heard feedback where, yes, you have access to you name it, right? You dream it up, you can go and buy it. But the left hand may not speak to the right hand quite as well. Mindy Diamond: Yeah, that’s actually a really good point. And integration is probably one of the biggest … If you ask an advisor when they talk about technology as either being one of their pushes or pulls, probably what they’re referring to more than anything is not only having the capability, but having the integrated capability. So that’s a great point. And I think your point is right, that the final chapter on this has not been written. Nobody thinks that it has. And so whatever answers you and I can talk about today about who’s winning this race, or this tech race or this AI race, will be totally different tomorrow. We all know that. But I think for purposes of this conversation, to say that an advisor having an expectation that their technology be outstanding and that AI be on the table, that a firm is embracing it and heading in the right direction, if you will, has the right thought leadership and the right willingness to invest in it is what advisors are really looking for right now. Jason Diamond: Absolutely. And this is a question too from the firm’s perspective, if you are a firm of any size, you must be able to answer that. This has become question 1A. And again, I don’t mean to suggest that I think AI is the number one most important factor driving advisor movement today. It very well might be at some point down the road. I don’t think we’re there yet. But I do think it’s the topic du jour or the hot topic, where every advisor is asking about this. So that means if you’re a firm, you need to be prepared to tell the story or at least have the vision. And I think what we’re hearing from both advisors and from firms is this, AI is going to … What is right now a gap between the good and the bad, the quality and the non, is going to become an absolute chasm, right? An absolutely mountainous gap between the best firms and the firms who are able to adapt this technology or this AI. And the same thing at the advisor level, between the AI-enabled superpowered advisor versus those who are in the dinosaur ages, for lack of a better term. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. And we’ll move on, but it is worth saying that the day of the standalone independent, the one man or one woman band who hangs out a shingle, and to use your term, running a lifestyle practice, nothing wrong with that, but it would be near impossible to imagine a world where a standalone independent can compete with a private-equity-backed RIA or an RIA that has a big pool of capital behind them or to compete with the major firms. And our point is the ability to compete is probably more important with respect to this topic than just about any other. Jason Diamond: Totally agree. Thank you for tying a bow on that because I think that’s a good place to leave the AI topic, at least for now. I’m certain we’ll have more to say on this one. By the time we release this episode, we’ll probably have more to say on it. So we’ll have to do a follow-up again. But I want to talk now about enterprise value. And this is one where if you’re an RIA or if you’re an advisor at an independent firm, this might sound like a duh, but hear me out on this one. The idea is as follows, if I’m a wirehouse advisor or any sort of captive advisor, I don’t technically own anything. Agree? Mindy Diamond: Agreed. Jason Diamond: Okay. So if that’s true, that I don’t technically own anything, I technically don’t have any sort of enterprise value or ability to monetize. But my premise here and why I would argue that enterprise value has become a driver of movement is even wirehouse advisors know … They see teams like OpenArc, a massive RIA that launched last year. They see their corner office peers breaking away, starting independent firms. They see them selling to asset managers, private-equity-backed RIAs, private equity firms in their own right for these massive multiples. And what I guess I’m getting at, and I’m curious if you agree is, if a wirehouse advisor, let’s say, sees their colleagues sell to a private equity firm for 20X, doesn’t that have to become a little bit of a catalyst for movement in its own right? Mindy Diamond: Without a doubt. Historically … Actually, let me date myself. When I started this business now 32 years ago, there was zero way for an advisor who was a captive employee of a firm, of any firm, to monetize their business. It’s why there was so much movement, because the only way they could monetize was to get paid a big fat transition deal to move from one firm to the other. Jason Diamond: Yep. Mindy Diamond: Obviously, we all know that first it started with the big firms, and then just about every brokerage firm on the street began to offer a retire-in-place program. And that is the big firms or a traditional brokerage firm’s way of allowing advisor to monetize in place from their perspective to stave off attrition. And for an advisor that believes that the status quo serves them well, that finishing their career, that leaving their legacy, that leaving their team at their firm is the best thing to do, then those retire-in-place programs, like Merrill’s CTP or Morgan’s FAP or UBS’s Alpha or a name at every firm has them, is the best gift to advisors there is. But the problem is that the next generation at those firms are buying an asset they don’t own. And so when we talk about enterprise value or the desire to build enterprise value as a real driver of movement, what we’re talking about is not only that advisors want ownership of an asset, because ownership translates into more control and autonomy and agency over building it the way you want to, but it also translates into maximizing the value of the business that you’ve built. So that’s a long-winded way of saying that the OpenArc deal you are referencing, for anybody not familiar, is a Merrill Lynch team, a legacy Merrill Lynch team in Atlanta that was managing more than 120 billion in assets, part retail, ultra high net worth client assets, and part institutional consulting assets. And believe me, I don’t want to make it sound like it was a snap that one day they’re happy and the next day they’re going independent. Over a 10-year period became more and more aware, driven by the pushes and more aware of the pulse. But ultimately, while there was a long list of things they wanted to be able to do that they couldn’t to best serve clients and grow the business, the real driver at the end of the day, or I shouldn’t say the real driver, but a major driver was the notion of building and owning enterprise value. Yes, they could have all gotten very attractive deals and retired with your Merrill CTP, but they wanted to own the business, they wanted cap gains treatment. And so they went through the sweat equity big time of building what they’re calling OpenArc for the ability for probably five, 10, 20 years, because there’s partners with all different ages, so at all different times, to be able to really maximize the value of the business they’ve built. Jason Diamond: Can I push back on that for … It’s a super helpful example, but my one thought is, okay, yeah, of course, 130 billion in assets, they should be concerned with enterprise value at that size. And the delta between caring about enterprise value and not is too great because those guys have, by all accounts, a phenomenal business that is rivaled by very few in the industry. Most of our audience does not fit into that stratosphere. So what about advisors in, let’s call it the million to $10 million space? Should they still care about this concept? Mindy Diamond: Again, it’s an inside job. It’s a personal thing. Some don’t. But the answer is yes. And if I were them, I would. Why? Because whether I am generating a million a year in revenue or $10 million a year in revenue, at the end of the day, I’ve got an asset. I’ve built a valuable asset. And I have the choice at the end of the day or the middle of the day to decide a million things about that asset. How do I want to live my business life? How do I want to serve my clients? Where do I want to work? But one of the biggest factors to determining where and how they want to work is, ultimately, do I want to be able to maximize the value of the business that I’ve built? And while there are few things that are really definitive in this industry, the one thing that is absolutely indisputably definitive is that if you build an independent practice like the ex-Merrill Lynch churned RIA OpenArc team did, you will ultimately build enterprise value exponential multiples greater than any way you could monetize the business as a traditional employee. Jason Diamond: And that math absolutely still holds up even at numbers smaller than we’ve mentioned. I totally agree with that. I’ll give you one other reason why I think you should care. And I’d love your thoughts on this one. I’ll ask it two ways maybe. I’ll tell you my take and then I’ll ask you yours. Morgan Stanley, let’s use as an example. Who are Morgan Stanley’s competitors? In my opinion, the legacy answer to that is, well, of course the wirehouses are Morgan Stanley’s competitors. Merrill, UBS, Wells Fargo, what maybe used to be a longer list, but today those four. I don’t think that’s the answer anymore. I think those are the direct competitors. But because of this enterprise value conversation, I think Morgan Stanley’s competitors are anyone and everyone who recruits financial advisors with books of business. Because if you think about it, an advisor who has a $3 million business at a wirehouse, even if they’re not actually going to do this, they don’t have any entrepreneurial spirit, no desire to go independent, they still know that they could. This is an option and a viable option. And firms are even figuring out ways to cut out the middle step, right? Because this was historically a two-step process. You’re a wirehouse advisor or a W2 advisor. You break away, launch an independent business to establish your enterprise value, begin building it, and then you monetize it. If you could cut out the middle step, or even if you couldn’t, I still think it’s pretty clear that if you’re an advisor, this is important because the firms know … Like when Morgan Stanley’s writing a recruiting deal, they’re kept honest by RIAs and acquirers just the same as their direct peer set. Do you agree with that or do you think I’m reading too far into this? Mindy Diamond: Oh no, I agree a thousand percent. I think that it is naive for anyone recruiting for or on behalf of a traditional firm to think that the only competition is another traditional firm. The days of pomposity for a senior leader at a traditional firm to say, “We’ve got the best technology, the best everything fill in the blank. We have no competitors.” That’s just naive. Because even if it’s true, you’ve got the best platform infrastructure fill in the blank, there is a multitude of advisors that value things different than what you can provide. Beauty is in the eye of beholder is probably a good way to say that. But at the end of the day, what we’re really talking about is when I started the business, because there was no way, no really good way for an advisor to really monetize their life’s work, the only thing they could or were focused on from a personal financial gain perspective was the short-term deal. What are they paying? What’s the transition deal? Now, of course they’re concerned about that. But almost to a person, they’re equally concerned about what I can build and what will this allow me to build in terms of the value of the business I’m building in the long term. So let me ask you, if we’re talking about an advisor that has the ability to monetize in the short term for what could be 4X and in some cases more than that these days, and we’re talking about the ability to maximize enterprise value, and we talk about the concept of moving once and monetizing twice, what kind of numbers are we talking about? Fill in the blanks there. Jason Diamond: It’s such a hard question to answer because I do genuinely believe recruiting deals, when you talk about 300 to 400% revenue deals in the recruiting space, they vary a little bit, but I feel pretty comfortable quoting those types of numbers that most firms are somewhere in the 300 to 400% of T12 realm. There are some outliers, we mentioned UBS. But the multiple or EBITDA based or enterprise value M&A market where we’re doing these legitimate buyout transactions, the valuations do vary quite a bit. But here’s how I think about it. First of all, most firms are not purchased or sold at top line revenue. Most are sold at some sort of adjusted EBITDA number, which factors in local expenses, platform expenses, but also advisor compensation. And then that adjusted number is typically multipled. The multiples are anywhere from 8X for small kind of, let’s say, million dollar revenue businesses up to, we’ve seen deals struck at north of 20X for some of these mega cap RIAs. Typically, just back of the envelope, if I had to quote, I typically estimate around 5X top line at capital gains is a good kind of ballpark valuation. But there is quite a bit of nuance to it, more so than the traditional recruiting space. And I do think, shameless plug, part of the value in working with somebody who’s an expert on the entirety of the industry landscape is just that. It’s the idea that you need to run the horse race across multiple verticals. The good advisors who work with us typically are looking at a wire like a Morgan Stanley or a Merrill. They’re looking at a boutique firm like a Rockefeller, or they’re looking at a regional like an RBC or a Ray J. They’re looking at an independent firm like an LPL or a Sanctuary. They’re looking all across the spectrum. Mindy Diamond: I think that’s exactly right. But the topic of enterprise value, you can see how powerful it is and how wise it is. For an advisor today, when considering their personal economics to consider not just the short term, but to weigh in or add in or factor in, what could I be building and what ultimately will that business be worth at the end of the day? Jason Diamond: Yeah, 100%. Short of going out and selling your business, what can advisors do then? So I’m an advisor, okay, I’m curious about this. Or is it just as simple as, “Yeah, you should know what your business is worth if you’re an advisor”? Mindy Diamond: Definitively yes, because I mean, we always believe that knowledge is power. And just like it’s important for you to understand what your options are within your own firm, how can I ultimately retire out and monetize my business where I am, I think it’s really hard to make a decision in a vacuum without having other perspective. And getting other perspective doesn’t have to be that you have to go out and take 20 meetings. It’s not that hard for you to figure out what your business is worth to make it a data point for whether or not you’re ultimately best to retire in place or go elsewhere. Jason Diamond: Yeah, that I think is the main takeaway. And the education point is so important. I think because these are relatively new concepts for a lot of advisors that haven’t formally shopped a business before, there’s a lot of resources available. And we’ll certainly link some as well on the page for the episode. Let’s shift gears now, our kind of final trigger 2.0, which is stability and ownership structure of the firm. And this has been a little bit of a hot topic. It’s honestly been a hot topic every year because it seems like things pop up every year. And a lot of times advisors don’t reconcile the question of who owns the firm or how stable is the firm until something happens. The firm gets bought, the firm goes bankrupt, like the First Republic scenario. What should a good advisor do proactively about the idea that if you’re a W2 employee or even an employee who’s affiliated with a broker dealer, you saw this with Commonwealth, you just don’t really have control over what the firm decides to do. Give me your thoughts on this. I know it’s a big topic. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. First of all, using Commonwealth an example, it’s a good one. Because for those unfamiliar, Commonwealth is a boutique broker dealer that was privately owned and whose tagline was, “We love our privately owned status and we are never going to sell,” until one day they did. And not only did they sell, but they sold to the biggest independent broker dealer in the country, ala LPL. That’s not good nor bad, it’s just a fact. So if Commonwealth, who had definitively said we’re never up for sale, suddenly sells, any time you’re an employee of a firm, you never know what tomorrow brings in. You’re not in control over whether it’s sold. So that’s one example. But as you’re talking about this, I’m thinking about, I’m probably going back 20 years, so I’m 10 years into my career and I talked to someone who had been a very successful Merrill advisor. So I’m going to say he was probably generating around $5 million in revenue at the time. Going back 20 years, that’s a pretty significant book of business. He was courted for years by what he thought was a top RIA. And in those days, remember 20 years ago, the RIA space wasn’t nearly as mainstream as it is now. But the story the RIA told him was that ultimately, one, he was going to be a partner in the firm, that was very appealing to him. So he was going to have equity in the firm and much more freedom and control. And locally, by the way, the RIA was a really high quality brand. He worked on a lot of the economics, the short term and the long term with them. They did a ton of due diligence on his book of business. But he failed to ask … And I didn’t represent him. I just know this story. He failed to ask or do enough due diligence about the stability of the firm. What we think is really important, we talk about this expanded landscape. If you’re looking at Morgan Stanley, I don’t think you necessarily need to see Morgan Stanley’s balance sheet. If you are talking to a firm that is anything but a bulge bracket or anything but a large firm, it’s really important to do what we call reverse due diligence and to really understand if a firm expects you to open your kimono and show everything about your business to prove your worth, it is equally important that you do the same for them. In this new world order where private equity has come in and there are so many different ways for a firm to be owned and to be capitalized, it’s very important that an advisor understand what’s going on behind the scenes. And one of the questions around stability, if a firm is private equity backed, is it permanent capital? Is it patient capital? Is the private equity firm going to look to sell and monetize in five years? And then who would the likely buyer be and what does that mean for you? So the question is a big question and it’s really important. Jason Diamond: I love everything you just said, except I do think even the wirehouses, wirehouse advisors, honestly, as much as anybody should be asking these questions. And I’ll give you an example right now, UBS. And UBS, it’s not a story of balance sheet stability. I don’t think anybody has concerns that UBS is going to fail. But UBS management has been very publicly, “Oh, we’re cutting costs.” There’s been some rumors, I think for years, probably dating back 30 years to when you started the business about UBS’s commitment to the US wealth management business. I think those questions about stability and ownership structure are still valid. And to me, the implication of it is twofold. One, what you said, reverse due diligence, ask the questions, plan B. But also the concept of the exits or the off-ramps or how many bites of the apple do you get. So if you’re an advisor and you sell your business to somebody and you sign garden leave and non-competes and non-solicits, the question of ownership structure of that firm becomes less relevant because you have no off-ramps and no ability to exit that business anyway. A lot of times that’s how advisors get comfortable with this concept. And that’s what firms will tell them too, frankly, and we’re living through the middle of this, by the way, with Commonwealth and LPL, is vote with your feet, right? To the extent advisors can, the offer … And this is like, you used the example of private-equity-backed firms. This is how Rockefeller addresses the question of their private equity ownership. If we sell to UBS, all of our advisors will leave. They have that built-in put option. So knowing where the off-ramps are or how many bites of the apple an advisor gets, I think is a big concept that ties into that. But we’re absolutely seeing this pop up, probably largely because of those two examples, Commonwealth and UBS this year, more so Commonwealth, to your point. Janney’s another example last year or two years ago now where KKR comes in and buys Janney. So when these examples happen, it seems like it triggers advisors to say, “Is this something that could happen to me and should I be thinking about this?” Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So let me ask you a question. You’re talking, you’ve mentioned UBS offering this outsized deal. So how does the notion of stability and ownership factor in? If an advisor is considering an unprecedented deal from UBS, what are the caveats or concerns with respect to stability and ownership? Jason Diamond: It’s the same list of considerations you should and would ask of any other firm you’re diligencing, except I think amplified even more in the case … If I was counseling an advisor who was looking at UBS, that would be what I would say, is exactly that. You’re seeing all of these departures and defections, and I would want to have conversations with those advisors and understand exactly why and have guarantees or assurances that I’m not going to suffer from those same pain points that force them to leave. Or, and I say this a little bit flippantly, but it’s a little bit true, I understand the devil that I’m getting into bed with, but for 550%, or whatever the deal might be, I can suck it up. And that’s something that some advisors might well say as well. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. Jason Diamond: I don’t want to end on the negative note of overly large transition, not there’s anything wrong with large transition deals, but as you look out, is there anything that’s coming up in your conversation with advisors that you view as the next wave of this? I’ll give you one that maybe you could touch on, and if you have another one, feel free to offer it in conclusion, but do you think age or advisors starting to succeed out of the business will become more of a driver of movement, even though to your point, advisors can access sunset deals? Mindy Diamond: I do actually, because I think the more the average advisor age increases, the more likely that those advisors are going to want to move on to do something else to monetize the business. And so much of the wave of movement we see is driven not so much by the senior advisor, because many seed advisors are happy enough with the ability to monetize their business in place. Even though it may not maximize the value of the business, it’s a close enough approximation and it means I don’t have to disrupt the apple cart. So we support that 100%. But where we get the calls is from the next generation that says, “Yeah, but hold on a minute. It’s a good way for me to take on a book of assets that I not otherwise have access to. And it’s great for my senior partner, my father, my mother, my whatever to monetize the business. But I’m buying an asset again that I don’t own and I ultimately don’t have control over all these things we’re talking about, the AI investment, the ability to create enterprise value, the stability, the cost cutting, all of it.” So I think it’s all of the above. You say, “What else is there?” I think that’s it. It’s all of the above. It’s anything and everything that drives movement. One, it’s personal, it’s highly unique, it’s different for every advisor. There are certainly themes, and we’re talking about them, but there’s a million different things. It’s personal. And while there are an awful lot of pushes, things that can frustrate an advisor, it is the most exciting time in our view to be an advisor, particularly a high quality one, because the options abound, the ecosystem is big, because the ability to monetize both in the short term and the long term is big, mammoth, exponentially bigger than it ever was before. And the true ability to really build an enterprise has never been greater. And I think all of those things, the desire for an advisor to be the best that they can be and live their best business life is probably the biggest driver of all. Jason Diamond: It’s really true these days, if you can dream it, you can probably build it. And we’ve said in the past, if you build it, they will buy it. It’s a great place to end. This was a really fun topic. I think that’s a spot on kind of fourth trigger, by the way, too. This sort of next gen is almost like the force multiplier or the amplifier of like they see all this other stuff and they’re asking these questions even more so. Because if I’m 60 years old, none of this matters all that much. It matters, but I’m out of the business in five to 10 years. Versus the next gen advisors are the ones who often bear the brunt of this. So I think a lot of really smart stuff. Thank you for sharing your wisdom and expertise. In the episode page, we’ll be sure we have our Industry Transition Report. And we’ve also created a tool, the top 10 tips for a strategic due diligence process, which is a great kind of practical hand-in-hand companion for this topic for advisors looking for more pointed tips on the due diligence process. So Mindy, thank you again. This has been a blast. Mindy Diamond: My pleasure. Thank you. Jason Diamond: Thank you for joining us. We'll be back with a new episode next week, so be sure to listen in. Mindy Diamond: As a financial advisor, you hold yourself to the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and credibility. You are successful because you take your professional responsibility seriously and are dedicated to your clients. But are you living your best business life? Are your goals aligned with your firms or could a better option exist? Should I Stay or Should I Go? is a book written with you in mind. It’s a self-guided journey that walks you through the key steps that we take with our advisor clients. This strategic thought process and roadmap to professional self-discovery is designed to help you ask the right questions and think critically and objectively, whether you’re considering change or not. Learn how to get your copy at diamond-consultants.com/thebook. The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between – Part 2 A Special Industry Update with Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond. Jason Diamond: Welcome to a replay of one of the most popular episodes from our podcast series for financial advisors, The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between. It's Part 2 of a 2-Part Industry Update with Mindy Diamond. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner, well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our Annual Advisor Transition Report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: There’s been a noticeable shift in how advisors are approaching decisions about their business, not necessarily in whether they’re exploring change, but in what they’re focused on when they do. Mindy is back with me for a continuation of our earlier conversation on the Advisor Transition Playbook. Last time, we spent time on the mechanics, how due diligence works, what a move actually entails, and how to think through the process. What’s become more apparent since then is that the inputs into that process are evolving. The traditional drivers are still there, but layered on top are a set of considerations that didn’t carry the same weight before. AI is one of them, and not just as a tool, but as a differentiator that advisors are starting to diligence more seriously. Enterprise value is another. Showing up in conversations, even for advisors who don’t technically own their business, but are thinking more critically about what they’re building over time. And then there are questions around stability, ownership, and flexibility. What happens to the firm itself and whether advisors retain the ability to adapt again if circumstances change. None of this is theoretical. It’s showing up in real time conversations. What we want to do here is unpack those new triggers of advisor movement and what they suggest about how decisions are being made today. So let’s get to it. Mindy, the legend, thank you for joining me. So glad to have you on. Mindy Diamond: Thank you. I’m so happy to be here. Jason Diamond: Great. Let’s dive right in. I’ll set the stage really quickly one more time. When we spoke about this topic last, we talked about the drivers of movement, what we’ll call in this conversation as the old or the legacy drivers of movement, and we spoke about the mechanics of the move. Before we get into the new drivers of movement, which I want to be the meat of the conversation, remind us, when we talk about the legacy drivers of movement …. And by the way, by saying legacy, I by no means want to suggest that they’re not valid today, because they’re equally valid, if not more so today than they were then. But when you think of the classic drivers of movement in our industry, what are they? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I would say, first of all, let’s start by saying that for every advisor, they’ve got a unique set of needs. So the first thing to say is that while you and I can talk about the categories of frustrations or things that might bother an advisor, they show up differently in each advisor’s life. So it’s important to note that everyone is unique. But generally speaking, if I had to package them, I’d say it’s number one that shows up most of the time is too much bureaucracy. A feeling that a firm or a model is just too hypervigilant in terms of compliance and it’s too bureaucratic and too hard to get things done.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 250 years ago, the founding fathers were days away from adopting the Declaration of Independence.Fast forward to July 4, 2026, two and a half centuries later, has America lived up to those lofty ideals?Is this anniversary a time for celebration, mourning, reckoning, or something else? We hear from 1A listeners on what Independence Day means to them.Note: One of our callers referenced the Frederick Douglass speech ‘What to the Slave is the Fourth of July.' You can read that here. Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Americans are grappling with a rising cost in healthcare. For the first time in five years, fewer than half of Americans can consistently afford healthcare. That's according to the latest data from Gallup. The cost of healthcare in the US remains higher than any other large, wealthy country. According to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services, five million fewer people are enrolled in marketplace plans for 2026, compared to last year. That's as average premium costs rose about 58%.With health care costs increasingly becoming a stress for Americans, voters are now making the issue a top priority at the ballot box. And it's an issue that crosses party and geographic lines. According to new polling from The Century Foundation, 71% of Democrats, 66% of Republicans and 75% of rural voters agree that reigning in hospital costs should be a top priority for lawmakers. While new polling from Ipsos and Axios suggests that a majority of Americans say they're more likely to vote for candidates in November who will lower their health costs.How will the issue of healthcare shape the midterms? And how are Americans grappling with the cost of their health?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

President Donald Trump has taken an increasingly personal role in the government's clemency process, wielding pardons aid his allies and advance his own political grievances.A Reuters investigation found that 96% of Trump's second-term clemency grants have gone to recipients who didn't fulfill longstanding DOJ guidelines for such requests. Past presidents on have sidestepped those rules before, but fewer than 1% of those who received clemency during the Biden administration and just 14% of recipients in Trump's first presidency failed to meet the guidelines.Pardon applicants once had to comply with longstanding DOJ guidelines, such as a five-year wait after conviction or demonstrated remorse for their crimes. But a Reuters' analysis shows that under Trump, clemency now is far more dependent upon access to his inner circle. They also found that “access is enhanced when an applicant can craft a narrative that resonates with the president's own sense of victimization.”During his first administration, Trump granted just 238 pardons and commutations, most of which came amid his frantic final days in office. But this term the White House has made clemencies a key part of its agenda.As part of our weekly series “If You Can Keep it,” we discuss pardons in the second Trump Administration.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

The Knicks traded (a lot) during the NBA Draft, and we had all the reactions to what Leon Rose is up to this week. Plus, Becky Hammon addressed her comments about Jalen Brunson not being a 1A, leading to Evan Roberts sounding off on why that one sound bite will never go away. Plus, Boomer and Gio react to Julius Randle returning to New York...this time as a member of the rival Nets.

The Knicks traded (a lot) during the NBA Draft, and we had all the reactions to what Leon Rose is up to this week. Plus, Becky Hammon addressed her comments about Jalen Brunson not being a 1A, leading to Evan Roberts sounding off on why that one sound bite will never go away. Plus, Boomer and Gio react to Julius Randle returning to New York...this time as a member of the rival Nets.

This week the Supreme Court sides with President Trump on ending Temporary Protected Status. The decades-long program currently gives legal status in the U.S. to about 350,000 Haitians and more than 6,000 Syrians seeking refuge from crises at home.The court also ruled to renew a “turn-back” policy at the border with Mexico that prevents migrants from entering the U.S. to seek asylum. A decision on President Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. is expected soon.Also in Washington, the president creates chaos in his own party, demanding that Republican Senators reconsider their support for a war powers resolution on Iran. A vote to limit war powers passed on Tuesday with support from four Republicans. A similar resolution failed on Wednesday. President Trump also on Wednesday refused to sign a bipartisan housing bill that had passed the House 358-32.And in New York, three candidates backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani win their primaries for Congressional seats against establishment Democrats.And, in global news, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance were overseas this week, selling and negotiating an end to the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran.But Iran's chief negotiator calls the deal an “American declaration of defeat” and it marks the end of any remaining joint Iran-strategy between the U.S. and Israel.Delegations from Israel and Lebanon meet in Washington to extend a ceasefire in a conflict that's killed more than 4,000 people in Lebanon and displaced 20% of the population of under 6 million. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vows to continue fighting in Lebanon as he faces pressure at home and isolation from U.S. leaders.Prime Minister Keir Starmer resigns in the U.K., but analysts say his likely successor Andy Burnham will face the same deep challenges that have knocked out six leaders in the 10 years since Brexit.We cover the most important stories from around the world in the News Roundup.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Artificial Intelligence is advancing at a dizzying pace. One analysis shows it doubling its abilities every seven months.And it's surpassed humans in more than just trivia and Chess. Last year, an AI from Microsoft solved complex medical cases with 85% accuracy, far about the 20% average for experienced physicians. And a recent Stanford report found that some of the newest A-I systems now match or beat the average human expert on PhD-level science questions.But what happens when A-I is better and smarter than the brightest among us at every task? That's called superintelligence.Researchers disagree about how close we are to that sci-fi goal: is it years, or decades—or possible at all? And what happens if that genie-in-a-bottle is let loose? Some say the risk is as existential as total human extinction.We'll discuss the biggest promise – and peril – of AI's advancement beyond humans.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Black Americans serving in the U.S. military have long lived with a great contradiction. The country they're fighting to protect is the same one that's failed to serve and protect them.Despite this, Black Americans continue to enlist. There are over 350,000 Black active duty and select reserve members and more than 2.4 million Black veterans. That's according to the Institute for Veterans and Military Families at Syracuse University.This year, Defense secretary Pete Hegseth has blocked or delayed the promotions of more than a dozen Black and female senior officers. He's also dismissed several high-ranking Black and female officers, according to The Atlantic. This comes amid the second Trump administration's aggressive rollback of programs and policies connected to diversity, equity and inclusion.Black military members have always battled discrimination. But for some, this is a step too far in the wrong direction. So, what does their future hold? And what does it mean for the U.S. military?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. and Israel's war in Iran. The Israel-Hamas war.Each of these conflicts of the last few years is rewriting how war is fought. Cheap drones are doing damage that once required far more expensive weapons. Battlefield information is now available at a distance in real time. And some of the biggest innovations are coming from countries with relatively small defense budgets.We sit down with a panel of experts and ask what these conflicts are teaching us – and how the U.S. is responding to these lessons.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

How would lawmakers respond to election interference – both foreign and domestic – ahead of the midterm elections?That was the central question of a summit held earlier this month between top Senate Democrats and election experts. The meeting came weeks after President Donald Trump signed an executive order that gave the U.S. postal service control over who gets to vote by mail. That order is being challenged in court.Meanwhile, the president continues to spread unfounded claims about the insecurity of U.S. elections. And he's characterizing his executive orders as a means to shore up trust in voting.How is the president using his power to undermine the midterms and the electoral process? And what's at stake for our democracy if election interference succeeds?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

When a couple struggles to conceive, the assumption is often that there is something wrong with the woman. Women are evaluated for infertility far more often than men. But male factor infertility accounts for about half of all infertility cases. And when that's the case, men are less likely to talk about it, seek support, or even get tested in the first place.  In this installment of our “In Good Health” series, we talk about male infertility — what causes it, what can be done about it, and what it's like to go through it.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

This week, on the southern shores of Lake Geneva, leaders of the Group of Seven countries gathered for their annual summit.There are several pressing issues that require attention including the U.S. and Israeli war with Iran, the resulting economic crisis, the state of the Persian Gulf, and long term questions about the future of relations with Iran.The G7 meeting also notably brought Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy face-to-face with President Donald Trump. Trump told reporters that the war Ukraine was not a priority for the United States, saying that his country had “nothing to do” with a war that was “thousands of miles away.”We discuss what this 2026 G7 meeting reveals about the state of the U.S. relationship with its most important allies, especially after months of a war of choice with Iran.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

It's a busy time for the Supreme Court – with 20 cases left and only weeks left in its term. The Court has a stacked docket of high-profile cases that could have seismic effects for years to come.Decisions are expected soon on immigration and Birthright Citizenship, a nearly 160-year legal precedent that says those born in the US are citizens. Plus decisions on mail in ballots, transgender athletes and the president's ability to fire the heads of independent agencies.We'll get into all of it and what these decisions could mean for you.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

President Trump is working fast to remake the nation's capital in his image.His major construction projects include demolishing the East Wing of the White House for his proposed ballroom and a planned 250-foot arch that would dwarf the Lincoln Memorial.As part of the mission to renovate D.C., the White House has bypassed many of the checks put in place for any president seeking major transformations in the city — like firing all six members of the Commission of Fine Arts and installing deputies who align with his policies.But as the president moves to transform D.C., what does the lack of oversight say about how transparent the administration is being with its plans? And where is the money from these projects coming from?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy