POPULARITY
37 episodes with administrative state
46 episodes with administrative state
30 episodes with administrative state
43 episodes with administrative state
21 episodes with administrative state
29 episodes with administrative state
12 episodes with administrative state
5 episodes with administrative state
10 episodes with administrative state
6 episodes with administrative state
6 episodes with administrative state
4 episodes with administrative state
8 episodes with administrative state
6 episodes with administrative state
13 episodes with administrative state
24 episodes with administrative state
3 episodes with administrative state
3 episodes with administrative state
5 episodes with administrative state
3 episodes with administrative state
8 episodes with administrative state
8 episodes with administrative state
3 episodes with administrative state
9 episodes with administrative state
3 episodes with administrative state
4 episodes with administrative state
6 episodes with administrative state
2 episodes with administrative state
5 episodes with administrative state
3 episodes with administrative state
4 episodes with administrative state
4 episodes with administrative state
3 episodes with administrative state
5 episodes with administrative state
5 episodes with administrative state
4 episodes with administrative state
Last week's Supreme Court ruling on Trump-era tariffs didn't declare tariffs unconstitutional.They didn't say the President lacks trade authority.They didn't say Congress delegated too much power.Instead…They said they were “uncomfortable.”And in doing so, they may have quietly replaced constitutional separation of powers with something far more dangerous:
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:02:17:12 — Vietnam Reexamined Through Vietnamese EyesThe American war narrative is challenged by centering Vietnam's perspective on how and why it prevailed. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:04:10:23 — Decades of Media Framing Called Into QuestionThe dominant U.S. storyline of the war is portrayed as constructed propaganda that obscured deeper realities. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:05:13:27 — The Domino Theory Exposed as Historical IgnoranceVietnamese leaders rejected U.S. assumptions that their nation was merely a proxy of China. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:09:41:19 — Bombing Campaigns Turn Civilians Into InsurgentsAirstrikes are described as radicalizing youth and accelerating recruitment into guerrilla warfare. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:15:57:20 — The “Two Vietnams” Narrative ChallengedThe North–South division is framed as a political fiction that ignored Vietnam's own sense of national unity. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:24:25:05 — A Marine Commandant Declares the War UnwinnableGeneral David Shoup publicly warned that Vietnam was not worth American lives.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:38:40:22 — U.S. Forces Held Territory Only by DayGuerrilla tactics ensured insurgents dominated the countryside after dark. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:42:49:07 — Vietnam as Blueprint for Iraq and AfghanistanPatterns of media manipulation, economic fallout, and military overreach are linked to later conflicts. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:56:47:07 — Hamilton vs. Jefferson Defines America's Power StruggleThe foundational clash between centralized authority and states' rights shapes every generation of constitutional debate. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 01:00:52:10 — The 22nd Amendment as a Check on Executive PermanenceFDR's four terms triggered constitutional limits to prevent an elective monarchy. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 01:28:45:02 — Marbury v. Madison and Judicial PowerJefferson warned that expansive interpretation could let courts reshape the Constitution at will. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 01:43:49:18 — The Administrative State as a Hamiltonian RevivalIndependent agencies and New Deal structures cement centralized regulatory power under modern governance. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:02:17:12 — Vietnam Reexamined Through Vietnamese EyesThe American war narrative is challenged by centering Vietnam's perspective on how and why it prevailed. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:04:10:23 — Decades of Media Framing Called Into QuestionThe dominant U.S. storyline of the war is portrayed as constructed propaganda that obscured deeper realities. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:05:13:27 — The Domino Theory Exposed as Historical IgnoranceVietnamese leaders rejected U.S. assumptions that their nation was merely a proxy of China. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:09:41:19 — Bombing Campaigns Turn Civilians Into InsurgentsAirstrikes are described as radicalizing youth and accelerating recruitment into guerrilla warfare. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:15:57:20 — The “Two Vietnams” Narrative ChallengedThe North–South division is framed as a political fiction that ignored Vietnam's own sense of national unity. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:24:25:05 — A Marine Commandant Declares the War UnwinnableGeneral David Shoup publicly warned that Vietnam was not worth American lives.–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:38:40:22 — U.S. Forces Held Territory Only by DayGuerrilla tactics ensured insurgents dominated the countryside after dark. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:42:49:07 — Vietnam as Blueprint for Iraq and AfghanistanPatterns of media manipulation, economic fallout, and military overreach are linked to later conflicts. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 00:56:47:07 — Hamilton vs. Jefferson Defines America's Power StruggleThe foundational clash between centralized authority and states' rights shapes every generation of constitutional debate. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 01:00:52:10 — The 22nd Amendment as a Check on Executive PermanenceFDR's four terms triggered constitutional limits to prevent an elective monarchy. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 01:28:45:02 — Marbury v. Madison and Judicial PowerJefferson warned that expansive interpretation could let courts reshape the Constitution at will. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 01:43:49:18 — The Administrative State as a Hamiltonian RevivalIndependent agencies and New Deal structures cement centralized regulatory power under modern governance. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.
MASSIE VS. BONDI: The Epstein Civil War That's Tearing D.C. Apart THE ARENA IS ON FIRE.
Acknowledge and locked in. The Discord is now properly cited as the hub for the "plotters of rebellion" at 4Libertynetwork.com. Here is the finalized, high-conversion video description with the correct X handle and Discord flavor. VIDEO DESCRIPTION (FINAL) THE ARCTIC GULAG: 96% of Zohram Mamdani's NYC Homeless Calls Failed while Trump Dismantles the Climate Cult THE ARENA IS LIVE.
The panel will discuss the questions left open—or raised—by the Supreme Court’s decisions in FCC v. Consumers' Research and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, about the proper approach to statutory construction and the role that the nondelegation doctrine should play as a background principle in statutory analysis in cases where an agency has claimed broad authority to weigh competing public values when promulgating legislative rules. The discussion might address such subtopics as:Whether the Supreme Court’s rejection of an “extravagant” interpretation of FCC’s statutory authority in Consumers’ Research tells us anything about how courts should approach statutory cases where an agency is asserting an expansive view of its statutory authorities—given that the Court appeared to say that the dissent’s (supposedly “extravagant”) interpretation would present a nondelegation problem.What role nondelegation concerns should play under the avoidance canon in cases where an agency seeks to stretch nebulous or expressly open-ended delegations to achieve whatever policy objective the Executive Branch deems fit from one administration to the next.Whether these kinds of concerns can be dealt with by expanding clear statement rules—like that the Court has begun to develop with the major questions doctrine.Whether and to what extent legitimate nondelegation concerns arise in cases where Congress has expressly said that an issue is vested to agency discretion—as was contemplated in Loper Bright for certain kinds of rules for which the Court said the agency gets to decide.Featuring:Prof. Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research CenterProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative architects at the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, launched in April 2023 as the 900-page Mandate for Leadership, a detailed roadmap to consolidate executive power and dismantle what its authors call the bloated administrative state, according to the Heritage Foundation's own documentation.At its core, the plan targets federal agencies for radical overhaul. It calls for abolishing the Department of Education entirely, shifting programs like those under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to Health and Human Services, while empowering states with school choice and parental rights to combat what it labels "woke propaganda" in public schools. The Department of Homeland Security would vanish too, replaced by a streamlined immigration agency merging Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and others, with proposals to end protections against migrant apprehensions near schools and churches, as outlined in the Mandate.Key reforms push the unitary executive theory, placing the DOJ, FBI, and independent bodies like the FTC under direct presidential control. "The DOJ has become a bloated bureaucracy... infatuated with a radical liberal agenda," the project states, advocating replacement of civil servants with loyalists via reinstating Schedule F, which strips job protections for up to a million workers. It also eyes cuts to Medicare and Medicaid through funding caps and work requirements, plus shrinking the National Labor Relations Board to hinder union organizing.Latest developments show momentum: By early 2025, President Trump's Executive Order on the Department of Government Efficiency directed agencies to prepare massive reductions in force and reorganization plans by March, per Office of Personnel Management guidance, echoing Project 2025's 180-day playbook of ready executive orders.Experts warn of risks. The ACLU describes it as a "radical restructuring" threatening civil liberties, while unions like the American Federation of Government Employees decry it as a bid to terminate workers and politicize expertise. Yet proponents argue it streamlines efficiency, as Heritage claims: a collective effort for "positive change."This ambition connects to broader themes of reclaiming power from unelected bureaucrats, illustrated by merging economic bureaus into one conservative-aligned entity.Looking ahead, Phase 2 agency plans due by September 2025 could accelerate these shifts, with midterm elections as a pivotal decision point.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Constitutionalism gives us the expectation of governance according to rules that everyone from those that are governed to the ones that govern are expected to obey. But what happens if those that govern exempt themselves from those rules?Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/failure-constitutionalism-through-ages-norms-emergencies-and-administrative-state
Constitutionalism gives us the expectation of governance according to rules that everyone from those that are governed to the ones that govern are expected to obey. But what happens if those that govern exempt themselves from those rules?Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/failure-constitutionalism-through-ages-norms-emergencies-and-administrative-state
4. Guest Author: Victor Davis Hanson. Headline: The Unaccountable Power of the Deep State. Summary: Hanson warns against the "administrative state," a permanent class of bureaucrats who wield power without democratic accountability, exemplified by regulatory overreach in the raisin industry. He claims this "deep state" actively undermined the Trump administration through "resistance" tactics, viewing themselves as superior to elected representatives.1870 HENRY WARD BEECHER AND HIS SISTER HARRIET BEECHER STOWE
Imagine a blueprint unfolding in Washington, one that could redraw the lines of American power. Project 2025, launched in April 2023 by the Heritage Foundation, is that plan—a 900-plus-page manifesto called Mandate for Leadership, crafted by former Trump officials and conservative allies to reshape the federal government for a potential Republican president in 2025.At its core, the project pushes the unitary executive theory, aiming to place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. According to the Heritage Foundation's document, it calls for reclassifying tens of thousands of civil service workers as political appointees via Schedule F, stripping protections to replace them with loyalists. "The federal government should be no more than a statistics-keeping organization when it comes to education," it states, proposing to dismantle the Department of Education entirely, shifting programs like those under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to Health and Human Services.Concrete changes ripple across agencies. The Department of Justice and FBI would lose independence, with the FBI director accountable directly to the president, as the plan decries the DOJ as a "bloated bureaucracy... infatuated with a radical liberal agenda." Homeland Security would vanish, replaced by a streamlined immigration agency merging Customs and Border Protection and ICE. The Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau face abolition, while Medicare and Medicaid could see funding caps, work requirements, and voucher options. Environmental rules would shrink, taxes on corporations would drop, and a flat income tax proposed.Experts warn of sweeping impacts. The ACLU describes it as a "radical restructuring" threatening reproductive, LGBTQ, and immigrant rights. The National Federation of Federal Employees calls it a scheme to "destroy the Administrative State," enabling unlimited political hires on day one via a 180-day playbook of executive orders.These ambitions connect a broader vision: dismantling what proponents see as bureaucratic overreach to empower conservative priorities like school choice and nuclear innovation, while critics fear an imperial presidency eroding checks and balances.As 2025's transition looms, key milestones like personnel vetting—aiming for 20,000 in the Heritage database—and potential executive actions will test this blueprint's reach.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative architects at the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, launched in April 2023 as the 900-page Mandate for Leadership, a detailed roadmap to consolidate executive power and install loyalists across federal agencies, according to the Heritage Foundation's own documentation.Its stated goal? Reshape the sprawling administrative state into a leaner machine aligned with right-wing priorities. Picture Day One of a new Republican presidency: a stack of executive orders ready to sign, firing tens of thousands of civil servants under the revived Schedule F category, reclassifying them as at-will political appointees. The Heritage Foundation's plan calls for replacing them with vetted personnel from its database, aiming for 20,000 recruits by late 2024. As Government Executive reports, by early 2025, the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, accelerated this—slashing diversity offices, issuing reduction-in-force plans for 70,000 jobs, and targeting agencies like USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which returned $21 billion to scam victims but now faces elimination.Concrete changes abound. The blueprint urges dismantling the Department of Education, shifting programs like those for disabled students to Health and Human Services and curbing federal civil rights enforcement in schools to prioritize “student safety over racial parity in discipline,” per Mandate for Leadership. It eyes abolishing the Department of Homeland Security, merging its immigration functions, and partisan control of the DOJ and FBI, making their leaders directly accountable to the president. Cuts loom for Medicaid via funding caps and work requirements, plus shrinking the NIH and reversing Biden-era environmental rules to boost nuclear energy and corporate tax breaks.Experts warn of risks. The ACLU describes it as a “radical restructuring” threatening reproductive, LGBTQ, and immigrant rights. Unions like AFGE decry the potential loss of up to a million federal workers' protections, echoing fears of politicized governance.By mid-2025, courts have reinstated some fired staff at Voice of America and CFPB, signaling legal battles ahead. As return-to-office mandates clash with office closures, the project's ambition tests America's checks and balances.Looking forward, key milestones like congressional action on Education cuts and union fights could define 2026 governance. Will efficiency triumph or chaos ensue?Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Project 2025 began not on a campaign stage, but in a Washington think tank conference room. The Heritage Foundation calls it “a conservative policy agenda” and a ready-made governing blueprint, anchored in a nearly 900-page manual titled Mandate for Leadership, meant to guide “the next conservative president” from day one, according to Heritage's own introduction to the project.At its core, Project 2025 aims to dramatically expand presidential control over the federal government. Heritage leaders have said the goal is to “deconstruct the administrative state” and ensure that “all federal employees should answer to the president,” a phrase echoed by Heritage president Kevin Roberts and summarized in reporting by PBS NewsHour and The New York Times. The project embraces the controversial “unitary executive” theory, under which agencies that have traditionally operated with some independence, like the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, would be firmly pulled into the White House orbit, as described by the Center for Progressive Reform and the ACLU.To make that vision real, the blueprint outlines sweeping changes to federal staffing. The National Federation of Federal Employees explains that Project 2025 leans heavily on reviving and expanding “Schedule F,” a Trump-era classification that would allow tens of thousands of career civil servants to be converted into political appointees and easily removed. Heritage's own materials describe building a database of 20,000 ideologically aligned personnel ready to step into government roles, while critics like Democracy Forward warn this would turn a nonpartisan civil service into a loyal political corps.The scope of the policy proposals is just as far-reaching. According to the Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership document and a summary by AFSCME, the plan calls for abolishing the Department of Education, shifting most education authority to the states, and cutting back federal civil rights enforcement in schools. The Heritage blueprint also urges dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and replacing it with a streamlined immigration-focused department that consolidates agencies such as Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Transportation Security Administration, as summarized by Wikipedia's Project 2025 entry and labor analyses.Economic and regulatory policy would be reshaped as well. Heritage's Mandate argues for repealing the Inflation Reduction Act's climate investments, closing the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office, and rolling back environmental and clean-energy mandates. It also backs major tax changes, including corporate tax cuts and a possible flat individual income tax, along with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, according to the Heritage document and summaries by AFSCME and the ACLU. The blueprint further recommends abolishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and even the Federal Trade Commission, moves that groups like the Center for Progressive Reform say would weaken consumer and antitrust protections.Supporters portray these ideas as a restoration of constitutional government and traditional values. Critics, including the ACLU and multiple academic commentators, warn that centralizing so much power in the presidency, while purging the civil service, could erode checks and balances and politicize law enforcement, with PBS NewsHour noting concerns about expanded domestic use of the National Guard under a more aggressive Justice Department and FBI.The next key milestones will be how much of this agenda is embraced by Republican candidates, written into party platforms, or translated into concrete executive orders and legislation should conservatives control the White House and Congress. For now, Project 2025 remains a detailed playbook waiting for a willing administration.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Project 2025 represents one of the most comprehensive blueprints for restructuring American government in recent history. Published by the Heritage Foundation in April 2023, this 900-page policy document, officially titled the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, outlines a radical vision for consolidating executive power and reshaping federal agencies according to conservative principles.At its core, Project 2025 seeks to eliminate what its architects view as the "administrative state." According to the Heritage Foundation, the initiative includes a 180-day playbook with prepared executive orders ready for implementation, along with a personnel database designed to identify ideologically aligned appointees for key federal positions. The project's most transformative proposal involves a controversial mechanism called Schedule F, which would reclassify tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees, potentially removing decades of employment protections and enabling wholesale replacement of career staff with administration loyalists.The scope of proposed changes is sweeping. The project calls for dismantling entire agencies, including the Department of Education and Department of Homeland Security, while subordinating others to direct presidential control. According to Wikipedia's analysis of the initiative, it seeks to place the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Trade Commission, and Department of Justice under expanded presidential authority, a vision grounded in an expansive interpretation of unitary executive theory.Specific policy targets reveal the blueprint's ideological ambitions. The Heritage Foundation's proposal would close the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, redirect climate research funding, and repeal the Inflation Reduction Act. Education policy would shift dramatically, with the proposal to eliminate federal civil rights enforcement in schools and transfer disability education programs to different agencies. The project also proposes consolidating economic data agencies and cutting funding for Medicare and Medicaid through various mechanisms including work requirements and per capita spending caps.Recent developments show these proposals moving from theory toward implementation. In February 2025, according to Office of Personnel Management guidance, the Trump administration issued an executive order launching the Department of Government Efficiency Workforce Optimization Initiative, directing federal agencies to prepare large-scale workforce reductions and submit reorganization plans by March and April 2025. Multiple civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, have begun tracking Project 2025's implementation across federal agencies, documenting concerns about potential impacts on workers' rights, environmental protection, and civil rights enforcement.The project's implications extend beyond administrative mechanics. By concentrating executive power and removing civil service protections, Project 2025 fundamentally alters checks within the executive branch itself. Whether these proposals fully materialize depends partly on congressional action, particularly regarding statutory changes needed for some initiatives, and partly on administrative maneuvering through executive orders and agency reorganization.As 2025 progresses, listeners should watch for agency reorganization announcements and civil service policy changes. These coming weeks represent critical decision points for American governance structure. Thank you for tuning in today. Please join us next week for more analysis of these developments shaping our nation's future.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
This is the fifth episode of our ongoing series breaking down the U.S. Constitution.This month, Roman and Elizabeth turn to the rest of Article Two with former CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden, talking about the experience of being a highly trained expert in an inherently political institution within the executive branch. Dr. Frieden was also the New York City Public Health Commissioner under Mayor Bloomberg from 2002 to 2009, and he discusses the difference between running a city and a federal health agency.Elizabeth also explains the constitutional powers and limitations of the presidency, including hiring and firing, impeachment, pardons, and presidential duties—and how President Trump and the current Supreme Court are upending those powers. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of 99% Invisible ad-free and a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
This is a recording from 12.23.2025 of Rabbi David Kasher's Weekly Parashah class, co-sponsored by Hadar and IKAR.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AND UNELECTED POWER Colleague Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson describes the "administrative state" or "deep state" as a permanent class of unelected bureaucrats who possess vast power without accountability to voters or Congress. He asserts that these officials, believing their expertise gives them moral authority, actively "resisted" the Trump administration through leaks and bureaucratic sabotage, viewing themselves as superior to elected leadership. He cites the "raisin police" as a specific example of how this regulatory state can tyrannically control the private property and labor of citizens. NUMBER 4
Project 2025 began quietly, as a 900-page manual from the conservative Heritage Foundation called Mandate for Leadership. According to Heritage, its goal is to prepare “the next conservative president” to remake the federal government from day one, with a pre-vetted army of appointees and draft executive orders ready to sign.At its core is a simple but sweeping idea: place almost the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. Heritage authors invoke the “unitary executive” theory, arguing that agencies like the Department of Justice and the FBI should no longer operate with traditional independence. Project documents call DOJ a “bloated bureaucracy” that has “forfeited the trust” of Americans and urge making the FBI director “personally accountable to the president,” reshaping federal law enforcement priorities and civil rights enforcement, as summarized by PBS NewsHour and the Mandate itself.To make that vision real, Project 2025 leans on a hiring category known as Schedule F. The National Federation of Federal Employees explains that the plan would reclassify large numbers of civil servants as at-will employees and replace them with ideological loyalists, eliminating long-standing job protections against political interference. Heritage allies describe this as clearing out the “administrative state”; unions and watchdog groups describe it as opening the door to political purges across the bureaucracy.The scope reaches every corner of government. The Mandate proposes abolishing the Department of Education entirely, shifting its programs to states and to the Department of Health and Human Services, and folding the National Center for Education Statistics into the Census Bureau. It urges dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and replacing it with a streamlined immigration-focused agency combining Customs and Border Protection, ICE, TSA, and parts of Justice and Health and Human Services, as detailed in the Project 2025 chapters on immigration and education.Economic regulators are also targeted. The document calls for eliminating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, abolishing the Federal Trade Commission, shrinking the National Labor Relations Board, and merging the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis into a single, politically directed statistics office, according to the Project 2025 overview compiled by Wikipedia and summaries from public-sector unions.Supporters argue this would cut red tape, boost fossil fuel production by rolling back environmental rules, and, in their words, “destroy the administrative state” that they see as blocking conservative policy. Critics, including the ACLU and Democracy Forward, warn that concentrating so much power in the White House could weaken checks and balances, politicize data, and threaten protections for workers, immigrants, and marginalized groups.The next major milestones hinge on elections and transition planning: whether a future administration formally embraces this blueprint, how much Congress will accept, and how courts respond if sweeping executive orders test the limits of presidential power. Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Matthew Durham is BACK as a special guest host! Slaughtering the Administrative State! Opinion-Headlines-Culture-Politics! www.headlinesandopinions.com Conversations centered around the American Experiment and our Constitution and Bill of Rights! Our goal is to provide different perspectives - give historical context - model how to talk with those whom we may disagree with - tie foundational principals to today's headlines - PLUS, have some fun along the way. Please leave us a review and share with your friends! (A PODCAST PROVIDED AND OWNED BY DURING THE BREAK PODCASTS) Brought to you by Eric Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com ALL THINGS JEFF STYLES: www.thejeffstyles.com PART OF THE NOOGA PODCAST NETWORK: www.noogapodcasts.com Please consider leaving us a review on Apple and giving us a share to your friends! This podcast is powered by ZenCast.fm
Matthew Durham is BACK as a special guest host! Slaughtering the Administrative State! Opinion-Headlines-Culture-Politics! www.headlinesandopinions.com Conversations centered around the American Experiment and our Constitution and Bill of Rights! Our goal is to provide different perspectives - give historical context - model how to talk with those whom we may disagree with - tie foundational principals to today's headlines - PLUS, have some fun along the way. Please leave us a review and share with your friends! (A PODCAST PROVIDED AND OWNED BY DURING THE BREAK PODCASTS) Brought to you by Eric Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm
As an early Christmas present for David French, Sarah Isgur invites professors Will Baude and Julian Davis Mortenson on the podcast to answer all questions about originalism. But first, should an IQ test determine whether someone will be sentenced to death? The Agenda:—Listener emails—United States v. Ham—SCOTUS' approach to executive power—Burkeanism and the administrative state—Debating the removal power—Judicial restraint and non-delegation doctrine Show Notes:—David French: We're Trying to Find a Line the Supreme Court Won't Cross Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Leah, Kate, and Melissa recap the oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that could nuke the administrative state as we know it by giving Trump broad leeway to fire heads of independent agencies. They also cover the other arguments in cases involving campaign finance and the death penalty, and various and sundry bits of legal news including the antics of Judge Emil Bove and Trump's ongoing game of U.S. attorney musical chairs.Favorite things:Leah: At will? Whose will? By Don Moynihan (Can We Still Govern?)Melissa: Trump's Very Weird Night at the Kennedy Center Honors, Alexandra Petri (The Atlantic); A Flower Traveled in My Blood, Haley Cohen GillilandKate: How a Manosphere Star Accused of Rape and Trafficking Was Freed, Megan Twohey and Isabella Kwai (NYT) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
The Historical Context of Humphrey's Executor: Colleague Richard Epstein analyzes the historical context of Humphrey's Executor, explaining how the administrative state grew from the 1930s, detailing FDR's attempt to politicize independent commissions and the Supreme Court's justification, arguing that while constitutionally questionable, long-standing prescription has solidified these agencies' legal status over time. 1955
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.racket.newsLink Here: Listen to subscriber-only audio in your podcast appShare the Free Previews of America This Week:Watch ATW on YouTube below:
The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Learning Resources v. Trump, a case examining the scope of presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and its use to impose tariffs. This program will break down the argument, highlight how the Justices probed IEEPA’s limits, and discuss what the Court’s decision may mean for executive power, trade policy, and the future deployment of emergency economic tools. Featuring:Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law, William & Mary Law SchoolAdam White, Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.On today’s edition of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discusses the oral arguments at the Supreme Court over Trump’s attempt to fire a member of the FTC, the need for Congress to act and cut back on the Administrative State, subsidiarity and social media, and Australia’s debate over removing shark nets.Part I (00:14 – 13:55)Donald J. Trump, President v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter by The Supreme Court of the United StatesPart II (13:55 – 16:56)Actually, the Supreme Court Has a Plan by The New York Times (Sarah Isgur)Part III (16:56 – 23:02)Part IV (23:02 – 26:21)After Deadly Attacks, Australia Debates: Do Shark Nets Work? by The New York Times (Yan Zhuang)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.
Project 2025 begins with a simple premise: the next conservative president should arrive in Washington not just with ideas, but with a turnkey plan to remake the federal government. The Heritage Foundation, which coordinates the effort, calls its 900-page blueprint Mandate for Leadership and describes it as a manual to “restore the family as the centerpiece of American life” and “dismantle the administrative state,” all within the first 180 days of a new administration, according to Heritage's own materials and summaries by the American Civil Liberties Union and federal employee groups.At the heart of the project are two tracks: changing the rules, and changing the people who enforce them. Heritage and allied authors propose reviving and expanding “Schedule F,” a Trump-era personnel category that would let a president strip civil service protections from tens of thousands of policy-related jobs and replace career officials with ideological loyalists. The National Federation of Federal Employees warns that this would allow “unlimited political appointees without expiration dates,” effectively turning much of the bureaucracy into an at-will workforce devoted to a single agenda.The blueprint also sketches sweeping changes to major agencies. In education, Project 2025 urges closing the Department of Education entirely, shifting its programs to other departments and sending more power and funding directly to states. Heritage authors argue this would curb what they call “woke propaganda” and boost school choice and parental rights. Critics, including the Center for Progressive Reform, counter that such a move could destabilize protections for students with disabilities and civil rights enforcement in schools.On law enforcement and regulation, the document calls for putting traditionally independent entities under direct presidential control. It recommends tightening White House oversight of the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation, and even abolishing the Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Project authors say this would streamline regulation and stop what they describe as anti-business overreach. Consumer advocates respond that eliminating agencies that have returned billions of dollars to defrauded borrowers and credit card holders would leave ordinary families more exposed to corporate abuse.The plan reaches deep into social policy as well. Heritage's Mandate for Leadership urges major cuts to Medicaid, new work requirements, and options to turn it into a voucher-style program, while also rolling back reproductive rights, LGBTQ protections, and climate regulations in favor of expanded fossil fuel production. Supporters frame this as restoring traditional values and economic freedom. Opponents warn it amounts to a radical centralization of power in the presidency combined with a contraction of the social safety net.As listeners watch the 2024 and 2025 political calendar unfold, Project 2025 now serves as both a roadmap for conservatives and a rallying point for critics. Key milestones ahead include any formal embrace or rejection of the blueprint by presidential candidates, legal battles over Schedule F–style reforms, and congressional fights over agency funding and structure. However those decisions break, they will determine whether Project 2025 remains a provocative manifesto or becomes the operating manual for American governance.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
【聊了什么】 特朗普总统的第二任期已经过去了一年，在这一年之中，美国政治是一如既往的精彩。特别是特朗普本人，不管是在内政还是外交上，都以一种不可置疑的方式，不停地发出各种指令，改变着美国。更重要的是这一系列的操作似乎并没有受到太大的阻力。如今他看起来并不是民选国家的领导人，更像是一个专制独裁国家的君主，不受到任何的约束。 为什么会出现这样的情况？这是只会发生在特朗普身上的个例，还是背后有着更深层次的原因。为什么美国总统们的权力会越来越大，民主党和共和党对于总统制的理解有何不同。为什么对于特朗普的反制措施都没有取得效果。本期节目，我们从小阿瑟•M.施莱辛格《帝王总统》出发，来试图给这一系列的问题作出解答。 本期节目为talich在《以读攻读》的串台，欢迎在各平台关注《以读攻读》。 【支持我们】 如果喜欢这期节目并希望支持我们将节目继续做下去： 也欢迎加入我们的会员计划： https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ 会员可以收到每周2-5封newsletter，可以加入会员社群，参加会员活动，并享受更多福利。 合作投稿邮箱：american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【时间轴】 04:39 今天有多少美国人觉得特朗普的权力过大了 05:59 美国国父们设计总统制的初衷 09:37 总统制与当时其他国家领袖制度的对比 13:14 美国制宪会议上如何划分总统的权力 19:03 美国总统为什么想要扩张自己的权力 22:20 为什么外交领域成为了总统扩权的突破口 26:54 20世纪，美国成为行政国家的过程 33:18 行政国家的形成为什么给了总统更大的权力 37:32 总统竞选模式的改变导致了总统候选人有了更大的话语权 42:08 罗斯福和尼克松是如何扩张总统的权力 54:15 总统如何通过任命政务官加强自己权力 58:12 美国各界对于总统扩权的态度 1:01:05 Loper 案推翻 Chevron Deference 1:02:00 政治科学家对于总统权力的看法 1:11:45 70年代开始，共和党开始推行的“单一行政权理论” 1:16:33 法律上的原教旨主义如何支持“单一行政权理论” 1:30:19 美国政治中的总统周期理论 1:36:36 特朗普政府如何通过实践扩大自己的权力（针对法院的策略等） 1:40:05 “帝王总统制”的未来走向 1:51:01 选民认知对未来美国政治走势的影响 【我们是谁】 美轮美换是一档深入探讨当今美国政治的中文播客。 我们的主播和嘉宾： Talich：美国政治和文化历史爱好者 《以读攻读》主播： 黄哲成：《现代主义文学百年》《深焦 DeepFocus Radio》《以读攻读》主播 【 What We Talked About】 It has been one year since the start of President Trump's second term, and American politics has been as dramatic as ever. Trump himself, in particular, has been reshaping the United States—both domestically and internationally—by issuing directives with an air of absolute authority. More importantly, these actions seem to have met with little significant resistance. Today, he appears less like the leader of a democracy and more like the monarch of an autocratic regime, operating without restraint. Why is this happening? Is this a phenomenon unique to Trump, or are there deeper underlying causes? Why has the power of the U.S. presidency continued to expand? How do Democrats and Republicans differ in their understanding of the presidential system? And why have all attempts to check Trump's power failed to result in any change? In this episode, taking Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s The Imperial Presidency as our starting point, we attempt to answer these questions. Note: This is a crossover episode featuring talich on Yi Du Gong Du. Please follow "Yi Du Gong Du" on your favorite podcast platforms. 【Support Us】 If you like our show and want to support us, please consider the following: Join our membership program: https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/americanroulette Business Inquiries and fan mail: american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【Timeline】 04:39 How many Americans today believe Trump has too much power? 05:59 The Founding Fathers' original intent in designing the presidency. 09:37 Comparing the presidency to other leadership systems of that era. 13:14 How presidential powers were defined at the Constitutional Convention. 19:03 Why U.S. presidents seek to expand their power. 22:20 Why foreign policy became the gateway for expanding presidential authority. 26:54 The 20th Century: The process of America becoming an "Administrative State." 33:18 Why the rise of the Administrative State empowered the presidency. 37:32 How changes in campaigning increased the influence of presidential candidates. 42:08 How Roosevelt and Nixon expanded presidential power. 54:15 Strengthening power through political appointments. 58:12 Reactions across various sectors to the expansion of executive power. 1:01:05 Loper Bright and the overturning of Chevron deference. 1:02:00 Political scientists' views on presidential power. 1:11:45 The "Unitary Executive Theory" pushed by the Republican Party since the 1970s. 1:16:33 How legal Originalism supports the "Unitary Executive Theory." 1:30:19 The theory of presidential cycles in American politics. 1:36:36 How the Trump administration expanded power through practice (strategies against the courts, etc.). 1:40:05 The future trajectory of the "Imperial Presidency." 1:51:01 The impact of voter perception on the future of U.S. politics. 【Who We Are】 The American Roulette is a podcast dedicated to helping the Chinese-speaking community understand fast-changing U.S. politics. Our Hosts and Guests: Talich：Aficionado of American politics, culture, and history Host of Yi Du Gong Du: Huang Zhecheng: An interesting but useless person, doing interesting but useless things. (Douban: @hzcneo)
Sarah Isgur invites Adam White, co-director of the Antonin Scalia Law School's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, to identify the major administrative law issues on the horizon in the next five to 10 years. The Agenda:—The Roberts Court and the Trump Term—The legislative veto—Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha—Decline of congressional power—Supreme Court reform and the future of judicial powers Show Notes:—Adam's currently nameless newsletter at AEI—Adam's column at SCOTUSblog—The Foreshadow Docket—Is Humphrey's Executor headed for Slaughter? Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Edward Luce, Russell Muirhead, Lauren Harper Pope, and Yascha Mounk on this week's news. In this week's conversation, Ed Luce, Russ Muirhead, Lauren Harper Pope, and Yascha Mounk discuss the recent Saudi visit and what it says about Donald Trump's broader foreign policy, the direction of the MAGA movement, and the fallout in the Democratic Party from Marie Gluesenkamp Perez challenging Chuy Garcia's succession scheme. Edward Luce is the U.S. national editor and a columnist at the Financial Times, and the author of Zbig: The life of Zbig Brzezinski: America's Great Power Prophet. Russell Muirhead teaches Government at Dartmouth College. He is the author, with Nancy Rosenblum, of Ungoverning: The Attack on the Administrative State and the Politics of Chaos. He serves in the New Hampshire House of Representatives where he focuses on election law. Lauren Harper Pope is a Welcome Co-Founder working to depolarize American politics and strengthen a centrist faction of the Democratic Party that wins and governs responsibly through work with The Welcome Party (c4), WelcomePAC, and The Welcome Democracy Institute (c3). Lauren leads the coordinated (hard side) program for WelcomePAC, and she writes at WelcomeStack.org. Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.community Podcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In Born Equal: Remaking America’s Constitution, 1840–1920, Prof. Akhil Reed Amar traces the arc of American constitutional debate from the post-Founding era to the Progressive Era, focusing especially on America’s fundamental question raised originally by our Declaration of Independence: what does it mean to say that all men and women are “created equal”? To explore this question and the broader themes of his book, he will be interviewed by AEI senior fellow Adam White. Featuring: Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law School (Moderator) Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
With less than one more before the Supreme Court's oral argument in one of the most explosive cases of this term, Trump v. Slaughter, you're encouraged to join the Anchoring Truths Podcast for a discussion of this important case over whether the President remove any Senate-confirmed commissioner of an agency he no longer wishes to have serve in that federal agency. The constitutional question in the case concerns statutory removal protections for the Federal Trade Commission—previously upheld in the Court's landmark decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States—and whether a federal court may prevent removal of a commissioner from public office. The stakes for this case are enormous for all three branches of the government, foremost though the executive. Is the power to remove an executive branch agency's commissioner vested solely in the President, as it is under what's known as the theory of the unitary executive? Or can Congress place conditions on removal that prevent such exercise of the executive's authority?Joining us to preview the oral argument is Mark Chenoweth of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Mark is NCLA's President and Chief Legal Officer, and along with Margot Cleveland and Professor Philip Hamburger, the co-authors of an amicus brief in the case.Mark served as the first chief of staff to Congressman Mike Pompeo, as legal counsel to Commissioner Anne Northup at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, as an attorney advisor in the Office of Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice, and as a law clerk to the Hon. Danny J. Boggs on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.Mark has worked in several different roles in the private sector as well. He began his legal career in D.C. as a regulatory associate at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. He then returned to his home state of Kansas to serve as in-house counsel for Koch Industries. Most recently he spent over four years as general counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation.Learn more about NCLA.
Michael M. Uhlmann, LL.B., Ph.D. was my mentor in Constitutional Law for over a decade and convinced me not to go to law school but instead to study public law as a Ph.D. student, which I did. Here, we do an excursus on the Chevron Deference Deep Dive series on The Republican Professor podcast. We have Uhlmann on a book by Peter Wallison called "Judicial Fortitude: The Last Chance to Reign in the Administrative State." It's about Republicans calling for a revival of the non-delegation doctrine for the purpose of protecting individual liberty. We're going to make a fair use and do a transformative reading of the piece. Dr. Uhlmann died just months after this was published and so we are unable to have him as a guest on the podcast. We'd like to thank Claremont Review of Books for publishing Mike's "Full Court Press," the piece we interact with here, on Wallison's book. Go to ClaremontReviewofBooks.com for subscription options, and throw some support their way. You can find Summer 2019's "Full Court Press" written by Dr. Uhlmann there. We'd like to thank the late great Michael M. Uhlmann for his mentorship and professorship and for writing this, bringing this wonderful Wallison book to our attention. Go out and buy a copy of the Wallison book -- his books are excellent. What Wallison was calling for in that book partially took place last year when Republicans on the US Supreme Court reversed 1984's (no pun intended) Chevron decision. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-protecting-individual-liberty podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.
A Kingwood, Texas, dad and son said they were protesting the administrative state destruction and lack of fidelity to the Constitution.Subscribe to our Newsletter:https://politicsdoneright.com/newsletterPurchase our Books: As I See It: https://amzn.to/3XpvW5o How To Make AmericaUtopia: https://amzn.to/3VKVFnG It's Worth It: https://amzn.to/3VFByXP Lose Weight And BeFit Now: https://amzn.to/3xiQK3K Tribulations of anAfro-Latino Caribbean man: https://amzn.to/4c09rbE
In this week's episode of The Good Fight Club, Yascha Mounk, Garry Kasparov, Russ Muirhead, and Quico Toro discuss the ceasefire in Gaza, the impact of the U.S. government shutdown, and the extent to which America under Trump mirrors Russia and Venezuela. Garry Kasparov is the chairman and founder of the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), which publishes The Next Move. Russell Muirhead teaches Government at Dartmouth College. He is the author, with Nancy Rosenblum, of Ungoverning: The Attack on the Administrative State and the Politics of Chaos. He serves in the New Hampshire House of Representatives where he focuses on election law. Quico Toro is a contributing editor at Persuasion, Director of Climate Repair at the Anthropocene Institute, and writes the Substack One Percent Brighter. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.community Podcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
While government has the power to protect our rights, it can use that power to abuse those rights. Especially in those areas of the government which resist accountability to elected officials. The administrative state (or deep state) is a strong focus of the Trump Administration, which has taken action to reinstate accountability in the federal bureaucracy. Ryan Williams, president of the Claremont Institute and friend of Heritage, joined the podcast to talk about what to do when government stops serving the people and targets them instead. —Learn more about the Claremont Institute: https://www.claremont.org/Follow Ryan Williams on X: https://x.com/RpwWilliams—Have thoughts? Let us know at heritageexplains@heritage.org
While government has the power to protect our rights, it can use that power to abuse those rights. Especially in those areas of the government which resist accountability to elected officials. The administrative state (or deep state) is a strong focus of the Trump Administration, which has taken action to reinstate accountability in the federal […]
In this episode of Crazy Wisdom, host Stewart Alsop speaks with Robin Hanson, economist and originator of the idea of futarchy, about how conditional betting markets might transform governance by tying decisions to measurable outcomes. Their conversation moves through examples of organizational incentives in business and government, the balance between elegant theories and messy implementation details, the role of AI in robust institutions, and the tension between complexity and simplicity in legal and political systems. Hanson highlights historical experiments with futarchy, reflects on polarization and collective behavior in times of peace versus crisis, and underscores how ossified bureaucracies mirror software rot. To learn more about his work, you can find Robin Hanson online simply by searching his name or his blog overcomingbias.com, where his interviews—including one with Jeffrey Wernick on early applications of futarchy—are available.Check out this GPT we trained on the conversationTimestamps00:05 Hanson explains futarchy as conditional betting markets that tie governance to measurable outcome metrics, contrasting elegant ideas with messy implementation details.00:10 He describes early experiments, including Jeffrey Wernick's company in the 1980s, and more recent trials in crypto and an India-based agency.00:15 The conversation shifts to how companies use stock prices as feedback, comparing public firms tied to speculators with private equity and long-term incentives.00:20 Alsop connects futarchy to corporate governance and history, while Hanson explains how futarchy can act as a veto system against executive self-interest.00:25 They discuss conditional political markets in elections, AI participation in institutions, and why proof of human is unnecessary for robust systems.00:30 Hanson reflects on simplicity versus complexity in democracy and legal systems, noting how futarchy faces similar design trade-offs.00:35 He introduces veto markets and outcome metrics, adding nuance to how futarchy could constrain executives while allowing discretion.00:40 The focus turns to implementation in organizations, outcome-based OKRs, and trade-offs between openness, liquidity, and transparency.00:45 They explore DAOs, crypto governance, and the need for focus, then compare news-driven attention with deeper institutional design.00:50 Hanson contrasts novelty with timelessness in academia and policy, explaining how futarchy could break the pattern of weak governance.00:55 The discussion closes on bureaucratic inertia, software rot, and how government ossifies compared to adaptive private organizations.Key InsightsFutarchy proposes that governance can be improved by tying decisions directly to measurable outcome metrics, using conditional betting markets to reveal which policies are expected to achieve agreed goals. This turns speculation into structured decision advice, offering a way to make institutions more competent and accountable.Early experiments with futarchy existed decades ago, including Jeffrey Wernick's 1980s company that made hiring and product decisions using prediction markets, as well as more recent trials in crypto-based DAOs and a quiet adoption by a government agency in India. These examples show that the idea, while radical, is not just theoretical.A central problem in governance is the tension between elegant ideas and messy implementation. Hanson emphasizes that while the core concept of futarchy is simple, real-world use requires addressing veto powers, executive discretion, and complex outcome metrics. The evolution of institutions involves finding workable compromises without losing the simplicity of the original vision.The conversation highlights how existing governance in corporations mirrors these challenges. Public firms rely heavily on speculators and short-term stock incentives, while private equity benefits from long-term executive stakes. Futarchy could offer companies a new tool, giving executives market-based feedback on major decisions before they act.Institutions must be robust not just to human diversity but also to AI participation. Hanson argues that markets, unlike one-person-one-vote systems, can accommodate AI traders without needing proof of human identity. Designing systems to be indifferent to whether participants are human or machine strengthens long-term resilience.Complexity versus simplicity emerges as a theme, with Hanson noting that democracy and legal systems began with simple structures but accreted layers of rules that now demand lawyers to navigate. Futarchy faces the same trade-off: it starts simple, but real implementation requires added detail, and the balance between elegance and robustness becomes crucial.Finally, the episode situates futarchy within broader social trends. Hanson connects rising polarization and inequality to times of peace and prosperity, contrasting this with the unifying effect of external threats. He also critiques bureaucratic inertia and “software rot” in government, arguing that without innovation in governance, even advanced societies risk ossification.
In this week's episode of The Good Fight Club, Yascha Mounk, Francis Fukuyama, Mona Charen, and Russell Muirhead explore why the “Trump is dead” conspiracy took hold, the recent summit between Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Narendra Modi, and what the latest developments at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tell us about the fate of public health in America. Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column, carried forward from American Purpose, at Persuasion. Mona Charen, syndicated columnist and author, is Policy Editor of The Bulwark and host of two weekly podcasts: The Mona Charen Show and Just Between Us. Russell Muirhead teaches Government at Dartmouth College. He is the author, with Nancy Rosenblum, of Ungoverning: The Attack on the Administrative State and the Politics of Chaos. He serves in the NH House of Representatives where he focuses on election law. Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.community Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We discuss how ungoverning is the equivalent of a bull in a china shop. We have already seen the destruction of many institutions and many functions of the administrative state, but we don't yet know how much there is still to come. Nancy's civic action toolkit recommendations are: 1) Don't let unpredictability strip you of your agency 2) Vote in local, county, and state elections Nancy Rosenblum is the Senator Joseph Clark Professor of Ethics in Politics and Government Emerita at Harvard University, and the co-author of Ungoverning: The Attack on the Administrative State and the Politics of Chaos. Let's connect! Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/ Discover new ways to #BetheSpark: https://www.futurehindsight.com/spark Follow Mila on X: https://x.com/milaatmos Follow Nancy on X: https://x.com/Nlrosenblum Read Ungoverning: https://bookshop.org/shop/futurehindsight Sponsor: Thank you to Shopify! Sign up for a $1/month trial at shopify.com/hopeful. Early episodes for Patreon supporters: https://patreon.com/futurehindsight Credits: Host: Mila Atmos Guests: Nancy Rosenblum Executive Producer: Mila Atmos Producer: Zack Travis
SHOW SCHEDULE 8-13-25 1917 ODESSA CIRCUS THE SHOW BEGINS IN UKRAINE ENROUTE TO ALASKA... CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor First Hour 9:00-9:15 #Ukraine: Putin wants; Kyiv wants. Colonel Jeff McCausland, USA (Retired) @McCauslJ @CBSNews @DickinsonCol 9:15-9:30 #Ukraine: Trump wants. Colonel Jeff McCausland, USA (Retired) @McCauslJ @CBSNews @DickinsonCol 9:30-9:45 PRC: Repeating failure. Anne Stevenson-Yang @GordonGChang, Gatestone, Newsweek, The Hill 9:45-10:00 South China Sea: PLA provocation. Jim Holmes, @GordonGChang, Gatestone, Newsweek, The Hill Second Hour 10:00-10:15 Nixon: Continues with Trump vs Administrative State. Steve Hayward, Civitas Institute 10:15-10:30 Nixon: Continues with Trump vs Administrative State. Steve Hayward, Civitas Institute 10:30-10:45 Sudan: Anarchy with guns. Husain Abdul-Husain, FDD 10:45-11:00 Robert Kaplan and the analog Weimar Republic 2025. Peter Berkowitz, Hoover Third Hour 11:00-11:15 Alaska: Low expectations. John Bolton 11:15-11:30 Alaska: Power secondary sanctions. Michael Bernstam, Hoover 11:30-11:45 Oceania: CNMI influenced by PRC. Cleo Paskal, FDD 11:45-12:00 US Navy: Sea going drones and the fleet. Jim Holmes @GordonGChang, Gatestone, Newsweek, The Hill Fourth Hour 12:00-12:15 France: Heat wave. Simon Constable 12:15-12:30 UK: Vance in the Cotswolds 12:30-12:45 Kuiper launching. Bob Zimmerman BehindTheBlack.com 12:45-1:00 AM Interstellar comets unknowns. Bob Zimmerman BehindTheBlack.com
Nixon: Continues with Trump vs Administrative State. Steve Hayward, Civitas Institute
Nixon: Continues with Trump vs Administrative State. Steve Hayward, Civitas Institute 1920 HANOI
Since taking office on January 20, 2025, President Trump has emphasized deregulation. Deregulatory efforts have focused both on undoing Biden-era policies in areas of interest (environmental regulation, SOGI issues, immigration, etc.) and on a broader effort to limit the scope of administrative power more broadly. In light of these strong changes, this panel will discuss the history of deregulation efforts in the Executive Branch, how those compare to the deregulatory efforts of the Trump Administration, and what these changes may mean both practically and more institutionally for the future of the Administrative State.Featuring:Prof. Bridget C.E. Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State UniversityProf. Susan E. Dudley, Distinguished Professor, Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington UniversityMr. William C. Hughes, Senior Counsel, Consensys SoftwareProf. Richard J. Pierce Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School(Moderator) Mr. Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School
Jeffrey Tucker returns to Finding Freedom. Jeffrey is an economist, author, and founder of the Brownstone Institute. Known for his fearless critiques of government overreach and central planning, Jeffrey has written extensively on economics, technology, and the erosion of liberty. He's a leading voice on the dangers of the administrative state and its impact on liberty. Through his work, he champions decentralization and individual rights. We have a new show on Lions of Liberty! The Politicks Podcast! Be sure to subscribe to the standalone Politicks Podcast feed. This is the absolute best way to support the show! Listen and subscribe on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. And remember, they're all Blood Suckers! Subscribe to John's Finding Freedom Show solo feed to listen to “Pursuit of Freedom,” which is a new podcast series where John shares the highs and lows of his entrepreneurial journey. Listen and Subscribe on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Follow the Lions of Liberty: Twitter Rumble YouTube Instagram Telegram Get access to all of our bonus audio content, livestreams, behind-the-scenes segments and more for as little as $5 per month by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride on Patreon OR support us on Locals! Check out our merchandise at the Lions of Liberty Store for all of our awesome t-shirts, mugs and hats! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Jeffrey Tucker returns to Finding Freedom. Jeffrey is an economist, author, and founder of the Brownstone Institute. Known for his fearless critiques of government overreach and central planning, Jeffrey has written extensively on economics, technology, and the erosion of liberty. He's a leading voice on the dangers of the administrative state and its impact on liberty. Through his work, he champions decentralization and individual rights. We have a new show on Lions of Liberty! The Politicks Podcast! Be sure to subscribe to the standalone Politicks Podcast feed. This is the absolute best way to support the show! Listen and subscribe on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. And remember, they're all Blood Suckers! Subscribe to John's Finding Freedom Show solo feed to listen to “Pursuit of Freedom,” which is a new podcast series where John shares the highs and lows of his entrepreneurial journey. Listen and Subscribe on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Follow the Lions of Liberty: Twitter Rumble YouTube Instagram Telegram Get access to all of our bonus audio content, livestreams, behind-the-scenes segments and more for as little as $5 per month by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride on Patreon OR support us on Locals! Check out our merchandise at the Lions of Liberty Store for all of our awesome t-shirts, mugs and hats! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Is America approaching the point where peaceful reform is no longer enough? In this powerful episode of The P.A.S. Report Podcast, Professor Nick Giordano responds to a listener's bold question: do the government's abuses rise to the level the Founders warned about? Drawing from the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Founders' own words, Professor Giordano separates policy disagreements from true tyranny. He also explains how we can still fight back using the tools built into the Constitution. From censorship and lawfare to the Chevron ruling and the rise of the Fourth Branch, this episode is a wake-up call for every American who senses something is deeply wrong. Episode Highlights: A listener's powerful question sparks a deep dive into whether America's government abuses justify revolution or demand reform How the Founders defined tyranny, what "a long train of abuses" really means, and how modern examples like the CIA spying on Congress and the Russia hoax measure up Why the Supreme Court's reversal of the Chevron doctrine marks a historic turning point in reining in the unelected Fourth Branch of government
The controversial auto-pen signatures from the Biden administration's final days are finally getting examined. The fellas discuss how these decisions, particularly the pardons for figures like Anthony Fauci, Biden Family members, and Jerry Lundergan, were reportedly made without Biden's direct involvement, despite his team's insistence otherwise. But Hunter got a handwritten one. The deep state left a note. So this is your friendly reminder that the State Department fired employees want you to do your best to ‘resist fascism.' A really wild read from the New York Times by Obama speech writer David Litt sheds light on how the democrats look down on MAGA, and the fellas just can't get enough of this OpEd. ️ Trump approaches foreign policy unlike any other President and it's paying off, just like The Progrum knew it would. PLUS, golf commemorations and Duncan is desperate to gamble on kids playing UNO. 00:00 - It's A Good Week to Be Donald Trump 02:18 - State Department Parting Messages 05:00 - Biden's Auto-Pen Problem 10:00 - True Confessions of Snubbing Your Right-Wing Relatives 17:30 - More Left-Wing Violence 22:00 - Trump's Ukraine Gambit Pays Off 25:00 - Golf Course Marks History and Why We Need to Gamble on UNO Our Sponsors: ➢Want to make a difference in your community? Join AFP's grass-roots efforts at https://afpvolunteer.com/ ➢Beverage America believes in the promise that makes this nation great. Learn more at http://wedeliverforamerica.org/ ➢Crack down on the middlemen and help lower drug prices, go to http://balancethescales.org/ ➢Beverage America believes in the promise that makes this nation great. Learn more at http://wedeliverforamerica.org/ ➢Find out the true power of America's oil and natural gas. Go to https://lightsonenergy.org/
Today on The McCarthy Report, Andy takes the reins for a solo show. In this episode, he dives deep into the administrative state controversy, new ‘Crossfire Hurricane' updates, the Trump administration's odd approach to MS-13, and much more. This podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte.
As the fourth anniversary of the Biden administration's National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism passes, one thing is clear: President Trump must immediately rescind this unconstitutional framework. In this episode of The P.A.S. Report, Professor Nick Giordano how the National Strategy was never about protecting Americans. It created a dangerous system used to silence dissent, target political opponents, and empower unelected bureaucrats. Parents, Catholics, and critics of government overreach were all caught in its crosshairs. With newly declassified documents and Trump back in office, now is the time to dismantle the surveillance state and restore constitutional accountability. This episode breaks it all down and explains why every American, regardless of party, should be alarmed. Episode Highlights How Biden's domestic terror strategy criminalized dissent and violated civil liberties Why President Trump must revoke the Strategy and how he can dismantle the surveillance state The legal gray zone federal agencies exploited to target Americans without oversight
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
