Podcasts about American Progress

From $400 million planes to $300 million ballrooms, from cryptocurrency to just plain… currency, President Donald Trump and his family have profited massively from his return to the White House. According to the Center for American Progress, the Trump family has received nearly $2 billion in cash and gifts since President Trump won the 2024 presidential election. This week, during Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's visit to the White House, the president downplayed his family's dealings in Saudi Arabia, but the reality is that those business ties have grown significantly during his second term. For more on just how much money Trump and his family are making from his return to the Oval Office, we spoke to Andrea Bernstein, podcast host and author of "American Oligarchs: The Kushners, the Trumps, and the Marriage of Money and Power."And in headlines, President Trump threatens Congressional Democrats with violent rhetoric, Customs and Border Patrol prepares more immigration crackdowns in Louisiana and Mississippi, and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani is set to meet with President Trump at the White House.Show Notes:Check out Andrea's book – wwnorton.com/books/american-oligarchsCall Congress – 202-224-3121Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today's Headlines: The House finally voted on releasing the Epstein files, and it was a blowout: 427–1, with Louisiana Republican Clay Higgins as the lone no vote. Speaker Mike Johnson is still trying to get the Senate to redact names (interesting), but survivors held a powerful press conference beforehand urging Trump to stop playing politics and just release the files himself. Meanwhile, the first real accountability domino fell: Larry Summers is stepping back from Harvard and the Center for American Progress over his deep Epstein ties — though OpenAI's board is staying suspiciously quiet about whether he's out there too. Over in the Oval Office, Trump hosted Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman for what was supposed to be a big investment-and-F-35s photo op, but it immediately derailed when reporters asked about Epstein and, awkwardly, MBS's role in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Trump waved that off with a casual “things happen,” then snapped at ABC's Mary Bruce for asking why he hasn't released the Epstein files, calling her a “terrible reporter” and demanding ABC lose its broadcast license. Very normal, very innocent behavior. In foreign policy news, the UK has reportedly stopped sharing intel on drug smuggling boats over concerns about recent U.S. strikes — something Secretary of State Marco Rubio swears is absolutely not happening because “it didn't come up once.” The courts were also busy. A federal judge said the DOJ's case against James Comey may have been tainted by “profound investigative missteps,” another court blocked Texas's new gerrymandered congressional map for 2026 (pending the inevitable SCOTUS appeal), and a bankruptcy judge finally approved a $7 billion Purdue Pharma settlement after six years of legal trench warfare — money that will go to families, governments, hospitals, and tribes devastated by the opioid crisis. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: CNN: Live updates: Trump presidency, Epstein files release heads to House for vote AP News: Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers steps down from public commitments after Epstein emails ABC News: Trump defends Saudi crown prince over Khashoggi killing, threatens ABC News in White House meeting – as it happened | Mohammed bin Salman People: Donald Trump Lashes Out at ABC Reporter over Another Epstein Question, Saying 'Your Crappy Company' Should Lose Its FCC License NBC News: U.K. withholds intelligence on alleged drug boats over U.S. strikes, sources say CNN: Judge says James Comey indictment may be tainted by ‘profound investigative missteps' Democracy Docket: Federal Court Blocks Texas Gerrymander - Democracy Docket Financial Times: Judge rules Purdue Pharma must pay $7bn in bankruptcy settlement Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Good policy is good politics, or so the saying goes. So, uh, how do we agree on what that is? Jane Coaston talks with three of the left's most prominent policy thinkers: Democratic strategist Waleed Shahid, Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress, and writer Matthew Yglesias of Slow Boring. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On this episode of the Chuck ToddCast, Chuck sits down with Adam Jentleson, executive director of the new Searchlight Institute, to talk about how Democrats can build a broader, more durable governing coalition. Jentleson explains why Searchlight is designed to promote ideological diversity within the Democratic Party — and why policies that blend progressive and moderate ideas tend to last longer and win in more places. He warns that Democrats’ electoral path to the presidency and a 60-seat Senate majority is narrowing and argues the party’s best hope lies in economic populism — the same force that powered Trump’s rise but could be reclaimed with a focus on kitchen-table issues and fairness for working Americans. The conversation dives deep into the party’s messaging struggles during the government shutdown, the growing divide between “fight Trump” and “look past Trump” factions, and the need for Democrats to recruit candidates who can win in red and purple states — even if they don’t align perfectly on social issues. Jentleson also offers sharp insights on the filibuster’s evolution from a necessary safeguard to a legislative dead end, and why Democrats need to get more strategic — not louder — if they want to govern effectively and outlast Republican populism. Go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Got injured in an accident? You could be one click away from a claim worth millions. Just visit https://www.forthepeople.com/TODDCAST to start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win! Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Adam Jentleson joins the Chuck ToddCast 01:30 Why choose the name “Searchlight Institute? 02:30 How is Searchlight different from the Center for American Progress? 06:00 Ideologically diverse policies tend to be more durable 08:00 Democrats must embrace ideological diversity to win in red states 11:00 Democrats have to make trade offs to win in more places 12:00 Democrats electoral path to presidency gets more narrow in ‘32 12:45 What does Democrats’ path to 60 senate seats look like? 13:45 Economic populism is a powerful force, it’s why Trump won 15:00 Economic populism beat out Republican orthodoxy 16:15 Populism hasn’t been transferable from Trump, but it’s durable 17:15 This economy is ok if you have money and horrid if not 19:00 The Kerry/Edwards economic policies are what are popular today 19:45 When Democrats succeed it’s on economic ideas 20:15 Is an economic downturn the only path for Dems to win presidency? 22:15 Democrats give Republicans ammo on cultural issues 23:15 Mamdani won by relentlessly focusing on kitchen table issues 24:30 Why weren’t Democrats able to sell their decision to reopen govt 26:15 Congressional leadership & communication are different skills 27:15 No side demanding a major concession in a shutdown got it 28:00 Dems succeeded in driving a message about healthcare 30:30 Divide on left is “look past Trump” or “fight Trump” 32:00 Democrats need to find issues they can run on in every state 33:45 The litmus test for Dems should be can they take back the senate 34:45 The path for Dems to take back the senate 36:15 Dems will have to embrace candidates with different social views 37:00 Gavin Newsom has been winning lately on tactics not policy 38:00 Dem candidates need to be fighters with broadly palatable policy 39:45 Any worries about an insurgent third party? 42:15 A third party candidate could certainly cause Dems to lose 43:45 The filibuster has become a pocket veto 45:45 The filibuster should require work and not be used passively 47:15 The filibuster started as needed reform, now is a problem 49:00 The origin of budget reconciliation 51:45 The judiciary was designed to be non-partisan 53:00 Vote threshold for judges should be higher to avoid partisans 55:30 If you raise the threshold too high there will be judicial backlogs 57:45 Do you see Searchlight as an incubator for policy, tactics or both? 59:00 What does Graham Platner’s staying power say about him? 1:01:00 Democratic aligned groups need to be smarter about their asksSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Chuck ToddCast, Chuck unpacks a tumultuous week for Donald Trump as newly released Epstein emails reignite old scandals — and this time, they may stick. With Speaker Mike Johnson appearing to serve Trump’s interests over his own members, and a worsening economy eroding public patience, Chuck explores whether we’re witnessing the beginning of Trump’s “lame duck” moment. He draws parallels between Trump’s endless stream of controversies, his history of corrupt pardons, and how even “teflon” presidents eventually turn “velcro” when conditions shift. As the cost of living rises and swing voters tune out partisan noise, scandals like Epstein’s are cutting through both sides’ information bubbles — forcing Republicans to reckon with Trump’s baggage. Chuck argues that if Democrats manage a midterm sweep, historians might look back on this very week as the turning point when Trump’s political luck finally began to run out. Then, Chuck sits down with Adam Jentleson, executive director of the new Searchlight Institute, to talk about how Democrats can build a broader, more durable governing coalition. Jentleson explains why Searchlight is designed to promote ideological diversity within the Democratic Party — and why policies that blend progressive and moderate ideas tend to last longer and win in more places. He warns that Democrats’ electoral path to the presidency and a 60-seat Senate majority is narrowing and argues the party’s best hope lies in economic populism — the same force that powered Trump’s rise but could be reclaimed with a focus on kitchen-table issues and fairness for working Americans. The conversation dives deep into the party’s messaging struggles during the government shutdown, the growing divide between “fight Trump” and “look past Trump” factions, and the need for Democrats to recruit candidates who can win in red and purple states — even if they don’t align perfectly on social issues. Jentleson also offers sharp insights on the filibuster’s evolution from a necessary safeguard to a legislative dead end, and why Democrats need to get more strategic — not louder — if they want to govern effectively and outlast Republican populism. Finally, he answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment and breaks down the latest in college football. Go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Got injured in an accident? You could be one click away from a claim worth millions. Just visit https://www.forthepeople.com/TODDCAST to start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win! Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 02:00 New Epstein emails released referencing Trump 03:00 Mike Johnson’s actions are in service to WH, not his members 04:45 Trump has a laundry list of scandals & corrupt pardons, none stuck 07:00 Presidents can go from teflon to velcro 08:30 The bad economy could make Trump less resilient to scandals 10:00 JD Vance tweet demanding Epstein transparency has aged horribly 10:45 Trump’s involvement with Epstein has been baked into public opinion 12:00 High prices and bad economy mean less public patience for Trump 12:45 Every presidency hits their lame duck point, this could be the start 14:00 Winning the midterms for the Democrats means winning the senate 15:15 Trump has treated the party like his casinos, leveraged for his benefit 16:15 Trump is only worried about Trump, not the party or the voters* 17:30 Epstein is one of the only stories that breaks through both sides’ bubble 19:45 You can’t information silo your grocery bill, or the Epstein story 21:00 If Dems sweep midterms, we’ll point to this week as start of lame duck 22:00 By going soft on Ghislaine Maxwell, it just increases suspicion 24:30 Trump would have been better off playing “he said, she said” w/Maxwell 25:45 Stock market booming, but most of the economy is not succeeding 27:00 Trump doesn’t seem well, has aged quite a bit in past six months 29:00 A steady drip of Epstein stories/files will cause R’s to distance 30:30 Trump isn’t doing what he was elected to do, makes him vulnerable 35:45 Adam Jentleson joins the Chuck ToddCast 37:15 Why choose the name “Searchlight Institute? 38:15 How is Searchlight different from the Center for American Progress? 41:45 Ideologically diverse policies tend to be more durable 43:45 Democrats must embrace ideological diversity to win in red states 46:45 Democrats have to make trade offs to win in more places 47:45 Democrats electoral path to presidency gets more narrow in ‘32 48:30 What does Democrats’ path to 60 senate seats look like? 49:30 Economic populism is a powerful force, it’s why Trump won 50:45 Economic populism beat out Republican orthodoxy 52:00 Populism hasn’t been transferable from Trump, but it’s durable 53:00 This economy is ok if you have money and horrid if not 54:45 The Kerry/Edwards economic policies are what are popular today 55:30 When Democrats succeed it’s on economic ideas 56:00 Is an economic downturn the only path for Dems to win presidency? 58:00 Democrats give Republicans ammo on cultural issues 59:00 Mamdani won by relentlessly focusing on kitchen table issues 1:00:15 Why weren’t Democrats able to sell their decision to reopen govt 1:02:00 Congressional leadership & communication are different skills 1:03:00 No side demanding a major concession in a shutdown got it 1:03:45 Dems succeeded in driving a message about healthcare 1:06:15 Divide on left is “look past Trump” or “fight Trump” 1:07:45 Democrats need to find issues they can run on in every state 1:09:30 The litmus test for Dems should be can they take back the senate 1:10:30 The path for Dems to take back the senate 1:12:00 Dems will have to embrace candidates with different social views 1:12:45 Gavin Newsom has been winning lately on tactics not policy 1:13:45 Dem candidates need to be fighters with broadly palatable policy 1:15:30 Any worries about an insurgent third party? 1:18:00 A third party candidate could certainly cause Dems to lose 1:19:30 The filibuster has become a pocket veto 1:21:30 The filibuster should require work and not be used passively 1:23:00 The filibuster started as needed reform, now is a problem 1:24:45 The origin of budget reconciliation 1:27:30 The judiciary was designed to be non-partisan 1:28:45 Vote threshold for judges should be higher to avoid partisans 1:31:15 If you raise the threshold too high there will be judicial backlogs 1:33:30 Do you see Searchlight as an incubator for policy, tactics or both? 1:34:45 What does Graham Platner’s staying power say about him? 1:36:45 Democratic aligned groups need to be smarter about their asks 1:44:45 Chuck’s thoughts on interview with Adam Jentleson 1:45:45 Ask Chuck 1:46:00 Thought’s on Netflix’s Death By Lightning? 1:53:30 Can anything be done in the short term about electricity costs? 2:00:45 What is Trump’s motivation for intervening in Venezuela? 2:06:15 Did NYC Mayoral race show Dems issue with non college voters? 2:12:15 College football committee needs to go 2:19:00 College football previewSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In our final episode, we talk about the future of New York City under Mayor Elect Zohran Mamdani and who he will surround himself with to help him accomplish his vision. We're also joined by Patrick Gaspard, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, former key Obama aide and now key advisor to Mamdani, to talk about this historic moment. — FAQ NYC and Max Politics are teaming up for a limited series, coming to you every Tuesday through November, featuring special guests who will help us dig into the latest in the mayor's race – and what's at stake for New Yorkers. City Hall Free For All is brought to you with generous support from Jamie Rubin and Vital City. This week's episode was hosted by Christina Greer, Katie Honan, Ben Max and Harry Siegel. Our Senior Producer is Giulia Hjort, and Noah Smith is our engineer. Our series consultants are Jess Hackel and Courtney Harrell. Music from Epidemic Sound.

In our final episode, we talk about the future of New York City under Mayor Elect Zohran Mamdani and who he will surround himself with to help him accomplish his vision. We're also joined by Patrick Gaspard, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, former key Obama aide and now key advisor to Mamdani, to talk about this historic moment. — FAQ NYC and Max Politics are teaming up for a limited series, coming to you every Tuesday through November, featuring special guests who will help us dig into the latest in the mayor's race – and what's at stake for New Yorkers. City Hall Free For All is brought to you with generous support from Jamie Rubin and Vital City. This week's episode was hosted by Christina Greer, Katie Honan, Ben Max and Harry Siegel. Our Senior Producer is Giulia Hjort, and Noah Smith is our engineer. Our series consultants are Jess Hackel and Courtney Harrell. Music from Epidemic Sound.

A group of Montana activists is pushing a ballot initiative attacking Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that granted corporations the right to spend unlimited money in politics. While Montana's Republican Attorney General  attempted to block the ballot initiative this week, the fight is far from over. In the third episode of Lever Time's MONEYBOMB series, David Sirota sits down with political strategist Tom Moore from The Center for American Progress. That nonprofit is spearheading the Transparent Election Initiative, Montana's new plan to purge dark money from the state, which could potentially rewrite national politics. Could this effort deal a blow to the corporate takeover of politics? And could it blaze a path for other states to follow? Click here to order our new book, MASTER PLAN: The Hidden Plot to Legalize Corruption in America. To read more of Tom Moore's writing about The Montana Plan, click here. Get ad-free episodes, bonus content and extended interviews by becoming a member at levernews.com/join. To leave a tip for The Lever, click here. It helps us do this kind of independent journalism.

A group of Montana activists is pushing a ballot initiative attacking Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that granted corporations the right to spend unlimited money in politics. While Montana's Republican Attorney General  attempted to block the ballot initiative this week, the fight is far from over.In the third episode of Lever Time's MONEYBOMB series, David Sirota sits down with political strategist Tom Moore from The Center for American Progress. That nonprofit is spearheading the Transparent Election Initiative, Montana's new plan to purge dark money from the state, which could potentially rewrite national politics. Could this effort deal a blow to the corporate takeover of politics? And could it blaze a path for other states to follow?Click here to order our new book, MASTER PLAN: The Hidden Plot to Legalize Corruption in America.To read more of Tom Moore's writing about The Montana Plan, click here.Get ad-free episodes, bonus content and extended interviews by becoming a member at levernews.com/join.To leave a tip for The Lever, click here. It helps us do this kind of independent journalism.

Alexander Soros, The Center for American Progress, and others have a mission to reconstruct America. Let's take a moment to examine their mission and actually pray for them. There's more to learn, so please don't miss this episode of The Public Square®. Topic: Our Mission The Public Square® Long Format with hosts Wayne Shepherd and Dave Zanotti. thepublicsquare.com Release Date: Wednesday, October 29th, 2025

Send us a textVaccines save lives, misinformation spreads fast, and ice cream, believe it or not, might actually be good for you.In this episode of CareTalk, Dr. Zeke Emanuel joins John Driscoll to discuss vaccine myths, public health confusion, and how the healthcare system can communicate science more effectively.

By Walt HickeyWelcome to the Numlock Sunday edition.This week, I spoke to Alyssa Rosenberg, Sunny Bunch and Peter Suderman, the three panelists of the outstanding film podcast Across the Movie Aisle. I really enjoy the show and have been a longtime fan of their individual work.I think that they're a group with genuinely diverse opinions but who have a lot of love for cinema and as a result have some of the most deeply interesting conversations about the art form of any show I listen to. The show just split off from The Bulwark's network and is striking it out independently. Do check them out!This interview has been condensed and edited. Hey, Across the Movie Aisle. Thank you so much for coming on Numlock. I really appreciate it.Absolutely.Thank you for having us.Yes, this is the first three-on-one conversation that I've ever done here, so we're gonna have to juggle a bit. Either way, I am just such a fan of the show. I really, really enjoyed it, subscribed to the Bulwark for it when I heard that you guys were going independent. I was really excited to see what was motivating that, what opportunities you were seeing out there. It's just such a really fun program, and I think it's so unique in the space.Before we get into talking about the movies, do you wanna talk a little bit about where this show came from, where it started, then what you would say your perspective on the film industry is?Sonny: Sure.Alyssa: Who wants to tell the story?Sonny: The origin of the show was back in 2019. I started working for an independent film studio that's based in Dallas, where I live now. I moved here for the job. The pitch was, “it's like Fangoria,” but for action movies and thrillers and heist movies, that sort of thing. And one of the things I wanted to do when we came over was a little podcast network. We were gonna have some shows, some storytelling things, et cetera. And one of the things I had wanted to do for a while (and hadn't really had an outlet for) was a show I had envisioned as like Crossfire or McLaughlin Group or something like that, but by way of movies.So Across the Movie Aisle — I've always shorthanded it as Siskel and Ebert meets Left Right Center. And the idea here is that I am a conservative. I don't know how other people would describe me, but I still think of myself as a center-right person. Alyssa is the center-left person.Peter: Would you even say that you are a neoconservative?Sonny: Well, I'm a neoconservative with libertarian tendencies, which is a funny thing.Peter: “You work at the Weekly Standard,” is a good way to think about your politics? And they basically haven't changed since you worked at The Weekly Standard. Is that fair? That's the long and the short of it.Sonny: Then Peter is whatever Peter is. I'll let him define himself. But the idea here was you have three people with differing political views talking about movies and other stories about movies. The show has two segments. The first is called Controversies and Nontroversies. The second is a review. And the Controversies and Nontroversies segment was initially thought of as we tackle some dumb internet outrage of the day and decide if it's really worth being mad about.And that evolved into something slightly different, right? Right, guys? I feel like it's now more about the business of Hollywood.Alyssa: Yes, exactly. But I think it's worth noting that our story actually starts way before 2019. The three of us were all critics in some respect or other. I was over at ThinkProgress running their culture and sports verticals. Sonny, were you at the Weekly Standard when we started or were you at the Free Beacon then?Sonny: I think I was at the Washington Free Beacon when we met. So it must've been 2012 or 13.Alyssa: The three of us were going to screenings every week and somehow just gravitated towards each other. We would sit together. We were the people who were hanging out and hashing things out together after the screening ended. When I moved to the Washington Post, I ended up bringing Sonny over as a contributor to the blog that I was working on there. They were invited to my wedding. We were authentically contentiously friends years before we started the podcast.I think that's been a little bit of the special sauce for us, right? We are capable of having conversations that are somewhat harder to have elsewhere because (even before we started working together) there were five, six years of trust built up in in-person conversations and discussions over beers at the really terrible bar near the former AMC in Friendship Heights. Nobody is here on this podcast to blow each other up. But it's also not like “We're friends for the camera!”I think the show has always been like both a reflection of our dynamic. It's also the way that we hang out every week, even though Sonny lives in Dallas, and Peter lives in Boston some of the time. So for me, it's like my night out.I mean, as a listener, I really find the appeal to be exactly that. I think that having different perspectives on something as universal as film makes the show super compelling to listen to, even if I don't always necessarily agree with the perspective on it. What makes movies just so good to view from multiple different angles? There are lowercase “c” conservative films, there are lowercase “l” liberal films, that stuff. How do you guys find approaching the current state of the film industry from these different points of view?Peter: Alyssa talked about how our story goes back even before 2019, when the podcast started. And just for people who may not be familiar with the dynamic of Washington that all of us came up in in our 20s, Alyssa was working for ThinkProgress, which was the journalism arm of the Center for American Progress, which is this leading democratic or democratic affiliated think tank. Sonny was working for the Weekly Standard and then for the Washington Free Beacon, these feisty, conservative journalistic outlets.I actually started writing movie reviews for National Review for a couple of years. When I moved over full-time to Reason Magazine, which is where I've been for more than 15 years now, and also to the Washington Times, which is someplace that both Sonny and I wrote for. It's a conservative-leaning paper that has undergone many transformations. If you live in Washington, your social circle and your conversations and your life are so frequently segmented by politics.What we liked about being friends with each other and seeing movies with each other was that we saw that it didn't have to be the case. Movies and art and pop culture, even disagreements about them, were ways that we could come together and maybe not even agree, but like learn about each other. We're really good friends, but we also like each other's minds. This is something that is really important and drew us all together. I have learned a lot about movies from Sonny. I have learned about culture from Alyssa. I don't know if they've learned anything from me. Maybe they've been annoyed about how I'm fine with A.I.Having those perspectives, it's not just that it's like, “Oh, that's nice that you're a little different.” This is a learning opportunity for all of us. It also makes the act of watching movies together much richer. When you're watching the movie, if you're watching it next to Alyssa, I know what she's thinking. Maybe not what I'm thinking, but it's like having another set of eyes. If you're a critic, if you're somebody who likes movies, if you are somebody who likes movies for the social aspect of them, seeing them with somebody else and talking about them afterwards just makes it so much more enjoyable. The fact that we then get to have that conversation in public for an audience that seems to enjoy this is really rewarding.Alyssa: I have a very hard time with certain kinds of violence in movies. But I can sit in a theater with Peter, and he can tell me when I need to cover my eyes, but also when I'm gonna be okay when it's over. And he's always right, right? And that's the thing that we get.Peter: But also when we see the Taylor Swift movie, I show up, and Alyssa has friendship bracelets for us. Everybody's bringing something to the party here.Alyssa: Peter, you joked about whether or not we've gotten anything from you. And I actually think that in some ways, I'm the one of us whose politics and aesthetics have changed most as a result of doing the show with both of you. I came up in an era of lefty cultural criticism when there were real incentives for tearing things apart. And I think I, in some ways early in my career, helped advance a fairly doctrinaire vision of what political conversations about art should be. And I have some regrets about some of the things that I wrote and some non-regrets too. I did a lot of work at that point in my career that I liked a lot.But one of the things I've come to believe in my conversation with these guys is that art is at its most politically powerful not when it affirms an agenda or a worldview that is defined by a political movement, but it is at its most powerful and interesting when it creates space for conversations that are not possible in conventional political formats and political venues. I think the unpredictability of movies and the inability to shove movies neatly into a partisan schema is where their power comes from.It is not in being subordinate to an agenda, but in opening the space for new possibilities. And I think that having a space to come to that conclusion made me a better critic and a better person. Maybe less employable as someone who writes about this stuff full-time in a predictable way. But I really enjoy seeing the world through the lenses that Peter and Sonny helped me apply to all of this.Peter: And just to underline that really quickly, a little bit more. One of the things that brings all of us together is that we are all three people who moved to Washington to work in political journalism, to work in discourse about politics. We have very strongly held beliefs. At the same time, I think all three of us come to movies, to art and to culture thinking, “You know what, you can make good art. You can make a great movie that maybe I find doesn't in any way align with my beliefs, right?” It has nothing to do with my political world or is even critical of my political worldview, but it's still a great movie.And this is a thing that you see very rarely in Washington and political discussions of art and film, but also in criticism. You have so much criticism that is out there, especially in the movie criticism world, that is just straightforwardly, politically determined. I don't think that that is the best way to approach art and to live a life that is about art because. Of course, it engages with politics. And of course you have to talk about that. And of course, you have to deal with that, but it's not just politics. If what you want from a movie is for it to be an op-ed, then what you want isn't a movie, it's an op-ed.I think that's really interesting. And actually, let's dive into that real quick. We'll go around the horn, perhaps. Peter, you brought it up. What is an example of a film or a piece of media that maybe either subverts or goes upstream compared to your personal politics that you nevertheless enjoyed? Or you, nevertheless, in spite of where you were coming from on that, really tended to like?Peter: So we all had mixed reactions to Paul Anderson's, P.T. Anderson's One Battle After Another, which is quite a political film, just came out. All of us thought that on a micro level, scene by scene, as a piece of filmmaking, it's genius. But on a macro level, its big ideas are kind of a mess. I go back to another Paul Anderson film from the aughts, There Will Be Blood, which is fairly critical of capitalism and of the capitalist tendencies that are deeply rooted in America. And it's not just a polemic, just an op-ed. It's not something that you can sum up in a tweet. It is quite a complex film in so many ways. And I'm a capitalist. I am a libertarian. I am a markets guy. And it is, I love that movie.Sonny and I frequently have arguments over whether There Will Be Blood is the first or second best movie of the last 25 years or so. Sonny thinks it's maybe the best. I think it's the second best. This is a movie that I think offers a deep critique of my ideology and my political worldview. But it is so profound on an artistic character narrative, just deep engagement level. I could talk about it for a long time. It's a movie I really love that doesn't support what I believe about politics in the world.Yeah, Sonny, how about you?Sonny: Bernardo Bertolucci's The Last Emperor is commie agitprop, but it's also very good. It's one of those movies where the lesson of the movie is literally “The elite overclass needs to be taught how to pee correctly in a bucket, so as not to annoy the normals.” But it's a beautiful movie, including the bucket. You don't have to agree with a film's politics to recognize that it is a great movie. It certainly doesn't hurt. I flipped through my rankings, and a lot of it does line up.But another one is JFK. Oliver Stone's JFK is a movie that is nonsense as history. If you look at it as a history text, you are reading the film wrong. What it excels at and the way that it is great is that it's the absolute perfect distillation of sitting next to an insane conspiracy theorist and hearing them ramble. The way that Oliver Stone edits together all of these disparate ideas — the way he edits is like hearing a conspiracy theorist talk.The way a conspiracy theorist talks is that they overwhelm you with information. They will just throw out random things and be like, “And this is connected to this, and this is connected to this.” And you are not able to actually judge these things because you have no idea really what they're talking about. You're not steeped in this stuff like they are, but it all sounds right. And all of a sudden, yeah, I believe that the military industrial complex murdered JFK at the behest of a fascist homosexual conspiracy, which is just another amusing little element to JFK by Oliver Stone.Those would be two examples, I would say.I love that. Alyssa, how about you?Alyssa: I would say Dirty Harry. I did a huge project about 10 years ago on depictions of the police in pop culture. And the ways in which law enforcement, as an industry, has actually really shaped their depictions on film. And look, I don't think the police always get everything right. And I think that shooting people is not a viable solution to a crime, especially without a trial. But God damn, does Clint Eastwood make like a sweater and a blazer and a real big gun look awesome, right?Sonny: Those are things that look awesome. Of course, they look awesome on Clint Eastwood.Alyssa: Of course, they look awesome, but they look especially awesome on Clint Eastwood. And they look even more awesome when he's shooting a crazed hippie who has commandeered a busSonny: Full of children.Alyssa: Yes, a bus full of children. The evil hippie deserves to get shot, and Clint Eastwood is the man to set things right. The thing about aesthetics is that they can get you to set aside your politics momentarily in a theoretical way. But I also think that good movies can get you access to spaces and mindsets that you might not have access to otherwise.When you asked that question, the movie that I immediately thought of, not necessarily of challenging my politics, but like bringing me a place I can't go, is Alex Garland's Warfare from earlier this year. It is one of the best movies I've seen this year. And also a movie about (both as a social and cultural environment) an all-male combat unit in the US military and a situation (the war in Iraq) that I have no access to. I cannot go there. My being in the space would fundamentally transform the space. And that opening sequence with this platoon watching this music video in a weird, sexualized group bonding ritual, I just found fascinating and oddly touching in a way that I think is interesting to watch, especially if you're steeped in left-leaning critiques of traditional masculinity in all-male spaces.And I found that movie, despite how harrowing it was, kind of beautiful and tender to watch in a way. And I just felt very grateful for it.Awesome. Yeah, again, I really appreciate how much thought goes into viewing not only movies as cultural entities, but also their space in politics, but also how the culture can overwhelm that. I really think that you guys have such fun takes on this. I wanna back out a little bit and talk a little bit about this year and this moment. I think one thing I really enjoy about your show is that it's obvious how much you guys really enjoy going to the movies, enjoy consuming this stuff. I know that there's a lot of fairly understandable doom and gloom sometimes around the movie industry, around the exhibition industry. A lot of that, I think, comes from some of the more industry side of things and infects the viewing public's view.I'll just throw it to you. What is a trend or something going on these days within movies or Hollywood that you actually think is a good thing, that you're actually enjoying? Or a transitional moment that you think could be fun? I guess, Sunny, I'll start off with you. I don't know.Sonny: That's a hard question to answer because everything is bad right now.Alyssa: To be clear, this is Sonny's default position about all eras and all things. All things.Peter: He's a cheerful man.Sonny: All things, really. No, everything is bad. But if I were looking at a few green shoots, I like the rise of the draft house style theater, a combination of dining, bar, movie space. I know some people have issues with the waiters scurrying back and forth. And it's not my real cup of tea either, but that's all right. You mentioned this question right before we started taping. I was trying to sketch something out, so I didn't have nothing.But I do think the rise of the boutique Blu-ray and 4K UHD retailers has been a good thing. I don't know that it's enough to save physical media in the film context, but the rise of your Vinegar Syndromes. Criterion, of course, is the longest player in this space, and they've been doing it since the days of Laserdisc. They're very good at what they do, and they have a great catalog.But even smaller places, like your Vinegar Syndromes or your Shout Factory and your Scream Factory. The studios themselves are getting into it. Lionsgate has their Lionsgate limited thing that they do, which is just sucking money out of my pockets. A24 has also been good in this space. I like the idea that there is a small but committed cadre of collectors out there. And it's not just ownership for the sake of ownership. It's not the high fidelity, “the things you own matter. So you should show them off so everybody can see them and see how cool you are” kind of thing. There are actual quality differences to having a disc as opposed to a streaming service, which always come in at lower bit rates, and they look and sound worse.But this is so niche. Very few people who collect this stuff (Blu-rays, 4Ks, et cetera) really understand how niche they are.If you look at the monthly pie chart of sales of discs every month, it's still 50 percent DVD, 20 percent to 25 percent Blu-ray, and then 25 percent to 30 percent 4K, depending on what's out at any given time. But 50 percent of discs are still being bought by people browsing Walmart shelves, like “Ooh, I'll watch this new movie for $5. Sure, why not?”Yeah, having something for the sickos is always something viable, right? Peter, I'll throw it to you.Peter: So, on this podcast, I have probably been the biggest MCU, Marvel Movie Universe booster. What I think is a good thing that is happening right now is that the MCU is in a decline, or at least a reset period. It's not overwhelming Hollywood in the way that it was throughout the 2010s. It's hurting theaters and exhibition because those movies are not performing the way they used to, and that's a downside for real.But what it is doing is creating a space for young filmmakers and for young acting talent to rise up without having to immediately be sucked into the MCU or something comparable, like the DC movies that were trying to start up and never really got going. Now they've rebooted the DC universe with the James Gunn Superman film. But, it really felt like in the 2010s, anyone who was in their 20s or 30s and was a really promising actor or a really promising director was gonna make one or two movies. And then they were gonna get sucked into the Marvel or maybe the Star Wars machine, one of these big franchise things.It wasn't like even 25 years ago when Sam Raimi was making Spider-Man films, and they were very distinctly Sam Raimi films. I mean, you watch the Dr. Octopus POV sequence in Spider-Man 2, and it's the same thing he was doing in Evil Dead, except he had $150 million to make that movie, right?These weren't even altruistic superhero films. They were just being brought in to lend their names a small amount of flavor to whatever it was they were doing. And now, in an era in which the MCU is not gone, but is diminished, a lot of acting talent and a lot of directing talent are going to be free to spend that formative period of third, fourth, fifth, sixth movies to make the things that they wanna make and to experiment.Like I said, this does have downsides. This is not great for theatrical exhibitors who are suffering right now because there are fewer movies and because the big movies are not as big. But in that space, you get the opportunity to try new things. And I love seeing new things, and I love watching new talent develop.That is cool. I like that. Alyssa?Alyssa: I'm glad you said that, Peter, because what I was gonna say is I am delighted to see some of the directors who did time in the MCU or other franchises coming back and making original movies. Obviously, Sinners is one of the big success stories of the year. It's also a success story because Ryan Coogler is not only making franchise movies.I saw Seeing Fruitvale, which turned Fruitvale Station, at the Sundance Film Festival. It was like a seminal moment for me early in my career as a critic. I was like, “Holy God, this guy is great.” Even though I like what he did with the Rocky movies and I like the first Black Panther, I just felt this sense of profound regret for him getting diverted from telling these original stories. I'm really excited for Chloe Zhao's Hamnet. I expect to be emotionally incapacitated by that movie. Honestly, it is great for people who love movies that Immortals was just such a disaster.Peter: Eternals.Sonny: Eternals, that's how good it is we can't even remember the title.Alyssa: Yes, Destin Daniel Cretton is working on a Shang-Chi sequel, but he is also collaborating with Ryan Coogler on a project that I think is drawn from their childhoods.Sonny: He's directing a new Spider-Man movie right now.Alyssa: But there's other stuff coming. There's the possibility of life outside franchises. And, I'm excited to see what some of these folks do when they're not in front of a green screen and when they're telling stories about actual human beings. I am excited to just see more movies like Weapons, like Materialists, coming from younger directors who are still figuring things out, but have interesting things to say. And this year, at least, appears to be able to do okay at the box office.I love that. People are recovering from their exile in Atlanta and have a chance to make some cool movies. You guys have been so generous with your time. I do want to just finish on one last note: where do you assess Hollywood's position within the world to be?Obviously, in the States, they've had a lot of pressure from things like TikTok coming from below, things like the federal government coming from above. But even internationally and geopolitically, you've seen international players start to compete with Hollywood at the Oscars. For instance, in Best Animated Film last year, as well as some big markets shutting down for them, like China is not really doing anything. From a political perspective, where do you assess the state of Hollywood right now?Peter: From a political perspective, I think Hollywood is going to start producing movies that read less overtly liberal, less conventionally left-leaning. I think we're already seeing some of that. I don't mean that Hollywood is suddenly going to be MAGA, that it's suddenly gonna be like reading Buckley's National Review or anything like that. I just mean that at the margins, you're gonna see more movies that don't toe the line in the way that you saw movies before. There was a moment, especially right before and right after the pandemic, where it really felt like too many movies were towing a very predictable left-of-center political line. And it was obvious and there was no nuance to it.Again, I do not oppose movies that may have a different worldview than mine, but it felt like they were running scared in a lot of cases. I mean, in sports, if your team is behind, that's the time when you try new stuff. You don't use the same strategy if you are losing. Hollywood's losing right now. They're losing economically and they're losing as a cultural force. While that's in some ways not great for the art form, that is going to be good for experimentation. And that's gonna be formal and craft experimentation. That's going to be talent. We're going to see new and interesting people. And that's also going to be ideas both for stories and for politics and ideology.Sonny: A big question is what happens with the retrenchment of the global box office? Because I do think, for a long time, you could count on basically two-thirds of the box office of a major Hollywood release coming overseas and one-third coming domestically. And those numbers have, in some cases, inverted. It's closer to 50/50 for more of them. It's not universally true. F1 did more business overseas than domestically, which you might expect for something that's based on F1 racing. But the big question is what happens if the rest of the world is like, “We're not that interested in the big Hollywood blockbuster stuff that we have been eating up for the last 15 or 20 years”?This goes hand in hand with Alyssa's point about originals. That's probably a good thing, honestly. It's probably a good thing to get away from the theory of the movie industry being like, “We need to make things that appeal despite language barriers.” Language matters; words matter. And tailoring your words to the correct audience matters. American movie studio should tailor their stuff to American audiences.Alyssa: And also getting away from the idea of appealing to the Chinese censors who controlled which American movies got access to Chinese markets, which was not the same thing as appealing to Chinese audiences. But yeah, I totally agree.My father-in-law works in the foreign exchange industry, and he said something that I've been thinking about a lot. They're just seeing real declines in people who want to come here or feel comfortable coming here. Until July, I was the letters editor at The Washington Post, and it was astonishing to me just how much rage Canadians were feeling towards the United States. I don't know that these will translate into a rejection of American movies. American culture exports have been unbelievably strong for a long time.But I do see an opening for Korean pop culture, which has already been very popular abroad. I think there's a real chance that we will see a rejection of American culture in some ways. And, it will take Hollywood a while to respond to that. It always lags a little bit. But I do think it would be very interesting to see what more aggressively American movies look like. And I think that could take many forms.But scale is in many ways the enemy of interestingness. If there is not and opportunity to turn everything into a two billion dollar movie because you sell it overseas, what stories do you tell? What actors do you put on screen? What voices do you elevate? And I think the answers to those questions could be really interesting.Peter: I agree with all of this in the sense that I think it will be good for the art form, like I have been saying. But there's a cost to this that all of us should recognize. When budgets get smaller and the market shrinks, that is going to be bad for people who work in the industry. And in particular, it's going to be rough for the below-the-line talent, the people whose names you see at the end credits — when these credits now scroll for 10 minutes after a Marvel movie because they have employed hundreds, maybe even a thousand people.And there was a story in The Wall Street Journal just this summer. You mentioned the time in Atlanta about how Marvel has moved most of its production out of Atlanta. There are people there who had built lives, bought houses, had earned pretty good middle-class incomes, but weren't superstars by any means. Now they don't know what to do because they thought they were living in Hollywood East, and suddenly, Hollywood East doesn't exist anymore.We may be in a position where Hollywood West, as we have long know it, L.A., the film center, also doesn't exist anymore, at least or at least as much smaller, much less important and much less central to filmmaking than it has been for the last nearly 100 years. And again, as a critic, I like the new stuff. I often like the smaller stuff. I'm an American; I want movies made for me. But also, these are people with jobs and livelihoods, and it is going to be hard for them in many cases.Sonny: Oh, I'm glad to see the A.I. King over here take the side of the little guy who's losing out on his on his livelihood.Peter: I think A.I. is going to help the little guy. Small creators are going to have a leg up because of it.Sonny: Sure.All right. Well, I love some of those thoughts, love some of those lessons. Publicly traded companies are famously risk-taking, so we're going to be fine, definitely. Either way, I really do love the show. I really, really enjoy it. I think it's one of the best discussion shows, chat shows about any movie podcast out there. It is really, really fun. It is very cool to see you guys go independent.I just want to throw it to you a little bit. What is your pitch? What is the show? Where can they find it? What's the best way to support it? And where can they find you all?Sonny: The show's a lot like this, like what you just listened to.Alyssa: Peter has developed this catchphrase when Sonny asked him how he's doing to kick off the show, and he always says that he's excited to be talking about movies with friends. We want to be your movie friends. You should come hang out with us. Hopefully, we will be going live a little bit more, maybe meeting up in person some. I will hopefully be doing some writing for our sub stack, if you have missed my blatherings about movies and movie trends.But yeah, come hang out with us every week. We're fun.Sonny: Movieaisle.substack.com. That's where you should go. You should I'm I'm I'm sure I'm sure there will be a link to it or something. Movieaisle.substack.com is where it lives now. We'll have a proper URL at some point.Terrific. And wherever you get your podcasts?Sonny: And wherever you get your podcasts!That's great. Peter, Alyssa, Sonny, thank you so much. This is really, really fun. Again, I really dig the show so much. I'm very, very happy for you guys being able to spring out independent. So really, thanks for coming on.Edited by Crystal WangIf you have anything you'd like to see in this Sunday special, shoot me an email. Comment below! Thanks for reading, and thanks so much for supporting Numlock.Thank you so much for becoming a paid subscriber! Send links to me on Twitter at @WaltHickey or email me with numbers, tips or feedback at walt@numlock.news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.numlock.com/subscribe

Emily Bazelon talks with Yale law professor John Witt about his new book The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America. They explore the remarkable story of the Garland Fund—a small 1920s foundation that bankrolled early work by A. Philip Randolph, and others who would go on to shape the civil rights and labor movements. Witt traces how the fund connected race and class politics, supported the intellectual groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education, and anticipated today's challenges around misinformation, inequality, and political disconnection. He and Bazelon also discuss what lessons progressives might take from this forgotten story of organizing during political exile. Tweet us your questions @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages could be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Emily Bazelon talks with Yale law professor John Witt about his new book The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America. They explore the remarkable story of the Garland Fund—a small 1920s foundation that bankrolled early work by A. Philip Randolph, and others who would go on to shape the civil rights and labor movements. Witt traces how the fund connected race and class politics, supported the intellectual groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education, and anticipated today's challenges around misinformation, inequality, and political disconnection. He and Bazelon also discuss what lessons progressives might take from this forgotten story of organizing during political exile. Tweet us your questions @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages could be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Emily Bazelon talks with Yale law professor John Witt about his new book The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America. They explore the remarkable story of the Garland Fund—a small 1920s foundation that bankrolled early work by A. Philip Randolph, and others who would go on to shape the civil rights and labor movements. Witt traces how the fund connected race and class politics, supported the intellectual groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education, and anticipated today's challenges around misinformation, inequality, and political disconnection. He and Bazelon also discuss what lessons progressives might take from this forgotten story of organizing during political exile. Tweet us your questions @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages could be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Emily Bazelon talks with Yale law professor John Witt about his new book The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America. They explore the remarkable story of the Garland Fund—a small 1920s foundation that bankrolled early work by A. Philip Randolph, and others who would go on to shape the civil rights and labor movements. Witt traces how the fund connected race and class politics, supported the intellectual groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education, and anticipated today's challenges around misinformation, inequality, and political disconnection. He and Bazelon also discuss what lessons progressives might take from this forgotten story of organizing during political exile. Tweet us your questions @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages could be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Nuremberg ExecutionsOn October 16, 1946, ten prominent Nazi war criminals were executed by hanging in the aftermath of the landmark Nuremberg Trials, held to prosecute key figures of the Third Reich for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against peace. The executions marked the culmination of months of legal proceedings conducted by an international military tribunal composed of judges from the Allied powers: the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and France. Among those hanged was Joachim von Ribbentrop, Hitler's former Foreign Minister, convicted for his role in orchestrating Nazi foreign policy and enabling the Holocaust.The trials had concluded in late September 1946, with 12 of the 22 main defendants receiving death sentences. However, Hermann Göring, one of the most high-profile defendants and head of the Luftwaffe, committed suicide by cyanide just hours before his scheduled execution. The hangings took place inside the gymnasium of the Nuremberg Palace of Justice, where the tribunal had convened, and were carried out in the early morning hours.The executions were overseen by U.S. Army personnel, and steps were taken to document them for historical record. The event was viewed by many as a pivotal moment in the establishment of international criminal law, affirming that individuals—even heads of state and high-ranking officials—could be held personally accountable for war atrocities. These proceedings laid the groundwork for future tribunals, including those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.Some criticized the process as “victor's justice,” pointing to perceived inconsistencies in sentencing and legal procedures. Nevertheless, the trials represented a significant shift from the post-World War I approach, which had failed to adequately prosecute war crimes. The executions on October 16 symbolized not only the end of an era of unchecked totalitarian violence but also the beginning of a new international legal order based on accountability and the rule of law.A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked the Trump administration's latest wave of federal layoffs, calling the move likely “illegal and in excess of authority.” In a sharply worded order, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston halted terminations that began last week, siding with a coalition of federal worker unions. Illston criticized the administration's approach as “ready, fire, aim” and warned that the human cost of such abrupt cuts is unacceptable.The layoffs—over 4,100 in total—targeted several federal agencies, with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Treasury seeing the bulk of cuts. Judge Illston's order requires the administration to report all completed and planned layoffs by Friday and set a hearing for a preliminary injunction on October 28. She also rejected the Department of Justice's attempt to steer the case toward procedural issues, stating that the legal merits were too concerning to ignore.President Trump has framed the cuts as politically motivated, stating they were aimed at eliminating programs he called “egregious socialist, semi-communist.” He added that Republican-backed programs would be spared. The administration recently lifted a long-standing hiring freeze but is now requiring agencies to submit staffing plans for approval.Union plaintiffs argue that the layoffs violate the Antideficiency Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, citing the administration's use of the government shutdown as an arbitrary justification. This case, AFGE v. OMB, marks another legal confrontation over workforce reductions, following an earlier freeze issued by Judge Illston that was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court.Trump's Shutdown-Linked Layoffs Paused by California Judge (4)The 2026 U.S. law school admissions cycle is off to an intense start, with applications up 33% compared to this time last year, according to new data from the Law School Admission Council. This surge follows last year's admissions boom and signals another highly competitive year for aspiring law students. Admissions consultant Mike Spivey noted he's never seen such a sharp early increase in over two decades of reviewing application data, predicting a likely total rise of around 20% once the cycle concludes.Several factors are driving the spike, including a tough job market for recent college graduates—whose unemployment rate now surpasses that of the broader labor force—and growing political instability. Law School Admission Council President Sudha Setty also cited concerns about the impact of AI and broader economic uncertainty as motivators for many applicants. Additionally, more people are taking the LSAT this year, up nearly 22% over 2025 levels.A recent Kaplan survey found 56% of law school admissions officers pointed to politics as a major factor behind last year's surge, with 90% expecting this cycle to be just as competitive, if not more so. Some applicants are likely reapplying after being rejected last year, or returning after delaying applications due to last year's high volume. While law schools will benefit from a deeper pool of candidates, Spivey warned the sharp increase means tougher odds for acceptance across the board.US law school applicants increase 33%, boosting competition | ReutersPresident Donald Trump's decision to fund military pay during the ongoing government shutdown is only a short-term solution, according to House Speaker Mike Johnson. On Wednesday, Johnson confirmed that 1.3 million active-duty service members, along with tens of thousands of National Guard and reservists, were paid using $6.5 billion in unused military research and development funds. However, he warned that unless Democrats act to reopen the government, troops are unlikely to receive their next paycheck on October 31.The White House has not explained its legal rationale for this funding maneuver, and it hasn't requested the required congressional approvals to shift funds between accounts. Federal law caps such transfers at $8 billion annually and only allows them if the funds are used for their legally designated purposes. Without further funding authority, it's unclear how the administration could cover future military pay. While many lawmakers support a standalone bill to guarantee troop pay, Republican leaders—including Johnson and Senate Majority Whip John Thune—are resisting that option. They argue that doing so would reduce pressure to end the shutdown overall.Some Republicans, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski, say the move has reduced urgency in Congress while leaving other federal workers unpaid. The political optics are further complicated by Trump's claim that only Democrat-backed programs are being cut, as he seeks to frame the issue as partisan. Internally, GOP leaders worry that passing targeted funding bills could open the door to broader demands for agency-by-agency funding relief, weakening their leverage in shutdown negotiations.By way of brief background, the move likely violates the Antideficiency Act (ADA), which bars federal officials from spending money before or beyond congressional appropriations. Trump reportedly ordered the Department of Defense to divert funds from the RDT&E account—meant for weapons research—to cover military payroll. That account is not legally authorized for such use, and the funds may have also exceeded their availability period.This raises two major legal issues. First, under the Appropriations Clause (Article I, § 9, cl. 7), only Congress may authorize government spending. The president cannot repurpose funds without specific legislative approval. Second, the ADA prohibits both misappropriation of purpose (spending money on unauthorized functions) and misappropriation of timing (using expired funds). If proven willful, such violations can carry criminal penalties, though prosecutions are rare.Beyond the legal breach, this act could set a dangerous precedent. If courts decline to intervene, it could signal that future presidents—regardless of party—can redirect federal funds without congressional consent. This would erode legislative power and potentially turn the presidency into a de facto appropriations authority, undermining the Constitution's separation of powers.Special thanks to Bobby Kogan, the Senior Director of Federal Budget Policy for the Center for American Progress, for his instructive Bluesky post explaining the deficiency issue in a way much clearer and more succinctly than I otherwise would have been able to.Trump's troop pay move is a ‘temporary fix,' Johnson says - Live Updates - POLITICOPost by @did:plc:drfb2pdjlnsqkfgsoellcahm — BlueskyA piece I wrote for Forbes this week looks at how Norway is showing the rest of the world how to end EV subsidies without wrecking the market. The country announced in its latest budget that it will phase out its long-standing value-added tax (VAT) exemption for electric vehicles—partially in 2026, and fully by 2027. This might seem like a policy retreat, but the timing is deliberate: EVs now make up 95–98% of new car sales in Norway. The market has matured, and the subsidy is no longer essential.I argue that this is what smart policy looks like—temporary support that steps aside when it's no longer needed. The U.S., by contrast, killed its federal EV tax credit abruptly and politically, without phasing it out or adapting it for current market conditions. In doing so, it treated the credit as a political symbol rather than a market tool. Norway, on the other hand, used the exemption strategically, aligning it with broader policy goals and allowing it to sunset once those goals were met.The piece highlights how the U.S. often fears both removing and maintaining subsidies, caught in a cycle where incentives become political footballs. Norway's approach offers a model for how to responsibly end subsidies: gradually, rationally, and only once the market no longer needs them. This isn't anti-EV or anti-climate policy—it's a sign that the original policy worked.Norway Shows How To End EV Subsidies Without Killing The Market This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of Occupied Thoughts, FMEP Fellow Ahmed Moor speaks with Matt Duss, Executive Vice-President at the Center for International Policy and former foreign policy advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders. They discuss the Israeli genocide in Gaza and the new ceasefire; changes in public assessments of Israel's standing in the U.S. and political relationships with Israel, including changing relationships with Israel among prominent Trump supporters as well as Bernie Sanders's late recognition of genocide; and what accountability looks like for the genocide, including for members of the Biden administration. Matthew Duss is Executive Vice-President at the Center for International Policy. Before joining CIP, Duss was a visiting scholar in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. From 2017-22, Duss was foreign policy advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt). From 2014-17, Duss was the president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. From 2008-14 Duss was a National Security and International Policy analyst at the Center for American Progress. Ahmed Moor is a Palestinian-American writer born in Gaza and a 2025 Fellow at FMEP. He is an advisory board member of the US Campaign for Palestinian rights, co-editor of After Zionism (Saqi Books) and is currently writing a book about Palestine. He also currently serves on the board of the Independence Media Foundation. His work has been published in The Guardian, The London Review of Books, The Nation, and elsewhere. He earned a BA at the University of Pennsylvania and an MPP at Harvard University. Original music by Jalal Yaquoub.

There's a serious high-stakes policy fight at the heart of this.The Democrats didn't pick a fight over authoritarianism or tariffs or masked immigration agents in the streets. They picked one over health care. And the issue here is very real. Huge health insurance subsidies passed under President Joe Biden are set to expire at the end of this year, threatening to make health care premiums skyrocket and kick millions off their insurance.Neera Tanden was one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act and has worked in Democratic policymaking for decades. She is the president of the Center for American Progress and was a director of Biden's Domestic Policy Council. I asked her on the show to lay out the policy stakes of the shutdown and what a deal might look like.Mentioned:KFF Health Tracking PollThe Time Tax by Annie LowreyOne Big Beautiful Bill ActBook Recommendations:Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. RobinsonThe Sirens' Call by Chris HayesEnd Times by Peter TurchinThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.This episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by Rollin Hu. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris and Kate Sinclair. Our senior engineer is Jeff Geld, with additional mixing by Aman Sahota. Our executive producer is Claire Gordon. The show's production team also includes Marie Cascione, Annie Galvin, Kristin Lin, Jack McCordick, Marina King and Jan Kobal. Original music by Pat McCusker. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The director of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

Welcome to The Zenergy Podcast! Today, Karan has the absolute pleasure of speaking with John Podesta. Mr. Podesta has had an immensely impactful career in government. He has been the Chair of Hillary for America; Counselor to President Obama; Chief of Staff to President Clinton; Senior Adviser to President Biden for Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation, and much more. He is also the Founder of the Center for American Progress. Today, they discuss his journey into energy and politics, inflection moments working with President Clinton, President Obama, and President Biden, how future administrations could structure energy and climate policy to make it more resilient, and so much more. This is such an insightful episode, and we would love it if you would share it with anyone who you think might enjoy listening. Thank you, as always, for tuning in! Credits:Editing/Graphics: Desta Wondirad, Wondir Studios

Turkish President Erdogan finally made his way back into the White House last week, meeting with President Trump as issues like the F-35s, the lifting of CAATSA sanctions, and Turkey's purchase of Russian oil topped the list. Alan Makovsky, a senior fellow for the Center for American Progress and an expert on Turkey and US foreign policy, joins Thanos Davelis as we break down whether we're seeing the revival of a bromance between the two leaders, and look at what this means for key issues like the sale of F-35s.You can read the articles we discuss on our podcast here:Trump urges Turkey to stop buying Russian oil as Erdogan chases deal on F-35sErdogan hails 'meaningful progress' in his talks with TrumpLabor market opens up to refugeesPM urges Turkey to lift war threat

Executive actions, budget cuts, layoffs, and legislation—all within the first six months of the Trump administration—have severely curtailed disability rights and services, including access to Medicaid and the right to a free, appropriate public education. That's the finding of a recent report by the Center for American Progress, authored by Casey Doherty and Mia Ives-Rublee—who will be our live guests on Pushing Limits this week. Co-producer and host Eddie Ytuarte comments: “The Trump regime is as intent on going after the disability community as it is on targeting non-White communities, universities, immigrants, and politically progressive people and organizations.” Don't miss the rest of this important report reveal and discussion. This program is produced and hosted by Eddie Ytuarte. The post First Six Months – Lasting Damage – Pushing Limits – September 19, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.

For decades, rural Oregon counties that contain large swaths of federally owned forest land have depended on a share of timber revenues from federal logging to fund schools, law enforcement and other essential public services. These payments were originally meant to offset the loss of property tax revenue that counties could not collect on federal lands. But when logging on these lands slowed drastically in the 1990s due to new environmental protections — like the Endangered Species Act — those payments plummeted.    In response, Congress stepped in with a temporary fix: the Secure Rural Schools Program. First passed in 2000, Congress reauthorized it multiple times over the years until it allowed it to expire in 2023. Congress which it enacted in 2000 and reauthorized multiple times until it expired in 2023. The lapse in the SRS reauthorization has triggered the default distribution of the significantly reduced timber revenue to counties.    The federal budget process has introduced new complications as well. President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was signed into law in July, requires federal agencies to ramp up logging. But it also includes a provision redirecting all proceeds from timber sales on lands in counties to the federal government — threatening one of the last fiscal lifelines for rural governments to fund its core services.   With counties facing budgeting shortfalls that carry big consequences, questions about how to create a long-term sustainable path forward have taken on new urgency. Lane County Commissioner Heather Buch and Klamath County Commissioner Derrick DeGroot — whose counties receive the second- and third-highest federal payments in Oregon after Douglas County — join us, along with Mark Haggerty, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning thinktank Center for American Progress to talk about the challenges Oregon’s rural counties face and what a stable funding model for these counties might look like.   Curry County Commissioner Jay Trost declined to participate in the conversation but provided OPB with a statement:  Curry County has the second lowest property tax rate in Oregon at .59 per thousand of assessed value and like most Oregon Counties, we have not been able to keep up with the inflation over the past 4 years.  We had to endure a 31% reduction in the county budget for the 24/25 fiscal year, we were able to maintain that with no further budget reductions in the 25/26 budget because of timber revenues that came in and covered the annual employee role up costs.  These O&C timber funds allowed us to remain fairly status quo in terms of service delivery.  Going forward if those funds are not made available to us, we will most likely see more reductions in county services.  We are working diligently to think outside the box, identify alternative solutions that will maximize each dollar and become more efficient. These efforts will help and are necessary, however the reality remains the same, if we don’t receive timber revenues, and or PILT (payment in lieu of taxes)  payments we will have to make cuts.  We remain confident that the federal legislature will correct the language needed to ensure that counties like ours that rely on natural resources revenue will not be negatively impacted.    

Bruce Klopfleisch was joined by Greta Bedekovics, associate director of Democracy at the Center for American Progress. They talk about how CAP has changed their guidance for states with independent redistricting commissions in response to Republican gerrymandering.

In this episode Dominic Bowen and Professor Kimberly Clausing examine the return of tariffs to the centre of U.S. economic strategy and the risks this shift creates for the global economy. Find out more about how protectionism and populism are reshaping U.S. trade policy, why tariffs act as a hidden tax on consumers and small businesses, the political dynamics driving short-term wins over long-term stability, the impact on supply chains and export industries such as higher education, tourism, and technology, the risks of corruption and rent-seeking in tariff exemptions, and how international trust in the United States is being tested as allies confront unpredictable economic behaviour, and more.Professor Kimberly Clausing holds the Eric M. Zolt Chair in Tax Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law. Professor Clausing is also a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. During the first part of the Biden Administration, Clausing was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Analysis in the US Department of the Treasury, serving as the lead economist in the Office of Tax Policy. Professor Clausing has published widely on taxation, climate policy, and international trade, and is the author of Open: The Progressive Case for Free Trade, Immigration, and Global Capital (Harvard University Press, 2019). International Monetary Fund, the Hamilton Project, the Brookings Institution, the Tax Policy Center, and the Center for American Progress and has testified before the U.S. Congress on multiple occasions. She has received two Fulbright Research Awards, and her research has been supported by the National Science Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the International Centre for Tax and Development, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.The International Risk Podcast brings you conversations with global experts, frontline practitioners, and senior decision-makers who are shaping how we understand and respond to international risk. From geopolitical volatility and organised crime, to cybersecurity threats and hybrid warfare, each episode explores the forces transforming our world and what smart leaders must do to navigate them. Whether you're a board member, policymaker, or risk professional, The International Risk Podcast delivers actionable insights, sharp analysis, and real-world stories that matter. The International Risk Podcast – Reducing risk by increasing knowledge.Follow us on LinkedIn and Subscribe for all our updates!Tell us what you liked!

After Congress failed to pass the Child Care for Working Families Act, supported by Representative Dina Titus and Senators Catherine Cortez-Masto and Jacky Rosen, Nevadans could face an increase in childcare costs. Casey Peeks with the Center for American Progress joins the show to forecast how the bill's death could affect families in Northern Nevada.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you live in Washington D.C., you've probably noticed National Guard troops around the city. The Trump administration says they're here to help tackle rising violent crime—but what's this move really costing the federal government and the local economy? To break that down, Federal News Network's Eric White spoke with Michael Negron, Senior Fellow for Economic Opportunity at the Center for American Progress.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET. Brad is first joined by Robert Benson, D.Phil., Associate Director for National Security and International Policy at American Progress. The two breakdown Trump's summit with Putin, where he failed to secure a peace deal to end Russia's war with Ukraine. Then, Brad is joined by Tara Devlin, host of the podcast, 'TARABUSTER.' The pair exposes Trump and the GOP's hypocrisy as they deploy the National Guard to Washington D.C. with the excuse of stopping violent crime, yet they are the same people who pardoned those who violently assaulted Capitol Police Officers right in Washington D.C. on January 6th. They also discuss California Governor Gavin Newsom's efforts to nullify Trump led efforts to gerrymander Texas congressional districts, with the goal of gaining GOP house seats, by doing the same in California, in order to gain Democratic House seats to balance things out. The website for American Progress is http://www.AmericanProgress.org and their handle on BlueSky is @americanprogress.bsky.social‬.  Robert's handle is @robertbenson92.bsky.social‬. Tara Devlin is a New York City based comedian, writer, and host of the unapologetically-liberal podcast "TARABUSTER.” Tarabuster is 5-star viewer-reviewed and 100% viewer-supported. Help keep the REAL liberal media going – and growing – by becoming a Patron of Tarabuster at Patreon.com/TaraDevlin. You can follow Tara on BlueSky at @tarabuster.bsky.social and on Instagram at @Taradackty. Brad writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.' He's on the National Journal's panel of political insiders and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. You can read Brad's columns at www.MuckRack.com/Brad-Bannon. His handle on BlueSky is @bradbannon.bsky.social.

The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET. Brad is first joined by Robert Benson, D.Phil., Associate Director for National Security and International Policy at American Progress. The two breakdown Trump's summit with Putin, where he failed to secure a peace deal to end Russia's war with Ukraine. Then, Brad is joined by Tara Devlin, host of the podcast, 'TARABUSTER.' The pair exposes Trump and the GOP's hypocrisy as they deploy the National Guard to Washington D.C. with the excuse of stopping violent crime, yet they are the same people who pardoned those who violently assaulted Capitol Police Officers right in Washington D.C. on January 6th. They also discuss California Governor Gavin Newsom's efforts to nullify Trump led efforts to gerrymander Texas congressional districts, with the goal of gaining GOP house seats, by doing the same in California, in order to gain Democratic House seats to balance things out. The website for American Progress is http://www.AmericanProgress.org and their handle on BlueSky is @americanprogress.bsky.social.  Robert's handle is @robertbenson92.bsky.social. Tara Devlin is a New York City based comedian, writer, and host of the unapologetically-liberal podcast "TARABUSTER.” Tarabuster is 5-star viewer-reviewed and 100% viewer-supported. Help keep the REAL liberal media going – and growing – by becoming a Patron of Tarabuster at Patreon.com/TaraDevlin. You can follow Tara on BlueSky at @tarabuster.bsky.social and on Instagram at @Taradackty. Brad writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.' He's on the National Journal's panel of political insiders and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. You can read Brad's columns at www.MuckRack.com/Brad-Bannon. His handle on BlueSky is @bradbannon.bsky.social.

On the radio show this week, we cover the cuts to our health care pushed through by Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress, with many of the most harmful cuts delayed until after the midterms. We dive into Trump's cuts to public education -- and tips on fighting school funding cuts and privatization efforts. We discuss the militarization of policing and the use of false crime narratives for political repression, and how the care infrastructure counter these trends. We close the show covering National Breastfeeding Month, and why lactation support and paid family/medical leave can help families bond and heal and help our economy thrive.    SPECIAL GUESTS: Natasha Murphy, Center for American Progress, @amprogress, @americanprogress.bsky.social‬; Ameshia Cross, EdTrust, @EdTrust, @edtrust.bsky.social‬; Monifa Bandele & Tina Sherman, MomsRising,  MamásConPoder, @MomsRising, @MamasConPoder, @momsrising.org, @mamasconpoder.org

In this episode of Occupied Thoughts, former FMEP President Matt Duss speaks with professor & author Brian Barber, who recently published No Way But Forward: Life Stories of Three Families in the Gaza Strip. The book tells the stories of day-t0-day life under decades of military occupation, building on the close relationships Brian built there through many years of academic research. Brian maintains close contact with the families and finishes the book with a section on each family's harrowing efforts to survive the current genocide in Gaza. Brian and Matt discuss the book -- how Brian came to write it, the contents of it, and the challenge of publishing it -- as well as Brian's experience of encountering Palestinian communities, overcoming unconscious biases, and withstanding direct challenges to the legitimacy of Palestinian voices in order to fulfill a promise and share Palestinian stories.  Brian K. Barber is Professor Emeritus, University of Tennessee and the author of No Way But Forward: Life Stories of Three Families in the Gaza Strip. He currently lives in Washington, DC. His work has addressed how context—from parenting to political systems—impact individual and social development. Among other books, he is editor of Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescents (2002, American Psychological Association), and Adolescents and War: How Youth Deal with Political Conflict (2008, Oxford University Press). Matthew Duss is Executive Vice-President at the Center for International Policy. Before joining CIP, Duss was a visiting scholar in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. From 2017-22, Duss was foreign policy advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt). From 2014-17, Duss was the president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. From 2008-14 Duss was a National Security and International Policy analyst at the Center for American Progress. Original music by Jalal Yaquoub.

Ambrook: https://ambrook.com/Offrange: https://ambrook.com/offrange"Not Boring" Founder's Letter: https://www.notboring.co/p/america-the-beautifulMackenzie Burnett: On Agriculture and American Progress on Rhishi Pethe's "Software is Feeding the World" Today's episode features a pretty intriguing startup, Ambrook. I say intriguing not just because they recently announced a $26.1M series A round in this tough environment to raise capital. But they are focused on what I would consider a not very flashy part of the industry, accounting software. Not a new concept. On the surface, it doesn't sound like one of those moonshot problems startups like to spin a narrative around like mitigating climate change or feeding the billions. But those of us who have spent time on farms or ranches know there are still plenty of opportunities for improvement in this area. And in just over 18 months of commercialization Ambrook already claims to have over 2,500 operations using their software. Another interesting part of their business is as they were building their financial management tool, they also launched their own media venture called Ambrook Research. They have since rebranded it to Off Range, but it boasts more than 150,000 newsletter subscribers to read stories about agriculture and food. But will all this lead to better outcomes for producers, a successful business for Ambrook and a more resilient agriculture in the future? That's what I wanted to know from Ambrook co-founder and CEO Mackenzie Burnett. Before starting this financial management software company, Mackenzie's prior experience was working in community nonprofits, water asset management, and open source software infrastructure. She holds an M.A. in international policy and climate security from Stanford University.

Andrew Walworth, Tom Bevan and Carl Cannon discuss new jobs data from the Labor Department that show the labor market is slowing. And, they talk about Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) who released newly declassified documents related to the Trump/Russia investigation including conversations between the Hillary Clinton campaign and George Soros' Open Society Foundation. Next, they discuss President Trump's plans to break ground in September on a new $200 million ballroom for the White House, and they give up their “You Cannot Be Serious” stories for the week. Then, Part 1: RCP White House correspondent Phil Wegmann talks with Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress and a key presidential aide during the Biden Administration, about her recent article for The Wall Street Journal, “How Democrats Can Win on Immigration". And, Part 2: RCP White House correspondent Phil Wegmann talks with Neera Tanden about the symbolism of Alligator Alcatraz and her recent testimony before the House Oversight Committee on staff use of the autopen during the Biden Administration. Tanden is currently president of the Center for American Progress. She was director of the United States Domestic Policy Council from 2023 to 2025 and staff secretary to President Joe Biden from 2021 to 2023.

It is important for all of us to know and understand everything that is in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to know what provisions are coming during the next few years. Listen as Aaron and Damien discuss the piece “10 Egregious Things You May Not Know About the One Big Beautiful Bill Act” by Colin Seeberger, Andrea Ducas, and Natasha Murphy and published by the Center for American Progress, which outlines some of the lesser-known provisions of the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act and their potential impact on Americans and the country, and what we learn and take away from this article in our continued learning and unlearning work and fight for collective liberation. Follow us on social media and visit our website! ⁠⁠Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Bluesky⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Threads⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Leave us a voice message⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Merch store⁠⁠⁠⁠

Neera Tanden is the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress and the CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Before leading American Progress, Tanden was the Domestic Policy Advisor to President Joe Biden and director of the Domestic Policy Council, overseeing some of the administration's signature achievements, including its efforts to lower the cost of prescription drugs and expand health insurance coverage. Previously, she was Senior Advisor and Staff Secretary in the White House. And has also served as senior adviser for health reform at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, policy director for Hillary Clinton's first presidential campaign, legislative director in then-Sen. Clinton's (D-NY) office, and a senior policy adviser to the first lady in President Bill Clinton's White House. Neera shares her keen insights on Trump 2.0, EpsteinGate and the MAGA meltdown, Texas redistricting, Zohran Mamdani, and the critical work of the Center For American Progress. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

