Podcast appearances and mentions of benjamin wallace wells

We were thrilled to have the opportunity to talk to PEN America's Jeremy Young about what a second Trump administration holds in store for higher education. It was an informative—and sobering—conversation. Over the next four years, we should be prepared for a tsunami of ideologically-driven threats to academic freedom, campus free expression and the basic integrity of higher education. If you would rather read than listen, there is a transcript attached below. Show NotesPEN America's *Educational Censorship* page is a terrific resourceOn Christopher Rufo, see Benjamin Wallace-Wells, “How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory,” New Yorker, June 18, 2021 and Michael Kruse, “DeSantis' Culture Warrior: ‘We Are Now Over the Walls,'” Politico, March 24, 2023. For Rufo's take on critical race theory, in his own words, see this YouTube video. Here is the full text of Executive Order 13950, which became the template for most of the anti-CRT (or “divisive concepts”) laws passed in red states. On the Stop WOKE Act, the marquee anti-CRT law signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022, check out these two Banished episodes:The Sunshine State Descends into Darkness (Again)Will Florida's "Stop WOKE Act" Hold Up in Court?Jeffrey Sachs and Jeremy Young predict the future: “For Federal Censorship of Higher Ed, Here's What Could Happen in 2025” (PEN America, January 2, 2025)For more on the phenomenon of “jawboning,” see this page from FIRE and this page from the Knight First Amendment Institute On “anticipatory obedience,” see this excerpt from Timothy Snyder's 2017 book, On Tyranny On legislative challenges to campus DEI, see the Chronicle of Higher Education DEI Legislation Tracker. (We are quite skeptical of many conventional DEI efforts but state bans are a cure that is far worse than the disease )For a deeper dive on accreditation, see Eric Kelderman, “Trump's Vision for College Accreditation Could Shake Up the Sector” (Chronicle of Higher Education, November 26, 2024)On Title VI investigations by the Office of Civil Rights, see Zach Montague, “Campus Protest Investigations Hang Over Schools as New Academic Year Begins” (New York Times, October 5, 2024)Here is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. Kenneth Stern, one of the definition's main authors, explains why he is concerned it is being used to promote campus censorshipOn the prospect of a much heftier endowment tax for the country's wealthiest institutions, see Phillip Levine, “How Trump Could Devastate Our Top Colleges' Finances” (Chronicle of Higher Education, January 13, 2025). Levine addresses the normative question—should college endowments be taxed?—here. TranscriptJeff: So, we're looking forward to a second Trump administration.Jeremy: Are we looking forward to a second Trump administration?Amna: No…towards.Jeff: We are anticipating…I personally am dreading a second Trump administration.Amna: This is Banished and I'm Amna Khalid, along with my colleague Jeff Snyder. Jeff and I were delighted to have the chance to catch up with PEN America's Jeremy Young at the recent American Historical Association conference in New York City. He's one of the most informed and astute analysts of government driven censorship in higher education today. We started by asking him to tell us a little about PEN America.Jeremy: PEN America is a 102 year old organization that exists at the intersection of literature and human rights. It is one of 140 PEN centers around the world which are in a loose network of PEN Centers governed by PEN International. PEN America's mission is to celebrate literature and defend the freedoms that make it possible, of which two of the foremost are academic freedom and freedom of expression.Amna: And what's your specific role?Jeremy: I am the Director of State and Higher Education Policy at PEN America, which means that I oversee our Freedom to Learn program, which leads actions and responses to educational censorship legislation, largely from the state governments, but also from the federal government. Things like DEI bans, critical race theory restrictions, and various other types of restrictions on faculty governance and university autonomy.Amna: We're eager to hear your predictions on what the higher ed sector should be bracing for with the second Trump administration. But first, Jeremy, could you please remind us of the nature of the attacks against higher education during Trump 1.0?Jeremy: In the summer and fall of 2020, this really happened late in the first Trump administration, there was a national panic around critical race theory, and this was created by Chris Rufo and some others really as a response, a backlash, if you will, against the George Floyd protests, the Black Lives Matter movement, the popularity of the 1619 Project, and so on, this sort of moment of racial reckoning. And so Rufo and others (Rufo is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute) decided to use this term critical race theory, which of course is an academic term with a particular set of meanings but to, as he put it, decodify and recodify it, essentially weaponize it to mean things that weren't all that connected to the actual theory of critical race theory and were really just a sort of catchall for criticisms of DEI and other race-based pedagogies and ideas. And so Rufo was able to convince president Trump to issue an executive order 13950 called Race and Sex Stereotyping that laid out a list of nine divisive concepts which bore some passing resemblance to critical race theory, but really were vague, and general, and banned all sorts of practices related to race, gender, and identity, and ideas related to race, gender, and identity that were unclear and difficult to interpret. Originally, this was a restriction aimed solely at trainings in government agencies…the executive order never went into effect. It was stayed by a court and repealed on the first day of the Biden administration. But that language of the divisive concepts then began to appear in state legislatures aimed now squarely at education. At first, at K-12 institutions primarily, and over time, higher education became more and more of the target.In 2023, we started to see a shift toward sort of broad spectrum attacks on higher education, moving away from some of the direct speech restrictions of the critical race theory bans, in part because of court cases that had gone adversely for those restrictions, and instead restricting broad swaths of university governance, including DEI offices, the ability of a university to manage diversity work on its own as a sort of shared governance function, tenure restrictions on faculty governance, restrictions on curriculum, which I think are going to be very prominent in 2025.Amna: You mentioned backlash to the 2020 racial reckoning as a key factor driving the anti-CRT movement. Can you say something more about where this opposition to CRT and now DEI is coming from?Jeremy: I think that there are several causes that are inseparable from one another. I think there are people who actually do want to restrict those particular ideas on campus, who want to advance a sort of triumphalist Western canon narrative of America as the victor, and they're just very opposed to any discussions that paint the United States in any way that is not hyper-patriotic and perfect. There's absolutely some racism, some sexism, some, some discrimination, discriminatory bias that's involved.I also think that there is a real desire to simply crush university power that I think comes out of the educational realignment that we have seen over the last 10 years. Kamala Harris won college educated Americans by 14 points, and four years ago, Joe Biden won them by four, and prior to the 2016 election, there was essentially no difference between the parties, really, at any time in American history on the axis of college education. There is now a sense I think among some conservative forces that instead of the long-time conservative project of reforming universities, having more viewpoint diversity, think of the Koch Centers in various institutions. Instead they're a place where liberals go to get educated, so we should just crush them, right? So I think that's part of it. It's just the goal of taking away universities' autonomy on everything is a key component.And the third component is political gain. And that is the one that has fluctuated the most over this period. Glenn Youngkin won a come from behind victory running on criticizing critical race theory in K-12 schools. And Steve Bannon said in 2021, I think about critical race theory and I see 50 new House seats in the midterm elections. Now, when that didn't happen, I think it began to become clear that these attacks are not as salient as they were thought to be. I think in 2023 and 2024, there was a real move away from that, especially with, also with the collapse of the DeSantis presidential campaign, which was built entirely around this idea of him being, fighting the war on woke. There was a sense that, maybe you still want to do these things, but now it's going to be quiet, it's going to be stealth mode, because there's no political gain to be gotten from having a big press release around this, around the Stop WOKE Act. But the other two motivations, the motivation of restricting certain ideas about race; and the motivation of smashing the power of higher education, those have remained constant.Jeff: Very succinct and helpful. Thank you. You and your colleague Jeffrey Sachs recently wrote an informative and sobering piece about Trump's plans for higher ed in 2025 and beyond. Maybe you could tell us a little about your key predictions. The first one you mention is jawboning. What is jawboning and why should we be worried about it?Jeremy: Jawboning, put simply, is when government officials, instead of passing a law requiring someone who isn't a government official to do something, they simply browbeat or bully or threaten them into doing it. In some ways you can look at the congressional hearings as a form of jawbonings or making threats against presidents at Columbia and Harvard and so on. But the classic example is actually what we're seeing at the state level where lawmakers are simply going to university presidents and say, saying, okay, we're not going to pass a DEI ban or a curriculum restriction. We're going to simply request that you make one on your own or we'll cut your funding. Or we'll pass one next year that's worse than anything you could imagine. It's a very intimate form of censorship, right? It takes restrictions out of the legislative process where they can be challenged at a hearing; out of the judicial process where they can be challenged on constitutional grounds; and every single one of these bills has at least some constitutional infirmities. And instead makes it just a threat, right? We're gonna cut your budget. What are you gonna do about that? It's a very difficult position for presidents to be in because they don't have a lot of leverage.Jeff: I think it was Yale historian Timothy Snyder who coined the term anticipatory obedience.  He said it was a dynamic that's often seen under conditions of rising authoritarianism. So you've got individuals and groups that start to make concessions they think will appease the powers that be. Is there a connection here to jawboning?Jeremy: Yes, so we talk about over compliance and pre-compliance. We're not going to comply with the letter of the law, we're going to comply with the spirit of the law. There is a law in Alabama that passed in 2024 that restricts some elements of DEI, but does not actually ban outright the DEI offices. And every university in Alabama has treated it as though it is an outright ban. And that's significant, in particular, because of the nature of these laws. You know, you go look at a set of statutes in a state legislature or the federal government, what you'll notice is that most laws are very precise. Think about traffic laws. What are you allowed to do on the road? It's very specific. You can drive this many miles an hour this particular way. There's no room for interpretation. There's no room for judgment because the goal is to make you comply with the law. These laws are intentionally vague. They ban broad swaths of ideas which are never defined in the laws.What does it mean to say, for instance, one of the divisive concepts, to say that you're not allowed to say that the United States is fundamentally racist. What does that mean? It doesn't say in the law what that means. It's left up to your interpretation, which means whoever is going to enforce that law gets to decide whether you violate it. That is actually a constitutional violation. It's against the 14th Amendment. And while the courts have found all sorts of infirmities with these laws, that's the one they've found the most consistency. Not freedom of speech, not racial discrimination but vagueness. So over-complying with a vague law is, it's difficult to avoid because these laws lend themselves to over-compliance because they're so vague. But it's also vitally important to avoid doing that.The other thing that we see is pre-compliance, which is just imagining that the legislature is going to pass a law but then whether or not they do it. We intervened with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, one of the seven accrediting bodies because they were basically enacting what a restriction in Project 2025 that would have forbidden them to have a DEI standard for universities they accredit. And just doing it preemptively.It's not clear whether the education department is able to pass that restriction without legislation. And it's not clear whether legislation or the regulation would survive a court challenge. And they're just saying we'll just take it out. That's pre-compliance. You don't want to do that. And what we argued successfully, is that, again, even if you don't think an accreditor should have a DEI standard, we don't take a position on that. The worst time to get rid of your DEI standard is one month before a new administration that's promised to ban it tells you to. That's the moment when you put up your back and say, no, we're not going to comply with this.Jeff: Jeremy, tell us a little bit more about the new Trump administration's plans to disrupt the conventional work of accreditors.Jeremy: So higher education institutions are accredited by one of seven accrediting bodies, six of which have historically served certain regions, but now under new federal regulations the university can work with any of the seven accreditors. But they still tend to be concentrated in regions.Accreditation is really the only thing that separates a real substantive university from a diploma mill; and the way that accreditation is enforced, is that the Department of Education will only provide federal student financial aid, which 55 percent of all students receive, to schools that it recognizes as legitimate accreditors, which currently is those seven institutional accreditors. They are private or nonprofit organizations. They're run by academics. They have their pluses and minuses, but they are pretty much the guarantor of institutional quality in higher education. And if you look at Project 2025, everything that they say they want to do to higher education is focused on accreditation. They have identified these accreditors as the soft underbelly of higher education. And the simplest thing that they want to do and that they probably will at least try to do is to ban accreditors from having DEI standards, of which six of the seven currently do.But they really want to go further. What they really want to do is to undermine the system of accreditation itself by allowing any jurisdiction, any state, to either charter its own accreditor or serve as its own accreditor. So Ron DeSantis could become the accreditor for all universities in Florida. And now instead of those universities having DEI offices, he can say you cannot be accredited in the state of Florida unless you've banned DEI and basically instituted a classical curriculum, a Hillsdale style classical curriculum. It's a little more complicated than project 2025 makes it sound. Our analysis is that while they may attempt to do it through regulatory action, the process of negotiated rulemaking in the Department of Education is sufficiently complex that it would probably stop them from doing it and so that probably means that they need legislation to change the Higher Education Act, which would be subject to a filibuster.So this is something that we will be watching to see if they try to do it administratively. It may not be possible. And we'll also be watching if they try to slip it into one of those reconciliation bills that are being proposed that would be able to go through without a filibuster.Jeff: So that's how the accreditation system might be weaponized. You and Sacks also identify Title VI enforcement by the Office of Civil Rights as a key area of concern. Maybe we can break this down into its component parts. What is the Office of Civil Rights and what's Title VI?Jeremy: Sure. So the Office of Civil Rights is an office within the Department of Education that ensures that educational institutions meet the requirements of the various civil rights laws. It covers Title VI funding, which is funding that is tied to financial aid for universities, and it makes sure that institutions that are receiving federal financial aid are following these civil rights protections. It is an office does good work and we have a good relationship with the office.We have some concerns about the way that the Biden administration has been investigating and enforcing agreements with universities around antisemitism. We expect things to get far worse in the new administration. We expect that any university that has any sort of protest or any faculty member who expresses pro-Palestinian views is going to be investigated and sanctioned by the Office of Civil Rights. We expect they're going to launch lawsuits. They're going to really go after universities. So it is an office that is going to be used in some really aggressive ways to restrict speech on campus.Jeff: In terms of restricting speech, you and Sachs are especially worried about the trend on the part of colleges and universities, not to mention states and the federal government, to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. Why is this so concerning to you both?Jeremy: So the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism is a very interesting document. It starts with a description that is quite thoughtful and then it gives a list of examples of things that could be forms of antisemitism or could accompany antisemitism, and that list includes things like singling out the state of Israel for special criticism that other states are not singled out for that do engage in the same actions or just you know criticizing Zionism, things like that. Which in the context of what that definition was designed for yes, sometimes when you see those statements, it's worth perking your ears up and asking, is this accompanying antisemitism or not?What the laws are doing, and this comes from a model bill that the Goldwater Institute wrote in 2016, and it's now being suffused into all these federal and state policies, is to take those examples of possible antisemitism and change it from possible to definite antisemitism. So anytime you criticize the state of Israel, it's antisemitism. And then writing that into law, saying that universities have to treat this as any instance of this broad definition of antisemitism as hate speech or as a form of harassment. The author of that definition, Kenneth Stern has repeatedly said that it is not designed to be used in that way. In fact, he said it's unconstitutional to use it in that way. And yet that's what we're seeing. So that's the concern. It's not that you shouldn't have a definition of anti Semitism, although I will say our statutes tend not to define particular types of hate speech because it's too subjective, right? This is the reason that we have definitions like severe, pervasive, and targeted for harassment. You're looking at a pattern of behavior because each individual case is protected by free expression.Jeff: I understand that the Office of Civil Rights is currently conducting dozens of Title VI investigations stemming from campus protests over the war in Gaza. There are widespread allegations of antisemitism, many of which are accompanied by competing charges of Islamophobia. How do you think we should make sense of this?Jeremy: These are complex situations. Lots of universities are getting them wrong. Some universities are being overly censorious, some not enforcing harassment protections. And it's right and proper for OCR to investigate these things. The problem is that they are not always coming up with the right findings. That they're not always protecting free expression, balancing free expression adequately with the need to protect students from harassment. We're seeing universities implement draconian time, place and manner restrictions on speech. So just the fact that OCR and the Congress are making all these threatening noises about restricting speech leads a lot of universities to do the censor's work for them.Amna: Jeremy mentioned one other thing the new Trump administration has made ramblings about, which is ramping up the endowment tax on the country's wealthiest institutions. Please see an informative Chronicle of Higher Education article by Philip Levine, linked in the show notes.What all these attacks or interventions, depending on your point of view, have in common, is that they seek to undermine the autonomy of colleges and universities. Here's Jeremy.Jeremy: University autonomy is not a principle that is very widely understood in the United States. It's much more common in Europe where there's an autonomy index and all sorts of things as a way of protecting academic freedom. But it's a vital component of academic freedom. We think about academic freedom in the U.S. primarily as being the freedom of an individual faculty member to speak their mind or to engage in their research or teaching. But, in reality, that freedom can only be protected so long as the people overseeing it, the university administration, are free from the ideological control of the government. The key here is ideological control. We aren't saying that the government doesn't have a budgetary responsibility to oversee the university, or that there isn't a role for the government in community relations, or student success, or access and completion, or any of these things. But when it comes to ideas, what ideas can be present on a campus, whether it's in the classroom, whether it's in a DEI office, anywhere on campus, that is not the government's business, and it cannot be the government's business, or ultimately everyone on campus is simply going to be currying favor with whatever political party is in charge.Amna: Jeremy, this has been wonderful and you've been so kind to give us so much time. Thank you.Jeff: Thank you. It's an absolute pleasure.Amna: That was our conversation with Jeremy Young of PEN America on what Trump 2.0 portends for higher education. As of yesterday, Trump's second term has officially begun. Keep your eyes peeled and ears tuned for what's to come next. If you liked what you heard today, be sure to help us spread the word about Banished, and don't forget to comment and rate this show.Once again, this is Banished, and I'm Amna Khalid, along with Jeff Snyder. Until next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

The year is 2025. Department of Government Efficiency dons Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have broken ground on their new taxpayer-funded palace, the architectural plans of which look suspiciously like a Cybertruck. HHS Secretary RFK Jr. has received a standing ovation from Congress after announcing that children will be given brain worms at birth instead of vaccines. Attorney General Matt Gaetz has just announced that people who successfully stand their ground will be mailed a sticker from DOJ. How did we get here? To help us break down the results of last week's elections, and to offer a sounding board to Sam and David's hot takes, joining the pod is New Yorker staff writer and political reporter Benjamin Wallace-Wells. We start off by discussing swing voters, the failures of the Democrats and the Harris campaign, and what the election results hint about the future of the Republican party. (FWIW, we recorded before the Hegseth/Gabbard/Gaetz nominations.)  We work through how the election was shaped by local concerns including perceptions of crime and disorder all the way to big international topics like the Russia-Ukraine war. Putting their heads together, Sam, David, and Wallace-Wells come up with a grand unified theory of local, national, and cultural politics in America today. Listen to find out everything you need to know about the election—and let us know if we got it right.   This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam “The Future Is Faction” by Steven M. Teles and Robert P. Saldin “Trump Is About to Face the Choice That Dooms Many Presidencies” by Oren Cass “The Improbable Rise of J. D. Vance” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “This Is All Biden's Fault” by Josh Barro “The Failures of Urban Governance” by David Schleicher

The Paris Olympics are in full swing, but far away from the main stadium, the world's greatest surfers are taking on Tahiti's biggest wave as part of the competition. Lale catches up with Condé Nast Traveler's Megan Spurrell, who flew out to the French Polynesian island to witness the power of the wave firsthand—and speak to the women surfers who are riding it in the hopes of winning gold. (After listening, read her full story here.)

As J. D. Vance faces a bumpy public reception on the Trump ticket and Kamala Harris considers her options for a running mate, the New Yorker staff writers Amy Davidson Sorkin and Benjamin Wallace-Wells join Tyler Foggatt to discuss all things Vice-Presidential. In a race as short and tight as this one, what is each campaign communicating with its choice?This week's reading: “Who Should Kamala Harris Pick as Her Running Mate?” by Amy Davidson Sorkin “J. D. Vance's Sad, Strange Politics of Family,” by Jessica Winter “J. D. Vance's Radical Religion,” by Paul Elie To discover more podcasts from The New Yorker, visit newyorker.com/podcasts. To send feedback on this episode, write to themail@newyorker.com. 

After party leaders, donors, and voters made clear that they didn't want Joe Biden running, this past weekend, the President bowed out. Vice President Kamala Harris is there to take the mantle. Benjamin Wallace-Wells, staff writer for The New Yorker, joins us to talk about the factors that contributed to Biden's decision, the opportunities for Harris to make inroads, and if other Democratic politicians really wanted the job. Plus, how Harris can credibly answer the charge that she's a failed "Border Czar." And does Harris' path to the nomination undercut the charge that Trump is the one who is a threat to democracy? Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, visit: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist Subscribe to The Gist Subscribe: https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ Follow Mikes Substack at: Pesca Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Many Democrats saw John Fetterman as a progressive beacon: a Rust Belt Bernie Sanders who—with his shaved head, his hoodie, and the Zip Code of Braddock, Pennsylvania—could rally working-class white voters to the Democratic Party. But at least on one issue, Fetterman is veering away from the left of his party, and even from centrists like Majority Leader Chuck Schumer: Israel's war in Gaza. Fetterman has taken a line that is not just sympathetic to Israel after the October 7th attack by Hamas; he seems to justify the civilian death toll Israel has inflicted on Gaza. “When you have that kind of an evil, or that kind of a movement that came out of a society,” he told Benjamin Wallace-Wells, “whether it was Nazi Germany or imperial Japan or the Confederacy here in the South, that kind of movement has to be destroyed. . . . that's why Atlanta had to burn.” Wallace-Wells shares excerpts from his interviews with Fetterman in a conversation with David Remnick, and they discuss how Fetterman's support for Israel is driving a wedge among Pennsylvania voters, who will be critical to the outcome of the Presidential election.

At the beginning of 2021, it seemed like America might be turning a new page; instead, the election of 2024 feels like a strange dream that we can't wake up from. Recently, David Remnick asked listeners what's still confounding and confusing about this Presidential election. Dozens of listeners wrote in from all over the country, and a crack team of political writers at The New Yorker came together to shed some light on those questions: Susan B. Glasser, Jill Lepore, Clare Malone, Andrew Marantz, Evan Osnos, Kelefa Sanneh, and Benjamin Wallace-Wells. Some years ago, the poet Ada Limón moved from New York City to Lexington, Kentucky. In a book called “Bright Dead Things,” she writes about adjusting to a new home, and the constant talk of thoroughbreds. “People always asking, ‘You have so many horses in your poems—what are they a metaphor for?' ” she told the Radio Hour. “I think they're not really a metaphor. Out here, they're just horses.” Limón, who's the current Poet Laureate of the United States, took us on a tour of Keeneland racecourse, in Lexington, and read her poem “How to Triumph Like a Girl.”This segment originally aired on April 13, 2018. 

At the beginning of 2021, it seemed like America might be turning a new page; instead, the election of 2024 feels like a strange dream that we can't wake up from. Recently, David Remnick asked listeners what's still confounding and confusing about this Presidential election. Dozens of listeners wrote in from all over the country, and a crack team of political writers at The New Yorker came together to shed some light on those questions: Susan B. Glasser, Jill Lepore, Clare Malone, Andrew Marantz, Evan Osnos, Kelefa Sanneh, and Benjamin Wallace-Wells.

Many Democrats saw John Fetterman as a progressive beacon: a Rust Belt Bernie Sanders who – with his shaved head, his hoodie, and the zip code of Braddock, Pennsylvania – could rally working-class white voters to the Democratic Party. But at least on one issue, Fetterman is veering away from the left of his party, and even from centrists like Majority Leader Chuck Schumer: Israel's war in Gaza. Fetterman has taken a line that is not just sympathetic to Israel after the October 7th attack by Hamas; he seems to justify the civilian death toll Israel has inflicted on Gaza.  “When you have that kind of an evil, or that kind of a movement that came out of a society,” he told Benjamin Wallace-Wells, “whether it was Nazi Germany or imperial Japan or the Confederacy here in the South, that kind of movement has to be destroyed. . . . that's why Atlanta had to burn.” Wallace-Wells shares excerpts from his interviews with Fetterman in a conversation with David Remnick, and they discuss how Fetterman's support for Israel is driving a wedge among Pennsylvania voters, who will be critical to the outcome of the Presidential election. John Fetterman's War was published in the June 24, 2024, issue.

Benjamin Wallace-Wells joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the results of Super Tuesday, and how a “general decay” in Biden's support, on top of his tight margins, could be exploited by a third-party candidate. Plus, Antonia Hitchens takes us behind the gilded curtain at a Mar-a-Lago primary-night watch party. Read Benjamin Wallace-Wells on the primaries and Antonia Hitchens on experiencing Super Tuesday at Mar-a-Lago.Tune in wherever you get your podcasts.

This time last year, Republicans were reeling from a poorer-than-expected performance in the 2022 midterm elections; many questioned, again, whether it was time to move on from their two-time Presidential standard-bearer. But Donald Trump is so far ahead in the polls that it would be shocking if he did not clinch the Iowa caucuses. The New Yorker's Benjamin Wallace-Wells and Robert Samuels have seen on the ground how much staying power the former President has despite some opposition from religious leaders and establishment power brokers. For MAGA voters, “The core of it is, ‘If Donald Trump is President, I can do anything I want to do,' ” Samuels tells David Remnick. “ ‘I won't have anyone . . . telling me I'm wrong all the time.' ” Since 2016, Trump has honed and capitalized on a message of revenge for voters who feel a sense of aggrievement. Among evangelical voters, Wallace-Wells notes, Trump seems like a bulwark against what they fear is the waning of their influence. “To them, [Biden] is the head of something aggressive and dangerous,” he says. Susan B. Glasser, who writes a weekly column on Washington politics, takes the long view, raising concerns that we're all a little too apathetic about the threats Trump's reëlection would pose. “What if 2024 is actually the best year of the next coming years? What if things get much much worse?” she says. “Now is the time to think in a very concrete and specific way about how a Trump victory would have a specific effect not just on policy but on individual lives.”

This time last year, Republicans were reeling from a poorer-than-expected performance in the 2022 midterm elections; many questioned, again, whether it was time to move on from their two-time Presidential standard-bearer. But Donald Trump is so far ahead in the polls that it would be shocking if he did not clinch the Iowa caucuses.  The New Yorker's Benjamin Wallace-Wells and Robert Samuels have seen on the ground how much staying power the former President has despite some opposition from religious leaders and establishment power brokers. For MAGA voters, “The core of it is, ‘If Donald Trump is President, I can do anything I want to do,' ” Samuels tells David Remnick. “ ‘I won't have anyone … telling me I'm wrong all the time.' ” Since 2016, Trump has honed and capitalized on a message of revenge for voters who feel a sense of aggrievement. Among evangelical voters, Wallace-Wells notes, Trump seems like a bulwark against what they fear is the waning of their influence. “To them, [Biden] is the head of something aggressive and dangerous,” he says. Susan B. Glasser, who writes a weekly column on Washington politics, takes the long view, raising concerns that we're all a little too apathetic about the threats Trump's reëlection would pose. “What if 2024 is actually the best year of the next coming years?  What if things get much much worse?” she says. “Now is the time to think in a very concrete and specific way about how a Trump victory would have a specific effect not just on policy but on individual lives.”

Last week, Benjamin Wallace-Wells, who writes about politics for The New Yorker, went to Dubuque, Iowa, to attend a Trump rally. Wallace-Wells is now covering his third Trump campaign for President. This time, what stood out to him most was how much the rhetoric of the G.O.P. has shifted in the course of those three cycles. The former President, once an insurgent and inflammatory voice, now just sounds like an ordinary Republican. Wallace-Wells joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss what he heard from voters in Iowa, what he has observed in the broader Republican field, and why Donald Trump's 2024 lead has been so significant.

Last week, Benjamin Wallace-Wells, who writes about politics for The New Yorker, went to Dubuque, Iowa, to attend a Trump rally. Wallace-Wells is now covering his third Trump campaign for President. This time, what stood out to him most was how much the rhetoric of the G.O.P. has shifted in the course of those three cycles. The former President, once an insurgent and inflammatory voice, now just sounds like an ordinary Republican. Wallace-Wells joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss what he heard from voters in Iowa, what he has observed in the broader Republican field, and why Donald Trump's 2024 lead has been so significant.

This week, the Democratic Party upended its primary schedule for 2024. Instead of the Iowa caucuses, South Carolina will now go first, giving more deciding power to Black voters. Is this an attempt to realign the Democratic Party's priorities—or a token of gratitude for the state that pushed Biden to the Presidency in 2020? Benjamin Wallace-Wells, a New Yorker staff writer and reporter who has spent a lot of time in Iowa, joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the influence of the early primaries, and the political calculations that went into changing them.

We are two weeks from the midterms, and things aren't looking good for the Democrats. It's a difficult political environment to campaign in; inflation and gas prices are high, and President Biden's approval rating is low. Far-right candidates are polling better than expected in races at every level of the government. Because the Democrats' majority in Congress was already narrow, even a few flipped seats could dictate the future of reproductive choice, and of public trust in the electoral system—as many Republican candidates still deny Biden's victory in 2020. Some of the most crucial races are extremely tight, with the leading candidates ahead by a percentage point or less. Benjamin Wallace-Wells, who has been covering the midterms for The New Yorker, joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss a few key races and what's at stake in November.

A widespread view that cities have become less safe in recent months is transforming local politics. Eric Adams became Mayor of New York City on a tough-on-crime platform. Anxiety about public safety has also played a significant role in the ongoing Los Angeles mayoral race. In San Francisco, Chesa Boudin—a reform-minded district attorney—was recalled by voters by a significant margin last week. Boudin had instituted a number of progressive reforms, from liberalizing bail policies to reducing jail populations through diversion programs. But those changes were buried by the perception that the city had descended into a state of chaos. His recall has been cast as a referendum on crime and on the public's attitudes toward progressive criminal-justice policies. What were the voters in San Francisco blaming on Boudin? The New Yorker staff writer Benjamin Wallace-Wells recently wrote about Boudin's recall. He speaks with the New Yorker senior editor Tyler Foggatt.

The reality is that the recent attacks on critical race theory are manufactured nonsense and not actually about critical race theory at all. Listen as Aaron and Damien discuss an article from The New Yorker by Benjamin Wallace-Wells called “How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory”, which describes the efforts of Christopher Rufo to spark the ongoing conservative campaign against critical race theory, and how and why we must stay vigilant in our work to combat them and confront the real results of white supremacist, capitalist, imperialist patriarchy. Follow us on social media and visit our website! Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Website, Leave us a message, Merch store

Next Tuesday, Virginia voters will go to the polls to elect a new governor, choosing between the Democrat Terry McAuliffe and the Republican Glenn Youngkin. Pundits have been describing the race as an indicator for the 2022 midterm elections across the country. Both candidates have seized on the broader messages of their parties. Youngkin has used the culture wars to woo voters; McAuliffe has recruited former President Barack Obama to campaign with him. Benjamin Wallace-Wells, a New Yorker staff writer, joins Dorothy Wickenden to discuss Virginia's close gubernatorial race, and what it could mean for 2022 and beyond.

Medical marijuana is now legal in more than half of the country. The cities of Denver, Seattle, Washington and Oakland, Calif., have also decriminalized psilocybin (the psychedelic element in “magic mushrooms”). Oregon went one step further, decriminalizing all drugs in small quantities, including heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine.Attitudes toward drugs have changed considerably over the years. But the question of whether all drugs should be legalized continues to be contentious. How much have attitudes toward illegal drugs changed? And why?This week, Jane Coaston talks to Ismail Ali, the policy and advocacy director for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, and Jonathan P. Caulkins, a professor of operations research and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College, about the pros and cons of legalizing all drugs.Mentioned in this episode:“Is there a Case for Legalizing Heroin?” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells in The New Yorker“The Drug-Policy Roulette” by Jonathan P. Caulkins and Michael A.C. Lee in the National Affairs Summer 2012 edition“Michael Pollan's ‘Trip Report,'” on The New York Times Opinion podcast “Sway”

In September, 2020, the writer Christopher Rufo appeared on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” to discuss the threat posed by “critical race theory.” Rufo had come across the term while looking into the origins of the anti-racism movement, and saw its potential as a conservative target. In the months since, critical race theory has been condemned by President Trump, outlawed by several state legislatures, and endlessly debated in town halls and school-board meetings. The uproar, largely manufactured by Rufo and amplified by conservative activists in government and in the media, goes hand in hand with the controversies around the Times' 1619 Project, and with the resistance to the movement to take down Confederate monuments. Benjamin Wallace-Wells, a New Yorker staff writer, joins Dorothy Wickenden to discuss the furor over critical race theory, and how to understand the current rethinking of the country's past.

We live in a world of unbridled technological and argumentative advancement. A.I. has learned to debate Thanksgiving-table politics against humans. People may soon be using “argument checks” as well as “grammar checks” on their smartphones. Cats and dogs have finally put aside their differences and learned to live in peace by forming a coalition against postal workers. Welcome to the future.Whether this sounds like an irenic utopian ideal or an Orwellian dystopia to you, it is the subject of today's episode! In the first installment of our newest re:joinder series, Disciplining Disciplinary Boundaries, we take aim at an article that feels designed to make humanists pull their hair out: Benjamin Wallace-Wells's “The Limits of Political Debate,” published in The New Yorker. This article tells the story of Project Debater, an artificial intelligence designed to compete in political debate competitions against humans using mountains of empirical evidence and “fifty to seventy” prefabricated argument structures. As we read through the dramatic tale of P.D.'s inception to it's first high-profile defeat in public debate by Harish Natarajan in 2019, we discuss the way that science journalists (and scientists themselves) make strange and fascinating assumptions about the humanities.We also frame our reading of the article with two critical pieces of rhetoric scholarship that help illuminate its various rhetorical pitfalls and spurious assumptions. Jeanne Fahnestock's 1986 classic “Accommodating Science” lays the groundwork for studying science journalism by taxonomizing some typical rhetorical appeals and information transformations journalists use to make hard science more appealing for public audiences (e.g. sacrificing technical details at the expense of telling a dramatic narrative of “discovery”). Finally, we end with Carolyn Miller's 2007 article “What can automation teach us about agency,” and reflect upon the ways that A.I. can only have rhetorical agency if an audience attributes it. This article helps us better understand why Project Debater suffered defeat at the hands of a human, and why this article tells us more about the limits of artificial intelligence rather than “rhetorical persuasion.”Works & Concepts Cited in this Episode:Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written communication, 3(3), 330-350.Miller, C. R. (2007). What can automation tell us about agency?. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 37(2), 137-157.Plato. (2008). Gorgias (B. Jowett, Trans.). Project Gutenberg. (Original published c. 380 BCE). Retrieved from: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1672/1672-h/1672-h.htmSlonim, N., Bilu, Y., Alzate, C., Bar-Haim, R., Bogin, B., Bonin, F., ... & Aharonov, R. (2021). An autonomous debating system. Nature, 591(7850), 379-384.Wallace-Wells, B. (2021, Apr. 11). The limits of political debate. The New Yorker. Retrieved from: https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-populism/the-limits-of-political-debate

En août 2020, le candidat démocrate à l’élection présidentielle américaine Joe Biden annonce que Kamala Harris sera sa colistière. Ancienne procureure générale de Californie et sénatrice depuis 2017, elle est la première femme noire à prétendre au poste suprême de numéro 2 de l’Admnistration. Critiquée pour avoir participé à la politique de répression dure à l’égard de la criminalité mais revendiquant des positions progressistes, Kamala Harris est un personnage complexe et contradictoire qui a également dû essuyer les assauts du sexisme et racisme durant toute sa carrière. À l’occasion des élections présidentielles américaines qui se tiendront le 3 novembre 2020, Clémentine et Kaoutar reviennent sur le parcours et les ambitions de cette femme politique, peut-ête promise au poste de vice-présidente des États-Unis. Références entendues dans l’épisode : Glenn Thrush, Jennifer Medina, “California Republican Party Admits It Placed Misleading Ballot Boxes Around State”, New York Times, octobre 2020. Mehar Gujral, “Willfully Mispronouncing Sen. Kamala Harris' Name Tells South Asian-Americans We Don't Belong”, Teen Vogue, octobre 2020. Robin Givhan, “Kamala Harris grew up in a mostly white world. Then she went to a black university in a black city.”, The Washington Post, octobre 2020. Back on track est un programme d’aide pour les personnes ayant été condamnées pour des infractions routières en Ontario. Il est pensé pour aider les personnes à séparer la conduite de la boisson et de la drogue. Le Truancy Program est une loi votée en 2011 qui autorise les procureurs à poursuivre les parents pour délit si leurs enfants manquent 10 pourcent de l’année scolaire sans raison valable. Benjamin Wallace-Wells, “Kamala Harris Gives New Meaning to the Biden Campaign”, The New Yorker, août 2020. Nicole Narea, “A post-debate focus group of undecided voters suggests that Kamala Harris faces an uphill battle”, Vox, octobre 2020. Reportage de CNN, “Who is Kamala Harris ? A look at her background and career in politics”, août 2020. Gilles Vandal, “Le ticket Biden-Harris: un partenariat idéal”, La Tribune, octobre 2020. Iman Sultan, “Kamala Harris Presents a Political Paradox for South Asian Voters”, Bitch Media, octobre 2020. Quoi de Meuf est une émission de Nouvelles Écoutes, cet épisode est conçu par Clémentine Gallot et présenté avec Kaoutar Harchi. Mixage Laurie Galligani. Générique réalisé par Aurore Meyer Mahieu. Prise de son, montage et coordination Ashley Tola.

On Tuesday, voters in New Hampshire cast their ballots in the Democratic Presidential primary. Following the debacle surrounding the Iowa caucuses, many Democrats hoped that the results from New Hampshire would bring clarity to the race. Bernie Sanders won, arguably making him the front-runner. But close behind him was Pete Buttigieg, who also narrowly won the Iowa caucuses, and Amy Klobuchar, whose third-place finish gave her campaign renewed energy. Benjamin Wallace-Wells joins Eric Lach to discuss the New Hampshire primaries and how a clear picture of the future of the Democratic contest remains elusive.

One of the big stories of the 2016 presidential election was the rupture within the Republican Party. "Never Trump" traditionalists lost their fight to prevent the nomination of Donald Trump, but a small faction still strenuously objects to his scorched-earth style and many of his policies. Earlier this month, Catholic University hosted a debate between two prominent conservatives representing two distinct visions. On one side, the constitutional lawyer and National Review staff writer David French, a voice for traditional Republicanism who sees Trump as a threat to democracy. On the other side, Sohrab Ahmari, the op-ed editor of the New York Post and who fervently supports the president and describes politics as "war and enmity." Benjamin Wallace-Wells joins Dorothy Wickenden to discuss what their opposing positions mean for the future of the Republican Party.

This week!  Dan and Eric dicuss Jeffrey Toobin's piece about Michael Cohen, his history, his illegal deeds and how he turned on Trump; Rivka Galchen on the past, present and future of lunar travel and moon mythology; Adam Kirsch on Jewish philosopher Martin Buber and his beliefs about intimacy with God; Benjamin Wallace-Wells critique of David Brooks' most recent book; and Eric's experience seeing Hilton Als speak with poets Brenda Shaughnessy and Michael Dickman.  Plus: the Goose shows up, on the pod and on the potty.

On Tuesday, the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders announced that he would once again run for President. When Sanders ran in 2016, he was viewed as an insurgent candidate challenging the Democratic mainstream from the left flank of the Party. This time, among Sanders’s opponents for the Democratic nomination are several other self-proclaimed progressives, including the senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. Benjamin Wallace-Wells joins Eric Lach to discuss how Sanders’s entry into the 2020 Presidential campaign reflects how the Democratic Party has, and hasn’t, changed since 2016.

We're thrilled to have writer and host of The Extraordinary Negroes Podcast, Jay Connor, back with us this week for The Stacks Book Club,  discussing Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates. This episode is spent talking about the three major themes from the book: race, violence, and the Black body, and how those themes are ever present in American society. There are no spoilers this week. We cover a lot of topics, and you can find links to everything below, in the show notes. Use the links when you shop on Amazon and iTunes to help support The Stacks. Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coate James Baldwin Ta-Nehisi Coates at the Atlantic We Were Eight Years in Power by Ta-Nehisi Coates The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas The Hate U Give (20th Century Fox) "We Blaxplain Blaxplaining" (Still Processing, The New York Times) Blindspotting (Lionsgate) Sorry to Bother You (Annapurna Pictures) Scandal (ABC) Ranier Maningding @theLLAG (Twitter for Love Life of an Asian Guy) "The Toxic World-View of Ta-Nehisi Coates" (Rich Lowry, Politico) "The Hard Truths of Ta-Nehisi Coates" (Benjamin Wallace-Wells, New York Magazine) Cornell West Michael Eric Dyson Race Matters by Cornell West Black Lives Matter Toni Morrison Connect with Jay: Instagram|Twitter Connect with The Extraordinary Negroes: iTunes Podcast|Android Podcast|Website|Facebook|Instagram|Twitter Connect with The Stacks: Instagram|Facebook|Twitter|Goodreads|Traci's Instagram|iTunes|The Stacks Website|Patreon To contribute to The Stacks, join The Stacks Pack, and get exclusive perks, check out our Patreon page. We are beyond grateful for anything you're able to give to support the production of this show. If you prefer to do a one time contribution go to paypal.me/thestackspod. Sponsors Audible- to get your FREE audiobook download and FREE 30 day trial go to audibletrial.com/thestacks. Hidrate Spark - for 10% your purchase at hidratespark.com use code TRACI10 (valid through 8/23). The Stacks participates in affiliate programs in which we receive a small commission when products are purchased through some links on this website. This does not effect my opinions on books and products. For more information click here.

There are exciting drones and there are definitely scary drones. But drones have quieter things going on as well. They’re already at work doing ordinary stuff: working in agriculture, in infrastructure, filming the news. Peter Robinson is a journalist at the ABC, and has been working on pioneering some of those moves for the organisation. Links from this episode: CASA’s Can I Fly There? app.Four Corners’ water theft story, with its drone-shot footage.The drone battery fire on board a plane at Melbourne airport.New York Mag writer Benjamin Wallace Wells described a drone as something that can move you “back and forth between the intimate and the vast.”Wanna buy a drone now? The Wirecutter has a guide to buying a cheapish one. Songs from This Episode: They Do They Don’t — Jack JohnsonHomesick — Pavrov StellarLa Kebradita — Mexican Institute of SoundS.T.A.Y. — Hans Zimmer (Interstellar soundtrack)A.C — ILJUS WIFMOLovely Raquel — Thomas Newman (Shawshank Redemption soundtrack)

Exxon Mobil’s CEO is now the Secretary of State. The Koch Brothers’ Congressman is the CIA Director. We’ve already seen signs that the Trump Administration and the fossil fuel industry are merging. In this episode, hear the highlights of the confirmation hearings of the two men now most responsible for environmental law enforcement in the United States: Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke and Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt. Will they protect the environment from the fossil fuel industry or did President Trump appoint foxes to guard the henhouse? Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD144: Trump's War Manufacturers Additional Reading Article: Trump's EPA is reconsidering a rule that limits mercury from power plants by Samantha Page, Think Progress, April 19, 2017. Article: 'Like a slow death': families fear pesticide poisoning after Trump reverses ban by Sam Levin, The Guardian, April 17, 2017. News Release: EPA Launches Back-To-Basics Agenda at Pennsylvania Coal Mine, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 13, 2017. Op-Ed: Now we know Scott Pruitt isn't serious about fighting smog by Jack Lienke, Grist, April 12, 2017. Article: What's at Stake in Trump's Proposed E.P.A. Cuts by Hiroko Tabuchi, The New York Times, April 10, 2017. Article: Federal Judge Orders Supplemental EIS For Nevada Sage Grouse Plan by Richard Nemec, Natural Gas Intel, April 6, 2017. Article: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency's Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide by Eric Lipton, The New York Times, March 29, 2017. Article: Herbert pushing for Interior Secretary Zinke to visit Utah and Bear Ears by Bryan Schott, UtahPolicy.com, March 27, 2017. Press Release: Interior Department Auctions Over 122,000 Acres Offshore Kitty Hawk, North Carolina for Wind Energy Development, U.S. Department of the Interior, March 16, 2017. Press Release: Secretary Zinke Issues Lease for 56 Million Tons of Coal in Central Utah, U.S. Department of the Interior, March 15, 2017. Article: Zinke pledges big changes at Department of the Interior by Rob Chaney, Missoulian, March 10, 2017. Press Release: Secretary Zinke Announces Proposed 73-Million Acre Oil and Natural Gas Lease Sale for Gulf of Mexico, U.S. Department of the Interior, March 6, 2017. Article: Fate of Bears Ears in question as Senate confirms Montana Rep. Zinke as Interior secretary by Thomas Burr, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 1, 2017. Article: Oklahoma's earthquake threat now equals California's because of man-made temblors, USGS says by Rong-Gong Lin II, The Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2017. Article: Thousands of emails detail EPA head's close ties to fossil fuel industry by Brady Dennis and Steven Mufson, The Washington Post, February 22, 2017. Article: Scott Pruitt makes it clear that the Clean Power Plan is going away by Natasha Geiling, Think Progress, February 19, 2017. Article: Utah Representative Wants Bears Ears Gone And He Wants Trump To Do It by Kirk Siegler, NPR, February 5, 2017. Article: Good Question: What Exactly Is The Dakota Access Pipeline? by Heather Brown, CBS Minnesota, January 24, 2017. Document: State of the Air 2016 by The American Lung Association Article: Obama Designates Atlantic, Artic Areas Off-Limits To Offshore Drilling by Merrit Kennedy, NPR, December 20, 2016. Article: Ryan Zinke, Donald Trump's Pick for Interior Secretary, and the Rising American Land Movements by Benjamin Wallace-Wells, The New Yorker, December 16, 2016. Press Release: Interior Department Announces Final Rule to Reduce Methane Emissions & Wasted Gas on Public, Tribal Lands, U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2016. Article: Incumbent Ryan Zinke says security, jobs, health care top priorities by Holly Michels, Montana Standard, October 14, 2016. Article: Obama announces moratorium on new federal coal leases by Joby Warrick and Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post, January 15, 2016. Article: With Only $93 Billion in Profits, the Big Five Oil Companies Demand to Keep Tax Breaks by Daniel J. Weiss and Miranda Peterson, Center for American Progress, February 10, 2014. References Encyclopedia Britannica: Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010 Fact Sheet: Methane and Waste Prevention Rule, US Department of the Interior U.S. Energy Information Administration: Natural Gas Overview U.S. Energy Information Administration: U.S. Energy Mapping System Environmental Protection Agency: EPA History Environmental Protection Agency: California Greenhouse Gas Waiver Request Environmental Protection Agency: Order denying petition to revoke tolerances for the pesticide chlorpyrifos GovTrack: On the Nomination PN31: Ryan Zinke, of Montana, to be Secretary of the Interior GovTrack: H.R. 5259 (114th): Certainty for States and Tribes Act Overview OpenSecrets: Sen. Lisa Murkowski - Summary OpenSecrets: Sen. Lisa Murkowski - Career Profile Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Interior Secretary Confirmation - Ryan Zinke, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, January 17, 2017. Part 1 Part 2 Timestamps & Transcripts Part 1 42:54 Senator Lisa Murkowski: Will you commit to a formal review of all of the Obama administration’s actions that took resource-bearing lands and waters in Alaska effectively off the table, including the decisions that specifically prevented the leasing of those lands and those waters for development, and determine whether or not they can be reversed? Ryan Zinke: Yes. I think the president-elect has said that we want to be energy independent. As a former Navy Seal, I think I’ve been to 63 countries in my lifetime, and I can guarantee it is better to produce energy domestically under [missing audio] than watch it be produced overseas with no regulation. I’ve seen the consequences of what happens when you don’t have any regulation in the Middle East. We can do it right. The backbone of our environmental policies has been NEPA, and I’m a strong supporter of NEPA, but we also have to understand that we need an economy. And, look, if we don’t have an economy as a country, then the rest of it doesn’t matter, because we’re not going to be able to afford a strong military, nor are we going to be able to afford to keep the promises we’ve made as a great nation; and we’ve made a lot of promises to education, to our children’s future, to infrastructure, to Social Security; all that takes an economy that’s moving forward, and energy is a part of that economy, and Alaska is a critical part of that economy. Alaska’s different for a reason: you are blessed with great resources, you are blessed with great recreation—a little cold in the winter, but it’s not Palm Springs. Murkowski: You’re from Montana. You can handle it. Zinke: We can handle it. But, yes, I think we need to be prudent. And always, I think we need to review things to make sure we’re doing it right because over time the government keeps on getting bigger and bigger, the bureaucracy gets larger and larger, and we can’t get something done. 53:12 Senator John Hoeven: Also in North Dakota, we’ve had a real challenge with the Dakota Access Pipeline protest. You and I talked about it. State and local law enforcement has worked very hard to keep the peace and to keep people safe, but we need federal law-enforcement help as well, and so in your case, that’s going mean BIA law enforcement. And, so, my question is, if you’re confirmed, will you ensure that BIA law enforcement works with state and local law enforcement to resolve the situation, to keep people safe, and to make sure that the rule of law is followed? Ryan Zinke: Yes, sir. And we talked about it in your office, and if confirmed, I’m going to be a very busy man, travelling. I’m going to travel to Utah, travel to Alaska, and travel to North Dakota. Those are three impending problems that we need to resolve quickly. I have great respect for the Indian nations. I’m adopted Assiniboine. Last time the Sioux Nations all got together, I would say General Custer probably would say that was not a good issue. So, you look at this, and there is deep cultural ties, there is a feeling that we haven’t been a fair consultant, a fair partner, and so I think we need to listen to that voice. 57:45 Senator Bernie Sanders: President-elect Trump has suggested—more than suggested—stated in his view that climate change is a “hoax.” Now I know that you’re not here to be administrator of the EPA or secretary of the Energy, but the issue of climate change is in fact very important for issues that the Department of Interior deals with. Is President-elect Trump right? Is climate change a hoax? Ryan Zinke: I can give you—the best answer is three things: First of all, climate is changing. That’s indisputable. I’m from Glacier National Park, and I’ve seen— Sanders: You don’t have any more glaciers there, huh? Zinke: Well—and I’ve seen glaciers over the period of my time recede. Matter of fact, when my family and I have eaten lunch on Grinnell Glacier, the glacier has receded during lunch. Sanders: All right. But I have—if you could— Zinke: Yeah. Sanders: —is the president-elect right? Is climate change a hoax? Zinke: Well, if I can give you two more points— Sanders: Okay. Zinke: —I’ll make it short. The second thing is man has had an influence. I don’t think—I think that’s indisputable as well. So, climate is changing, man is an influence. I think where there’s debate on it is what that influence is, what can we do about it, and as the Department of Interior, I will inherit, if confirmed, the USGS. We have great scientists there. I’m not a climate-scientist expert, but I can tell you I will become a lot more familiar with it, and it’ll be based on objective science. I don’t believe it’s a hoax; I believe we should— Sanders: You do not believe it's a hoax. Zinke: No. I believe we should be prudent to be prudent. That means I don’t know definitively; there’s a lot of debate on both sides of the aisle— Sanders: Well, actually, there’s not a whole lot of debate now. The scientific community is virtually unanimous that climate change is real and causing devastating problems. There is the debate on this committee but not within the scientific community. 59:40 Senator Bernie Sanders: If climate change is already causing devastating problems, should we allow fossil fuel to be drilled on public lands? Ryan Zinke: Again, we need an economy and jobs, too. And I, in my experience, have probably seen 63 different countries. I’ve seen what happens when you don’t have regulated— Sanders: I’m taking your—I don’t mean to be rude, but this is not a whole lot—I’m taking your answer to be yes, we should allow fossil fuel to be drilled on public lands. Zinke: I’m an all-the-above energy, and I want to be honest with you—I’m all the above. Sanders: Will you encourage wind and solar on public lands? Zinke: I will encourage, absolutely, wind and sol—all the above. Sanders: Okay. Zinke: So I think that’s the better solution going forward is all-the-above energy. 1:00:40 Ryan Zinke: I want to be clear in this point: I am absolutely against transfer or sale of public land. 1:39:40 Senator John Barrasso: The war on coal: it is real for communities across the West, including Wyoming, including Montana; it’s devastated small towns, ultimately threatens our country’s energy security. If confirmed, will you commit to ending this moratorium on federal coal leasing? Ryan Zinke: The war on coal, I believe, is real. I have Decker, Montana, in my area, and behind me is a gentleman that works in the coal mines of the Crow Agency, which, by the way, the Crow Agency, if you were to take coal out of the picture, the unemployment rate would probably in the 90 percent. So they’re very keen on making sure they have their jobs and we give them the ability for self-determination. The moratorium, I think, was an example of many, is that one size fits all. It was a view from Washington and not a view from the states, particularly if you’re a state such as Wyoming, parts of Montana, West Virginia, where coal’s important. So overall, the president-elect has made a commitment to end “ the war on coal.” I think we should be smart on how we approach our energy. “All the above” is a correct policy. Coal is certainly a great part of our energy mix. To your point, I’m also a great believer that we should invest in the research and development, particularly on coal, because we know we have the asset. Let’s work together to make it cleaner, better. We should be leading the world in clean-energy technology, and I’m pretty confident that coal can be a part of that. 1:41:36 Senator John Barrasso: With the use of the Congressional Review Act, and I’m planning introducing a disapproval resolution on the BLM’s venting and flaring rule. To me that rule far exceeds the authority of the BLM, will ultimately put federal lands at a greater competitive disadvantage to state and private lands. Will you support our efforts to reverse this rule under the Congressional Review Act? Ryan Zinke: Yes, and I think what the driving force is is we’re venting a lot, and we’re wasting energy. And that is troubling to me, is that the amount of venting in North Dakota alone almost exceeds what we get out of the fields. So, a lot of the wasting can be approached by having an infrastructure. So let us build a system where we capture that energy that is otherwise being wasted. And that’s an enormous opportunity. It’s an enormous opportunity, our natural gas and geopolitically as well. We haven’t talked a lot about overseas, but energy is so critically important. If we want to check Russia, then let’s do it with liquid natural gas. If we want to put pressure on Iran, then let’s supplant every drop of Iranian crude. This is all part of a larger package, and it cannot be done without the great state of Wyoming and their assets, or Alaska. But we have to think globally on it, and it is better—and I’ve said this once before—but it is better to produce energy in America under reasonable regulation and get better over time than watch it be produced overseas with no regulation. That is indisputable. 1:43:23 Senator John Barrasso: And I want to talk about sage grouse management plans. The administration has ignored input from key stakeholders, including Western governors during the development of their plans, plans which were used to justify [missing audio] unwarranted status under the Endangered Species Act. But at the core, the plans fundamentally oppose the multiple-use mandates of the BLM, which includes grazing, recreation, energy development. Will you commit to returning conservation and management authority of the sage grouse back to the states in preventing this top-down mandate like this in the future? Ryan Zinke: My understanding is the sage grouse decision is going to come before the Department of Interior some time in March. I understand there’s going to be options and alternatives, proposed alternatives. I will work with you when I see those documents, and I’ll work with all of you when I see those documents, to make sure we’re doing the right thing. What concerns me about sage grouse is there’s no target number. I’m not sure how you can manage without a number. If we just grab a management of property without a number, I look at that with a suspect eye. So I think we’ve got to look at, everyone loves sage grouse, everyone understands that we have to protect the species, and generally those living in the ground are in a better position, and we should be an advocate and a partner in this rather than heavy-handed and just dictate terms, particularly when we don’t have a number. 2:33:40 Senator Mazie Hirono: In the discussion about energy, you’ve said a number of times that you support “all of the above,” which sounds really great except that in “all of the above,” what’s happened is that the fossil-fuel side of energy has gotten a lot of support over decades. So I hope that when you say “all of the above” that you will also be committed to providing more resources and support, particularly R&D for alternative and renewables, aside from, or in addition to, fossil fuels. So we need to have a more-level playing field for policies that truly reflect support for “all of the above.” Ryan Zinke: Yeah. I’ve always been a strong proponent on the record for research and development of different technologies, different innovations, different opportunities in this complete spectrum of the energy to include looking at traditional sources to make sure we’re better at doing that, you know, certainly horizontal drilling, fracking— Hirono: Yeah. Zinke: —coal. But “all the above” I think is the right approach. And when it comes out of the test tube and into fielding, energy needs to be affordable, reliable, and abundant. Part 2 12:15 Ryan Zinke: On the Gateway Pacific Terminal, what I raised my eyebrow on is I didn’t take a position, whether yes or no, on the Terminal. I took a position to make sure the NEPA process was followed and the EIS was completed before making a judgment. What I found was we were close to ending the NEPA process, with the EIS, after years and millions of dollars were spent on it, and then that was truncated and stopped by affidavits—and I didn’t judge whether the affidavits from the tribe were true or not true—if you don’t finish the NEPA process and don’t finish an EIS, and then all of a sudden that process can be interrupted and a permit can be pulled on the basis of something outside the EIS, why would you ever consent to spend millions of dollars on an EIS? That was my objection. And I don’t mean to speak for Senator Daines. Senator Maria Cantwell: So, you believe in the tribal sovereignty of the Lummi tribe to object in this case. Zinke: They certainly had every right to object as well as, in this case, the Crows, who also have a treaty obligation. 15:06 Senator Steve Daines: You have been a champion fighting on behalf of the Crow tribes, as you mentioned here in that last exchange, their sovereign right to develop their coal resources. And as you said in your testimony, the unemployment rate in Crow country will go north of 90 percent if they lose those jobs. Hearing: EPA Administrator Confirmation - Scott Pruitt, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, January 18, 2017. Part 1 Part 2 Timestamps & Transcripts Part 1 01:30 Chairman John Barrasso: Good morning. I call this hearing to order. We have a quite a full house today. I welcome the audience. This is a formal Senate hearing, and in order to allow the committee to conduct its business, we’ll maintain decorum. That means if there are disorders, demonstrations, by a member of the audience, the person causing the disruption will be escorted from the room by the Capitol Police. 22:50: Senator Jim Inhofe: Yes, as attorney general, Scott Pruitt has fought the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the oil companies, and the out-going administration on many fronts, but all of these suits were brought to protect state and local interests from overzealous and activist executive agencies. Over the last eight years, the Obama administration has advanced a radical environmental agenda, has exhibited a deep distrust of state governments and private land owners, and has worked to obstruct the fossil-fuel industry and agriculture producers, the most-ardent protectors of the environment. 29:52 Scott Pruitt: I would lead the EPA with the following principles in mind: First, we must reject as a nation that false paradigm that if you’re pro-energy, you’re anti-environment; and if you’re pro-environment, you’re anti-energy. I really reject that narrative. In this nation we can grow our economy, harvest the resources God has blessed us with, while also being good stewards of the air, land, and water by which we’ve been favored. It is not an either-or proposition. Next, we should celebrate the great progress we’ve made as a nation since the inception of the EPA and the laws that have been passed by this body, but recognize that we have much work to do. Third, rule of law matters. Process matters. It inspires confidence in those that are regulated. The law is static, not transient. Regulators are supposed to make things regular, to fairly and equitably enforce the rules and not pick winners and losers. A regulator should not be for or against any sector of our economy; instead, a regulator ought to follow the law in setting up the rules so that those who are regulated can plan, allocate resources, to meet the standards versus operating in a state of uncertainty and duress. Fourth, federalism matters. It matters because Congress says so. And because we need to achieve good outcomes as a nation for air and water quality, we need the partnership of the states to achieve that. It is our state regulators who oftentimes best understand the local needs and the uniqueness of our environmental challenges, plus our state regulators possess the resources and expertise to enforce our environmental laws. Fifth, public participation is key. We need to hear all voices as we make decisions in behalf of our country with respect to environmental laws. 39:07 Senator Tom Carper: In 2011 the EPA required dirty coal power plants to clean up mercury and air toxic emissions by issuing the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule. This rule will reduce the mercury, a neurotoxin that contaminates our streams and our oceans, pollutes our fish, and harms our children’s health. As attorney general, I believe you’ve been part of at least 14 legal cases against the EPA, and at least three of these cases against the EPA’s rules, to reduce mercury emissions from power plants. Is that correct? Just yes or no. Scott Pruitt: Senator, we have been involved in litigation around the MATS rule. Carper: Is that correct? Yes or no. Pruitt: As I indicated, yes, we’ve been a part of litigation involving the MATS rule. Carper: Thank you. It’s my understanding that at least one of these cases against the mercury rule is still pending. Is that correct? Just yes or no. Pruitt: I believe so, Senator, yes. Carper: Thank you. 43:40 Senator Jim Inhofe: I’m glad you brought up this thing about the Clean Air Act. The amendments from 1990, I was one of the cosponsors, it’s been incredibly successful. I mean, you mentioned that we’ve reduced those pollutants by 63 percent, but what you didn’t add was that it is in spite of the fact that we had 153 percent increase in our economic activity. That’s a major thing. 48:52 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: In Rhode Island, we have bad air days, and because of EPA’s work, there are fewer and fewer. A bad air day is a day when people driving into work hear on the radio that ozone from out-of-state smokestacks has made the air in Rhode Island dangerous and that infants and the elderly and people with breathing difficulties should stay home on an otherwise beautiful day. Because those smokestacks are out of state, we need EPA to protect us, and I see nothing in your record that would give a mom taking her child to the hospital for an asthma attack any comfort that you would take the slightest interest in her. And your passion for devolving power down to states doesn’t help us, because our state regulators can’t do anything about any of those problems; they all come from out-of-state sources. 49:45 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: One of the things I’d like to ask you about here is the connection between you and some of these fossil-fuel companies. These are some of the companies that have supported you. These are some of the political organizations that you’ve raised money for. You’ve raised money for them for Pruitt for Attorney General, correct? Scott Pruitt: Yes, sir. I have a campaign committee for that, yes. Whitehouse: And Devon Energy, Koch Industries, ExxonMobil have all maxed out to that account. Pruitt: I’m not aware— Whitehouse: At various times. Pruitt: —if they maxed out or not, Senator, but I’m sure they’ve given to that committee. Whitehouse: Oklahoma Strong PAC is your leadership PAC? Pruitt: It was, yes. Whitehouse: It was? And, similarly, they gave money, they maxed out to that organization as well, which you controlled? Pruitt: I’m unsure about that, Senator. Whitehouse: Okay. But they contributed to it. Pruitt: I’m even unsure about that as well. I haven’t looked at that. Whitehouse: You closed your super PAC, Liberty 2.0, but that took fossil-fuel contributions as well, correct? Pruitt: That particular entity has been closed, yes. Whitehouse: Now, you helped raise money for the Republican Attorney General’s Association. While you were a member of its executive committee, they received $530,000 from Koch Industries, $350,000 from Murray Energy, $160,000 from ExxonMobil, and $125,000 from Devon Energy, the company whose letter you transposed onto your letterhead and sent as an Oklahoma attorney general document. 1:11:57 Senator Jeff Merkley: Over a number of years, information started pouring into EPA that the estimate of the amount of fugitive methane escaping in gas and oil drilling had been deeply underestimated. In 2011 the EPA put out its best estimates based on the information that was being presented. And this is relevant because methane is a global-warming gas, more potent than CO2. Gas companies didn’t like this because, well, it presented a vision of natural gas being more damaging environmentally than folks had previously understood. Devon Energy is one of the groups that sought to cast doubt on this scientific information, and it came to you to be their spokesperson, and they asked, will you be our mouthpiece in casting doubt and send a letter we have drafted to the EPA, and you sent that letter. And I just want to ask, first, are you aware that methane is approximately 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a global-warming gas? Scott Pruitt: I am, Senator. It’s— Merkley: Thank you. Pruitt: —the impact on human health— Merkley: That’s the answer. Yes. Thank you. It’s a yes-no question. And on a one to 10 scale, how concerned are you about the impacts of fugitive methane in driving global warming? Pruitt: Methane, as you indicated, has— Merkley: One to 10 scale. Highly, 10, very concerned; or one, not so concerned? Pruitt: The quantities of methane in the atmosphere compared to CO2 is less, but it’s far more potent, and it is— Merkley: Are you concerned? I’m asking about your level of concern. Pruitt: Yes, yes. Merkley: Highly concerned? Pruitt: I'm concerned. Merkley: Thank you. 1:13:34 Senator Jeff Merkley: Do you acknowledge sending this letter to the EPA in October 2011? Pruitt: Senator, that is a letter that’s on my letterhead that was sent to the EPA, yes, with respect to the issue. Merkley: You acknowledge that 97 percent of the words in that letter came directly from Devon Energy? Pruitt: I have not looked at the percentages, Senator. Merkley: The statement that’s been analyzed many times is that all of the 1,016 words, except for 37 words, were written directly by Devon Energy. Pruitt: Senator, that was a step that was taken as attorney general representing the interest of our state. Over 25 percent of our— Merkley: Yeah, so, I didn’t ask that question. I was just asking if you copied the letter virtually word for word. You have acknowledged that, yes, it’s in the record, people can count it, is correct. All right, so, a public office is about serving the public. There is a public concern over the impact of methane on global warming. There is scientific research showing that it’s far more devastating than anticipated and far more is leaking than—but you used your office as a direct extension of an oil company rather than a direct extension of the interests of the public health of the people of Oklahoma. Do you acknowledge that you presented a private oil company’s position rather than a position developed by the people of Oklahoma? Pruitt: Senator, with respect, I disagree. The efforts that I took as attorney general were representing the interests of the state of Oklahoma. Merkley: Earlier you said you— Pruitt: And there was a concern about— Merkley: No, no, excuse me. I’m asking the questions. You said earlier you listen to everyone. In drafting this letter, you took an oil company’s position, and then, without consulting people who had diverse views about the impact, you sent it off. How can you present that as representing the people of Oklahoma when you simply only consulted an oil company to push its own point of view for its private profit? Pruitt: Senator, there’s an obligation the EPA has to follow processes as established by this body. The cost-benefit analysis under Section 112 is something that they have to engage in. There was a concern about the overestimated percentages that the EPA put in the record—it was a record-based challenge—that was the expression of the letter to the EPA, and it was representing the interests of an industry in the state of Oklahoma— Merkley: Thank you. Pruitt: —not a company, an industry. Merkley: So, my question was, what other groups—environmental groups or other groups—did you consult so that you had that full perspective before representing simply a for-profit oil company using your official office and your official letterhead? Pruitt: There—I consulted with other environmental officials in Oklahoma that regulate that industry and learned from them with respect to the concerns about the estimates that were provided by the EPA. Merkley: Can you provide this committee with information showing who you consulted in representing this letter specifically for Devon Energy, because the information that’s in the public realm only shows that they simply sent you a letter, asked you to send it, and you sent it without questions. Pruitt: We have seven or so individuals in our office that are involved in these kinds of issues, and we will collect the information they have and provide it to this body pursuant to the chairman’s direction. Merkley: Your staff expanded substantially while you were in charge, to 251 staff members. Why do you need an outside oil company to draft a letter when you have 250 people working for you? Pruitt: Senator, as I’ve indicated, that was an effort that was protecting the state’s interest in making sure that we made the voices of all Oklahomans heard on a very important industry to our state. Merkley: You said that all heard, but you only sent it on behalf of a single voice: the oil company. Pruitt: That— Merkley: Thank you. 1:24:11 Senator Cory Booker: You’ve joined or filed 14 lawsuits against the EPA, challenging clean air and clean-water rules, yes? Scott Pruitt: We’ve been involved in multiple pieces of litigation, Senator. Booker: Yeah, but I’m looking at specifically 14, and, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to put those 14 lawsuits into the record, of where you specifically challenged the EPA on air quality. And let me just go through some of those. Chairman Barrasso: Without objection. Booker: Thank you, sir. To refresh your recollection, you filed two lawsuits challenging the EPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standards; you filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone; you filed four lawsuits challenging the EPA’s Clean Power Plan; you have sued to challenge the EPA’s 111(b) standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants; and you also sued to challenge the EPA’s Federal Implementation Plan for Oklahoma under the Regional Haze rule. You’re familiar with those, I imagine. Pruitt: Yes, Senator. Booker: And you filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, something in New Jersey we’re very concerned with. And are you aware that that Rule, which you lost in that suit, scientists estimate that that alone prevents 400,000 asthma attacks nationally each year? Are you aware or those estimations? Pruitt: Yes, Your Honor. Or, yes, Senator. May I offer— Booker: I appreciate your promotion to judge. Let me continue, Mr. Pruitt. I don’t have that much time. Pruitt: Okay. Booker: So, each of these lawsuits that I just went through and that we analyzed, all of them challenge attempts by the EPA to reduce air pollution. In all of them except one you filed those lawsuits, joining with polluting companies that were also suing the EPA. And, so, in addition to filing those lawsuits with some of the polluting companies, or at least one that has now been specifically mentioned by two of my colleagues, you used substantial portions of the letters from those companies, put them on your official attorney general letterhead; and what was sort of surprising to me is that when you’ve been asked about this in the public, you basically represented that, “That’s actually called representative government in my view of the world.” Your testimony here says that you were representing industry; you were representing the polluters. And, so, with all of these lawsuits you filed, and with all of these letters like this one written to the EPA, on behalf of the industries that are causing the pollution, it seems clear to me that obviously the fact pattern on representing polluters is clear, that you worked very hard on behalf of these industries that have their profits externalized, negative externalities are their pollution. And, so, I just have a question for you specifically about the children of Oklahoma. Do you know how many kids in Oklahoma, roughly, have asthma? Pruitt: I do not, Senator. Booker: Well, according to the data published by the very non-partisan group, the American Lung Association, more than 111,000 children in Oklahoma, which is more than 10 percent, more than one in 10 of all the kids in Oklahoma, have asthma. That’s one of the highest asthma rates in the entire United States of America. Now, this is a crisis—similar data, for where I was mayor—and I can tell you firsthand the devastating impacts that asthma has on children and families: affecting their economic well-being; parents who have to watch their children struggle to breathe; people that have to miss work, rushing their kids to the hospital. One in 10 kids having a disease, missing school, is a significant problem. And so if you’ve been writing letters on behalf of polluting industries, I want to ask you, how many letters did you write to the EPA about this health crisis? If this is representative government, did you represent those children? I want to know what actions you’ve taken in the past six years in your capacity as protector of the welfare of Oklahoma citizens to protect the welfare of those 111,000 children. Did you ever let any of them write letters on your letterhead to the EPA, and did you even file one lawsuit—one lawsuit—on behalf of those kids to reduce the air pollution in your state and help them to have a healthy life? Pruitt: Senator, I’ve actually provided a list of cases to the chairman with respect to enforcement steps we’ve taken in multiple pieces of environmental litigation, but let me say to you, with respect to Cross-State Air Pollution and some of the cases you referred to, the state has to have an interest before it can bring those cases, as you know. You can’t just bring a lawsuit if you don’t have standing, if there’s not been some injury to the state of Oklahoma. In each of those cases, the court determined that there was a state interest— Booker: My time has expired, but if I could just say, injury, clearly asthma is triggered and caused by air pollutants. Clearly there is an air pollution problem, and the fact that you have not brought suits in any of the levels which you’ve represented the industries that are causing the pollution is really problematic when you’re going to sit in a position that is nationally supposed to be affecting this reality. And asthma in our country is the number one reason why children in America, health reason, why children in America miss school. 1:37:28 Senator Ed Markey: Eight of those cases are still ongoing, including your litigation that challenges critical rules that reduce levels of hazardous smog, mercury, and carbon pollution. As EPA administrator, you would be in a position to serve as plaintiff, defendant, judge, and jury on these ongoing eight lawsuits, and that would be wrong. In your ethics agreement, you have said that you would not participate in any matter that is ongoing litigation within one year, but, Mr. Pruitt, isn’t it correct that these lawsuits may very well continue for much longer than one year? Scott Pruitt: Well, Senator, I have the letter from the ethics counsel at the EPA, and the one-year time period is intended to address covered entities, entities that I served in a chairmanship or an officer capacity. The Southern Theological Seminary, the Windows Ministry, those entities are covered entities. So if there is a matter that arises before the EPA within a one-year period, a particular matter, a specific case that involves those entities, then the recusal would be in order. But that’s really the focus of the one-year timeline. Markey: So, will you agree to recuse yourself from those lawsuits which you brought as the attorney general of Oklahoma against the EPA, not just for one year, but for the entirety of the time that you are the administrator of the EPA? Will you commit to doing that? Pruitt: Senator, for clarity, I think that it’s important to note that the one-year time period, again, is for those covered entities that were highlighted in the EPA letter. With respect to pending litigation, the EPA ethics counsel has indicated, with respect to particular matters and specific parties, there will be an opportunity to get counsel from the EPA at that point to determine what steps could be taken to avoid appearances of impropriety. Markey: So, you will not recu—are you saying that you will not recuse yourself from the actual matters which you’re suing the EPA on right now as attorney general of Oklahoma for the time that you are the head of the EPA? Pruitt: I’m not saying that at all, Senator. Markey: You are saying that. Will you recuse yourself? Pruitt: I’m saying that the EPA ethics counsel has indicated those cases will require a review by the EPA ethics counsel, and if it involves a particular matter with a specific party, then recusal would potentially be in order, and I would follow the guidance and counsel of EPA ethics. Markey: I just think this is—this is a clear line for the American public, given your record from Oklahoma in suing the EPA on all of these matters, that if you don’t agree to recuse yourself, then, again, you become plaintiff, defendant, judge, and jury on the cases that you’re bringing right now as attorney general of Oklahoma against the EPA; and the EPA is for all of the people of the United States, not just the fossil-fuel industry of Oklahoma. So you’re not committing—and I think that’s a big mistake, Mr. Pruitt—to recuse yourself from those cases. It is critical. 2:19:49 Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I’ve looked at your record. Most of the lawsuits you filed as attorney general were related to businesses, specifically what was important for your state in terms of employers and businesses, and the few lawsuits you did file about human safety were few and far between, but this role as head of the EPA, you’re going to have a much more important role to play. And I want to talk specifically about mercury. If you believe that mercury is a threat to public health but oppose the remedy of reducing mercury air pollution from power plants because it’s too costly, what, then, do you think you should do or what should be done to address the mercury pollution? Scott Pruitt: Let me say, Senator, mercury is something—it is a hazardous air pollutant under Section 112. It is something that the EPA has authority to regulate and should regulate. It should do so, though, within the framework established by this body, and the Supreme Court said that the EPA did not follow the cost-benefit obligations. It’s not that the benefits outweigh the costs, it’s just that they simply didn’t engage in a proper record-based support for their rule. And so that goes back to earlier questions with other senators about the process mattering, being committed to the rule of law and the rulemaking authority that Congress has given the EPA in making sure that as rules are passed, that they can be upheld in court. Gillibrand: But, I need you also to be worried about human health. I understand there’s a cost, but when you’re talking about lives, when you’re talking about children who can’t breathe—I’ve been to the emergency room at two in the morning with a child who can’t breathe; it’s a horrible thing. We’ve had children die in New York City because none of their teachers, no administrators in the schools knew what to do when a child has an asthma attack. It’s a huge problem. So I need you to care about human health and really believe that the cost, when human health is at risk, when people are dying, is far higher than it is the cost to that polluter to clean up the air and change their processes. I need you to feel it as if your children sitting behind you are the ones in the emergency room. I need you to know it. 2:31:32 Senator Bernie Sanders: And I apologize for being late, but we were at a hearing with Congressman Price, who is the nominee for HHS, and perhaps not a great idea to have important nominating hearings at exactly the same time. 2:33:30 Scott Pruitt: I believe the ability to measure with precision the degree of human activity’s impact on the climate is subject to more debate on whether the climate is changing or the human activity contributes to it. Senator Bernie Sanders: While you are not certain, the vast majority of scientists are telling us that if we do not get our act together and transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, there is a real question as to the quality of the planet that we are going to be leaving our children and our grandchildren. So, you are applying for a job as administrator for the EPA to protect our environment; overwhelming majority of scientists say we have got to act boldly, and you are telling me that there needs to be more debate on this issue and that we should not be acting boldly. Pruitt: No, Senator. As I’ve indicated, the climate is changing, and human activity impacts that. Sanders: But you haven’t told me why you think the climate is changing. Pruitt: Well, Senator, the job of the administrator is to carry out the statutes as passed by this body and to _ Sanders: Why is the climate changing? Pruitt: Senator, in response to the CO2 issue, the EPA administrator is constrained by statutes Sanders: I'm asking you a personal opinion. Pruitt: My personal opinion is immaterial— Sanders: Really?! Pruitt: —to the job of carrying out— Sanders: You are going to be the head of the agency to protect the environment, and your personal feelings about whether climate change is caused by human activity and carbon emissions is immaterial? Pruitt: Senator, I’ve acknowledged to you that the human activity impacts the climate. Sanders: Impacts. Pruitt: Yes. Sanders: Scientific community doesn’t tell us it impacts; they say it is the cause of climate change, we have to transform our energy system. Do you believe we have to transform our energy system in order to protect the planet for future generations? Pruitt: I believe the EPA has a very important role at regulating the emissions of CO2. Sanders: You didn’t answer my question. Do you believe we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, to do what the scientific community is telling us, in order to make sure that this planet is healthy for our children and grandchildren? Pruitt: Senator, I believe that the administrator has a very important role to perform in regulating CO2. Sanders: Can you tell me, as I think all of us know, Oklahoma has been subjected to a record-breaking number of earthquakes. Scientists say that Oklahoma is almost certain to have more earthquakes, with heightened risk of a large quake, probable to endure for a decade and that the cause of this is fracking. Can you point me—picking up on Senator Harris’s discussion with you, can you point me to any opinion that you wrote, any enforcement actions you took, against the companies that were injecting waste fracking water? Pruitt: Senator, let me say I’m very concerned about the connection between activity in Oklahoma and- Sanders: And, therefore, you must have taken action, I guess. Can you tell me who you fined for doing this, if you are very concerned? Pruitt: The Corporation Commission in Oklahoma is vested with the jurisdiction, and they have actually acted on that. Sanders: And you have made public statements expressing your deep concern about this. Pruitt: We have worked with, through our- Sanders: You have made public statements. You’re in a state which is seeing a record-breaking number of earthquakes. You’re the attorney general. Obviously, you have stood up and said you will do everything you can to stop future earthquakes as a result of fracking. Pruitt: Senator, I’ve acknowledged that I’m concerned about the- Sanders: You acknowledged that you are concerned. Pruitt: Yes. Sanders: Your state is having a record number of—well, if that’s the kind of administrator for the EPA—your state’s having a record-breaking number of earthquakes, you acknowledge you are concerned; if that’s the kind of EPA administrator you will be, you are not going to get my vote. 2:37:43 Senator John Barrasso: I want to talk about some of the concerns I have with overregulation, and I’ll ask, do you have the same concerns with the overregulation of U.S. manufacturing over the last eight years? I believe we’ve _____(00:08) exported manufacturing jobs overseas, jobs that go with them in terms of the manufacturing of those goods to places like China and India that are going to produce those products in a less environmentally friendly way. And do you agree with this notion that this approach harms not just the environment, but also our own U.S. economy? Pruitt I believe, Senator, that it puts us in an economic disadvantage when we don’t hear all voices in the rulemaking process with respect to these issues, absolutely. Part 2 17:04 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: Let me just ask you this as a hypothetical: if you had raised significant amounts of money for the Rule of Law Defense Fund from corporations who will be subject to EPA’s regulation, before EPA, with matters before EPA, might that place you in a conflict of interest? Scott Pruitt: The EPA ethics counsel has said—and by the way, these are career individuals as you know, Senator. Justina Fugh is a career person at EPA ethics, and so as they’ve reviewed these potential conflicts, I’ve disclosed all entities I’ve been affiliated with. Whitehouse: I understand that, but I’m asking you if you think it might place you in a conflict of interest, because we both understand that the ethics rules that the EPA’s enforcing predate Citizens United, predate dark money, and they’ve said in the letter that they aren’t even looking at that because they don’t have the authority to. That doesn’t mean it’s not a conflict of interest; it means that the regulatory authority on government ethics hasn’t caught up with this post-Citizens United, dark-money world. Pruitt: I think— Whitehouse: My question is, you’re a lawyer, you know conflicts of interest, you’ve been an attorney general, might it be a conflict of interest, within your definition of the term, if you had raised significant amounts of money for this Rule of Law Defense Fund and they’ll have business before EPA with you? Is that a potential conflict of interest? Pruitt: I think Justina Fugh actually did address those entities to the degree that I was never an officer of the super PAC that you referred to earlier, the Liberty 2.0, and so they looked at those entities to determine— Whitehouse: The question was fund raising. Pruitt: They looked at those entities— Whitehouse: That’s the question we don’t have any answers on is what you raised. Pruitt: They looked at those entities to determine what the nature of my relationship was and then indicated that those would have to be evaluated in the future as cases arose, and— Whitehouse: Right now, the chairman asked you a question which is, are there matters that might place you in a conflict of interest that you have not disclosed? You answered no. Might not having raised significant money—let’s say $1 million, let’s say you made a call to Devon Energy and said, I did you letter for you, RAGA needs a lot of money, we’ve got this dark-money thing where we can launder your identity clean off it, and the money will go into RAGA, I need a million bucks out of you—might that not create a conflict of interest for you if that were the facts? Pruitt: Ms. Fugh has indicated in her letter to me—again, these are career individuals at EPA ethics—that if particular matters involving specific parties arise in the future, it will be evaluated at that point, but I want to call into account— Whitehouse: But how will they know if you’re not willing to disclose that you raised the hypothetical million dollars from Devon Energy? Pruitt: Well, those aren’t even covered entities under her letter at this point. Whitehouse: That's my point. Pruitt: But it’s factual— Whitehouse: But that may very well create a conflict of interest, mightn’t it? Pruitt: Senator, I did not serve in an office or capacity at that entity. In fact, I was not [unclear] in any way— Whitehouse: You’ve said that already, too, but that also is not the question. The question is a very simple one: did you raise money for the Rule of Law Defense Fund from entities that will appear before EPA as potential defendants in subjects of regulation, and if so, how much, and what did you tell them, and what did you ask? It seems to me that’s not an unusual or— Pruitt: The Rule of Law Defense Fund, according to Ms. Fugh, would need to be a party in the future for that to be an issue. That’s what she’s indicated in her letter to me. Whitehouse: So— Pruitt: At the time— Whitehouse: So let me— Pruitt: —if issues arise in the future, I will seek the counsel of EPA ethics and follow the advice of those career folks to make a decision and recuse if necessary. That is— Whitehouse: But at this point— Pruitt: —something I commit to doing. Whitehouse: At this point, what I deduce from your statement is that if that set of hypothetical facts were true, if you had raised a million dollars from a big energy corporation to go through the Rule of Law Defense Fund to support your efforts at RAGA, that that is not something anybody should care about, even if that corporation is before you at EPA and subject to your regulation at EPA. Pruitt: Well, I think something that, if presented in the future, Justina Fugh and myself, EPA ethics would evaluate that, and I would take the appropriate steps to recuse if they told me to do so. Whitehouse: But how would it be presented in the future if you’re not willing to present it now? Pruitt: If there’s a matter— Whitehouse: Why does it matter in the future and not now? Pruitt: If there’s a matter or cast that comes before the EPA’s authority, that would be something. There’s ongoing—as you know, Senator, Ms. Fugh indicated this in her letter—there’s ongoing obligations that I will have, if confirmed as administrator, to bring those kinds of matters to attention of EPA ethics. Whitehouse: Well, for what it’s worth, I think that the Senate has a role in policing this as well, that the whole purpose of advice and consent and the reason there are these government ethics filings is so we can look at this exact question, and the fact that they haven’t been updated to take into account dark money and all these big political organizations that have been created with dark money doesn’t take away our Senate obligation to find out what conflicts of interest you will bring to the position of administrator. And it gives me very little comfort that you’re not willing to answer those questions here. My time has expired. I’ll continue in other rounds. 1:07:50 Senator Ed Markey: Do you support the current California waiver for greenhouse gas standards? Scott Pruitt: Senator, that’s what would be evaluated, and I think it’s very difficult, and we shouldn’t prejudge the outcome in that regard if confirmed as administrator. Markey: So you’re questioning the current waiver. You don’t think they’re entitled to the current waiver. Pruitt: Well, the waiver is something that’s granted on an annual basis, and the administrator would be responsible for making that decision. Markey: Yeah. And so you say you’re going to review it. Pruitt: Yes, Senator. Markey: Yeah. And when you say review, I hear undo the rights of the states, and I think to a certain extent that it’s troublesome because, obviously, what we’ve heard all day is how much you support states’ rights when it comes to these issues, but now when it comes to the right of California or Massachusetts and other states to be able to reduce carbon pollution, you’re saying you’re going to review that. So my problem really goes to this double standard that is created that when you sue from the Oklahoma perspective, from the oil and gas industry perspective, and you represent Oklahoma, you say they have a right to do what they want to do in the state of Oklahoma. But when it comes to Massachusetts or it comes to California, and it comes to the question of those states wanting to increase their protection for the environment, protect their victimization from carbon pollution, you say there you’re going to review. 1:51:58 Senator Jim Inhofe: The cost of regulations: as you know, the Supreme Court overturned the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics—that’s MATS—rule in 2015 because the EPA failed to—ignored the fact that the cost was $9.6 billion annually of the rule. Now, in fact, the EPA’s regularly issued rules over the past eight years that are very costly for our industries and our job creators. According to the CRS—now, CRS, when they make an evaluation, are much more conservative, the figure is always a very conservative figure, but they said the Clean Power Plan would be at least $5 billion to $8 billion a year. The figures I’ve heard on that are far greater because it wouldn’t be that much different than the old systems that they tried to do through legislation: the methane standards on oil and gas facilities, $315 million a year; the new ozone standards, $1.4 billion; the 2015 coal ash standards, $587 million a year; and the 2011 sulfur dioxide standards, $1.5 billion a year. Now, when you hear this, all this money is being spent on compliance costs by our job creators, people out there that are working for a living, and they’re hiring people. What are you thoughts, and what do you believe should be the role of the costs of EPA’s decision making? Pruitt: I think it’s very important in the rule-making process, Senator, and the Supreme Court and courts have recognized that very important factor. 1:54:46 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: We have been talking about fundraising done by you for the Rule of Law Defense Fund during the time when you were both a board member and for a full year the chairman of the Rule of Law Defense Fund and the fact that we have exactly zero information in this committee about that fundraising. We also have zero—and let me ask unanimous consent for the page from— Chairman Barrasso: Without objection. Whitehouse: —the filing that discloses that he was in fact a member of the board of directors and chairman of the Rule of Law Defense Fund. We also have a meeting agenda from the Republican Attorney Generals Association during a time that you were executive committee member of the Republican Attorney Generals Association meeting at The Greenbrier, which I’ll stipulate for my friend from West Virginia is a lovely place to go, and the agenda, which I’d like to take this page of and put into the record, mentions a private meeting with Murray Energy. It mentions a private meeting with Southern Company. It mentions a private meeting with the American Fuel Petrochemical Manufacturers. If you’ll show the graphic, these are all the same groups that I’d been asking about in terms of your fundraising for the Rule of Law Defense Fund, and there’s Murray Energy, and there’s Southern Company, and I’m sure the American Fuel Petrochemical Manufacturers represent a lot of the others. As I understand it, we know nothing—no minutes, no statements, no reports—about what took place in those meetings that are described as private meetings on a sheet that is stamped “confidential.” Correct? We know nothing about the content of those meetings. Scott Pruitt: Senator, I didn’t generate the document. I know nothing about how that document got generated or what— Whitehouse: Are you denying that those private meetings took place? Pruitt: No, Senator. I just didn’t generate the document and don’t know about the content other than what you’ve represented. Whitehouse: Okay. And we don’t know. And because you were on the executive committee of RAGA, that’s information that we could get, right? I mean, it’s available, if there were minutes or reports out of those meetings, notes taken; but we don’t have them, correct? Pruitt: Senator, that would be a request made to the Republican Attorney Generals Association. And I might add, the Republican Attorney Generals Association, there’s a Democrat Attorney Generals Association as well. 1:59:43 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: Given how many of these groups have important financial interests before the EPA, do you not think that 3,000 emails back and forth between you and your office and them are relevant to potential conflict of interest as an administrator and should be before us as we consider this? Scott Pruitt: Again, I think the EPA ethics council has put out a very clear process with respect to covered entities, as we described earlier, and on particular matters and specific cases, I will follow advice of that EPA career person, ethics, to make sure that there are recusing [unclear]— Whitehouse: You keep saying that, but the problem is— Chairman Barrasso: The senator’s time has expired. Whitehouse: Will you finish my sentence? Barrasso: Please do. Whitehouse: The problem with that is that if you haven’t disclosed any of this information, then the EPA ethics council would have no idea to even look. They would have no idea what the risks are. You can’t say, nobody can look at whether I did this, but by the way, they’re going to look at it. It just doesn’t add up. 2:12:30 Senator Jeff Merkley: Ten years ago we were talking about models that led to the conversation Senator Inhofe had about Climategate, about wrestling with assumptions and models. We don’t need models now; we have facts on the ground: the moose are dying because the ticks aren’t being killed by the winter being cold enough, the fish are migrating on the Atlantic coast, and Maine’s losing its lobsters to Canada. These facts on the ground are extraordinarily real, they have a huge economic impact, and shouldn’t we take a very serious approach to the urgency of this problem as we see it descending upon us? Scott Pruitt: Senator, I think the EPA—and if confirmed [missing audio] and obligation to deal with the issue. The Massachusetts v. EPA case says that CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and as such, that’s what generated the 2009 endangerment finding. So I think there is a legal obligation presently for the EPA administrator to respond to the CO2 issue through proper regulations. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

Glenn C. Loury is the Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics at Brown University. He has taught previously at Boston, Harvard and Northwestern Universities, and the University of Michigan. He holds a B.A. in Mathematics (Northwestern University, 1972) and a Ph.D. in Economics (MIT, 1976). Professor Loury has published mainly in the areas of applied microeconomic theory, game theory, industrial organization, natural resource economics, and the economics of race and inequality. He has been elected Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and of the Econometric Society, Member of the American Philosophical Society, Vice President of the American Economics Association, and President of the Eastern Economics Association. He is the recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Carnegie Scholarship to support his work. As a prominent social critic and public intellectual, writing mainly on the themes of racial inequality and social policy, Professor Loury has published over 200 essays and reviews in journals of public affairs in the U.S. and abroad. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is a contributing editor at The Boston Review, and was for many years a contributing editor at The New Republic. Professor Loury’s books include One by One, From the Inside Out: Essays and Reviews on Race and Responsibility in America (The Free Press, 1995 – winner of the American Book Award and the Christianity Today Book Award); The Anatomy of Racial Inequality (Harvard University Press, 2002); Ethnicity, Social Mobility and Public Policy: Comparing the US and the UK (ed., Cambridge University Press, 2005); and, Race, Incarceration and American Values (M.I.T. Press, 2008). Glenn Loury hosts The Glenn Show on Bloggingheads.tv, and he can be reached on Twitter at @GlennLoury. Books and articles discussed in this podcast: Ta-Nehisi Coates. “The Case for Reparations.” The Atlantic. June, 2014. Thomas Chatterton Williams. “Loaded Dice.” The London Review of Books. December, 2015. Benjamin Wallace-Wells. “The Hard Truths of Ta-Nehisi Coates.” New York Magazine. July, 2015. Jill Leovy. Ghettoside. Spiegel & Grau. 2015. Roland G. Fryer, Jr. “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force.” National Bureau of Economic Research working paper. July, 2016. Glenn C. Loury. “Ferguson Won’t Change Anything. What Will?” The Boston Review. January, 2015.

Stephen talks about his experience writing The Mormonizing of America. Related Articles (linked at http://mansfieldgroup.com/category/podcast): Benjamin Wallace-Wells on Romney's Mormonism Christopher Hitchens on Romney's Mormonism      

Jake Tapper and Benjamin Wallace-Wells are our guests this week. Show produced by Katherine Caperton. Original Air Date: June 2, 2012 on SiriusXM Satellite Radio "POTUS" Channel 124. Polioptics airs regularly on POTUS on Saturdays at 6:00 am, 12 noon and 6:00 pm. Follow us on Twitter @Polioptics Listen to the show . . . → Read More: Episode 58, with guests Jake Tapper and Benjamin Wallace-Wells