Mike Johnson is racing to shut the business of the House down to avoid a vote on releasing the Epstein files. Trump's own criminal lawyer, who's moonlighting as deputy attorney general, will be minding the matter of Ghislaine Maxwell. And Texas is looking to squeeze out some more House seats to try to protect Trump from having to be held accountable on Epstein. Has any other politician ever acted so guilty? But in this moment, the Dems are finally bringing a gun to a gunfight. And for the midterms, they need to commit to Benghazi-style hearings on the contents of the files—and the Republican cover-up. Plus, securing the border without a terror campaign, and recruiting candidates to fill out a bigger Democratic tent. Neera Tanden, at the Center for American Progress, joins Tim Miller. show notes CAP's new immigration policy platform, co-authored by Neera Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Get the right life insurance for YOU, for LESS, and save more than fifty percent at selectquote.com/bulwark

As you've heard, CBS has ended “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” Troublingly, this comes just after Paramount, which owns CBS, settled President Trump's frivolous lawsuit against it by paying out $16 million dollars. Only days before the firing, Colbert called the deal a “big fat bribe.” Now Trump has just praised the firing in a vile new attack on Colbert. Trump laughably insisted that Colbert has no talent and can't measure up to Fox News hosts (who praise Trump relentlessly). We think Trump deliberately wants us to think CBS fired Colbert precisely because CBS hoped it would curry favor with Trump, enhancing impressions of his authoritarian power. We talked about all this with Michael Sozan of the Center for American Progress, author of a good piece excoriating Paramount's settlement with Trump. We discussed why Trump makes his corrupt bullying of the media explicit, how this represents a broader textbook imitation of autocratic regimes abroad, and what we should all do in response. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As you've heard, CBS has ended “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” Troublingly, this comes just after Paramount, which owns CBS, settled President Trump's frivolous lawsuit against it by paying out $16 million dollars. Only days before the firing, Colbert called the deal a “big fat bribe.” Now Trump has just praised the firing in a vile new attack on Colbert. Trump laughably insisted that Colbert has no talent and can't measure up to Fox News hosts (who praise Trump relentlessly). We think Trump deliberately wants us to think CBS fired Colbert precisely because CBS hoped it would curry favor with Trump, enhancing impressions of his authoritarian power. We talked about all this with Michael Sozan of the Center for American Progress, author of a good piece excoriating Paramount's settlement with Trump. We discussed why Trump makes his corrupt bullying of the media explicit, how this represents a broader textbook imitation of autocratic regimes abroad, and what we should all do in response.  Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As you've heard, CBS has ended “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” Troublingly, this comes just after Paramount, which owns CBS, settled President Trump's frivolous lawsuit against it by paying out $16 million dollars. Only days before the firing, Colbert called the deal a “big fat bribe.” Now Trump has just praised the firing in a vile new attack on Colbert. Trump laughably insisted that Colbert has no talent and can't measure up to Fox News hosts (who praise Trump relentlessly). We think Trump deliberately wants us to think CBS fired Colbert precisely because CBS hoped it would curry favor with Trump, enhancing impressions of his authoritarian power. We talked about all this with Michael Sozan of the Center for American Progress, author of a good piece excoriating Paramount's settlement with Trump. We discussed why Trump makes his corrupt bullying of the media explicit, how this represents a broader textbook imitation of autocratic regimes abroad, and what we should all do in response. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

7.7.2025 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: LA ICE Raid, Trump Signs Big Beautiful Budget, Faith Leaders Respond to bill & Fatal Texas Floods The twice-impeached, criminally convicted felon-in-chief, Donald "The Con" Trump, officially signed his "Big, Beautiful" budget into law. Black faith leaders took to the pulpit Sunday to discuss how the new law will impact the black community. We'll show you what they had to say. Did Trump's massive federal job cuts contribute to the number of people who died in the Texas flood? We'll speak with an expert from the Center for American Progress about the ongoing debate regarding who is to blame. A federal appeals court ruled that Alabama prosecutors violated the constitutional rights of a Black man sentenced to death in 1990. #BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (https://bit.ly/3VDPKjD) and Risks (https://bit.ly/3ZQzHl0) related to this offering before investing. Download the Black Star Network app at http://www.blackstarnetwork.com! We're on iOS, AppleTV, Android, AndroidTV, Roku, FireTV, XBox and SamsungTV. The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Money talks, and sometimes it speaks as law by fiat from the highest court in the land. In this episode of  Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick delves into the impact of money on the judiciary and, eventually, on, democracy with Michael Podhorzer, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.  They discuss how the many faces of big money in America, currently personified by Elon Musk and Donald Trump, have shaped the Supreme Court and government regulations. They explore the implications of recent court decisions, the downfall of unions, and the crucial role of collective action in preserving democracy. Michael Podhorzer also writes a weekly newsletter, Weekend Reading. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Money talks, and sometimes it speaks as law by fiat from the highest court in the land. In this episode of  Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick delves into the impact of money on the judiciary and, eventually, on, democracy with Michael Podhorzer, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.  They discuss how the many faces of big money in America, currently personified by Elon Musk and Donald Trump, have shaped the Supreme Court and government regulations. They explore the implications of recent court decisions, the downfall of unions, and the crucial role of collective action in preserving democracy. Michael Podhorzer also writes a weekly newsletter, Weekend Reading. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Money talks, and sometimes it speaks as law by fiat from the highest court in the land. In this episode of  Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick delves into the impact of money on the judiciary and, eventually, on, democracy with Michael Podhorzer, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.  They discuss how the many faces of big money in America, currently personified by Elon Musk and Donald Trump, have shaped the Supreme Court and government regulations. They explore the implications of recent court decisions, the downfall of unions, and the crucial role of collective action in preserving democracy. Michael Podhorzer also writes a weekly newsletter, Weekend Reading. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Money talks, and sometimes it speaks as law by fiat from the highest court in the land. In this episode of  Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick delves into the impact of money on the judiciary and, eventually, on, democracy with Michael Podhorzer, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.  They discuss how the many faces of big money in America, currently personified by Elon Musk and Donald Trump, have shaped the Supreme Court and government regulations. They explore the implications of recent court decisions, the downfall of unions, and the crucial role of collective action in preserving democracy. Michael Podhorzer also writes a weekly newsletter, Weekend Reading. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The GOP's new tax bill isn't just a massive giveaway to the rich—it's an all-out assault on SNAP, one of the most effective anti-poverty programs in the U.S. That's because SNAP is more than just a program designed to end hunger. It's also a powerful economic engine, stabilizing local economies as well as supporting retailers and farmers. Lily Roberts from the Center for American Progress joins us to break down how these proposed cuts will deepen poverty, weaken economic resilience, and hurt millions—especially in the very communities whose lawmakers are pushing them. Lily Roberts is the managing director for Inclusive Growth at American Progress. Her work focuses on raising wages, combating economic inequality linked to race, gender, and geography, and building wealth and stability for American families. Social Media: ⁠@lilyroberts.bsky.social⁠ Further reading:  ⁠SNAP Cuts Are Likely To Harm More Than 27,000 Retailers Nationwide⁠ ⁠SNAP Mythbusters Report⁠ Website: ⁠http://pitchforkeconomics.com⁠ Instagram: ⁠@pitchforkeconomics⁠ Threads: ⁠pitchforkeconomics⁠ Bluesky: ⁠@pitchforkeconomics.bsky.social⁠ Twitter: ⁠@PitchforkEcon⁠, ⁠@NickHanauer⁠, ⁠@civicaction⁠ YouTube: ⁠@pitchforkeconomics⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠Pitchfork Economics⁠ Substack: ⁠The Pitch⁠

Nick Wilson at the Center for American Progress supports a ban on assault weapons. I don't. We disagree. But we didn't have a fight about the issue, we didn't argue, we didn't debate. We sat down and had a conversation. We listened to each other. We tried to gain understanding. We need to do more of this Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act is the first major U.S. federal law to squarely target non‑consensual intimate imagery (NCII) and to include a component requiring tech companies to act. Long handled via a patchwork of state laws, it criminalizes NCII at the federal level—both authentic images and AI-generated digital forgeries—and requires that platforms remove reported NCII within 48 hours of notification by a victim or victim's representative. TAKE IT DOWN passed with wide bipartisan support—unanimously in the Senate, and 409-2 in the House. Melania Trump championed it, and it is expected that President Trump will sign it. And yet, some of the cyber civil rights organizations that have led the fight to mitigate the harms of NCII over many years have serious reservations about the bill as passed. Why?Lawfare Contributing Editor Renée DiResta sits down with Mary Anne Franks, President and Legislative & Technology Policy Director at the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, and Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights Law at the George Washington Law School; Becca Branum, Deputy Director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology; and Adam Conner, Vice President, Technology Policy at the Center for American Progress to unpack what the bill does, why it suddenly cruised through on a rare bipartisan wave of support, and whether its sweeping takedown mandate will protect victims or chill lawful speech. This is a nuanced discussion; some of the guests support specific aspects of the bill, while disagreeing about the implementation of others. Expect clear explanations, constructive disagreement, and practical takeaways for understanding this important piece of legislation.More resources:TAKE IT DOWN Act Legislative Summary and TextBecca Branum and Tom Bowman's letter urging changes to TAKE IT DOWN prior to passageCyber Civil Rights InitiativeSenate press release upon House signing, including list of 120 supporting organizationsTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The good news: Trump's second term has already hit historic levels of unpopularity. The bad news: we're still only 100 days into it. The White House marks this milestone by bragging about its record on immigration and defending the arrest of a Wisconsin judge and the deportation of three very young American citizens, ages 2, 4, and 7. Jon, Lovett, and Tommy reflect on where the country stands at the 100-day mark and take stock of the opposition—as Democrats, media outlets, universities, and even some law firms all ratchet up their efforts to push back. Then, Dan sits down with Neera Tanden, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress and a former top advisor to Joe Biden and Barack Obama, about the unique dangers of Trump and his allies, and how to defend against them.

The Nation’s Jeet Heer details Trump’s not-so-great deal-making skills.Substack’s The Jim Acosta Show host Jim Acosta examines Trump backing down on tariffs.The Center for American Progress’s Brendan Duke details how slowed imports at our ports affect Trump’s tariff gambit.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald Trump losing his base as his lies catch up to him and Meiselas speaks with CAP CEO Neera Tanden about she believes Democrats should do. Learn more about the Center for American Progress: https://www.americanprogress.org/ Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices