Podcasts about c span

I'm Not A Monster Presents... Where is Austin Tice?Josh Baker investigates one of the biggest missing-person cases of our time. American journalist Austin Tice vanished in Syria, but the US president says he's alive. For more than a decade Austin's mother Debra has been leading the search for her son. As Josh Baker and Sara Obeidat travel to Syria to help Austin's mother's search, a source gives Josh information that might unlock where he is - and a simple instruction: “Find Austin.”Josh - creator of two of the BBC's most award-winning and widely listened-to investigative podcasts, I'm Not a Monster and The Shamima Begum Story - returns for his most ambitious chapter yet, in a major new series from BBC Radio 4 and NPR's Embedded.Listen to the podcast - search for 'I'm Not a Monster presents'.Archive: Houston Public Media; NBC; PBS; CNN; C-SPAN; MSNBC; The White House; BBC.Writer and showrunner: Josh Baker Investigative producer: Sara Obeidat Series producer: Simon Maybin Field producing: Ouday Al Hussein Additional producing: Lucy Burns Open source intelligence: Thomas Bordeaux & Gabor Friesen Production coordinator: Gemma Ashman Series editor: Clare Fordham Head of BBC News Long Form Audio: Emma Rippon BBC Radio 4 commissioning editor: Dan Clarke NPR producer: Monika Evstatieva NPR editors: Robert Little & Katie Simon NPR executive producer for Embedded: Irene Noguchi BBC World Service commissioning editor: Jon Manel Composer: Firas Abou Fakher Additional music: Karim Chehoury Theme music: Sam Slater Mix and sound design: Tom Brignell

The Trump administration's proposed changes to the residence criteria for the 2030 Census have brought new attention to a question examined by the Center for Immigration Studies two years ago: How does immigration affect political representation even when immigrants do not vote?In response, the Center is rebroadcasting Parsing Immigration Policy Episode 178, “Immigration Shifts Political Power,” originally released in October 2024. The episode features Steven Camarota, Director of Research, discussing two studies released by the Center examining how immigration affects the distribution of political power.Under the current system, House seats and Electoral College votes are apportioned among the states based on total population. The Census Bureau's proposed residence criteria for the 2030 Census would exclude illegal immigrants and long-term temporary visitors from the Census count, which is used to apportion seats in the House of Representatives.The two CIS studies examined:House seats and Electoral College votes: “Tilting the Balance” estimated that immigration affected the distribution of 17 House seats in the 2020 Census, with a net gain of 14 seats for Democratic-leaning states.Representation within congressional districts: “How Non-Citizens Impact Political Representation and the Partisan Makeup of the U.S. House” examined how differences in non-citizen populations affect the distribution of representation among districts.“Because of the way reapportionment and redistricting work, immigration, including illegal immigration, redistributes political power in Washington,” said Camarota, the lead author of both studies. “This redistribution is directly proportional to the scale of legal and illegal immigration and exists independent of whether or how immigrants themselves vote.”HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestSteven Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.LinksProposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic QuestionsEstimating the impact of legal and illegal immigration on apportionment and political influence in the U.S. House and Electoral CollegeHow Non-Citizens Impact Political Representation and the Partisan Makeup of the U.S. House of RepresentativesHow Many Non-Citizens Would Have to Vote to Affect the 2024 Presidential Election?Tilting the BalanceIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Despite repeated floggings, First Mate Steve Hayes is once again up to no good. With Capt. Jonah Goldberg having gone ashore to purchase more books about Abraham Lincoln, Hayes has seized the helm of the HMS Remnant and is once again joy-cruising with his friends. And while most of the freeloaders Steve invites aboard are scalawags and ne'er-do-wells, there is one particular exception.  Jim VandeHei, the co-founder and CEO of Axios, is on deck to talk about how to simplify our lives in an increasingly complicated world. Jim and Steve cover how to confront and eliminate unnecessary tasks, prioritize what matters, and achieve informational simplicity in the age of AI, and discuss what the future of news reporting holds.  Show Notes: —Simplify: Do 50 Percent More with 50 Percent Less —Smart Brevity: The Power of Saying More With Less —The CEOs of C-SPAN, Axios, and The Dispatch on journalism and civil discourse The Remnant is a production of ⁠The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including the Saturday Ruminant, audio versions of all our articles and newsletters, and Jonah's twice-weekly G-File—⁠click here⁠. Instructions on how to set up your members-only feed can be found here, and if you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠by clicking here⁠.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to Zooming In at The UnPopulist in your favorite podcast app: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeBerny Belvedere: Renée DiResta, thanks for joining us on Zooming In, our flagship podcast here at The UnPopulist. You've been on before a couple of times. You've done podcasts with us, you've spoken at LibCon—in fact, during our first LibCon, LibCon 2024, your book generated intense interest. It seemed to be the book of the summer. You remember that?Renée DiResta: I do, thanks so much.Belvedere: It felt like at every other session, some panelist would say something like, “and to explore this further, I really recommend Renée DiResta's new book, which is just wonderful.” Right? I don't know why I did that in a nerd voice. Your endorsers are wonderful people.But Renée, welcome again. I want to dive right in. You have a new report out. It's put out by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It was written by you and two co-authors, Rachel Kleinfeld and Margot Treadwell. That's a powerful lineup. We've run Rachel's work in our pages before and it's top notch. The report is fantastic. It did not disappoint. For anyone interested in how the broader world of news and opinion discourse works today, it's immediately one of the most useful resources to pick up. And it's especially useful for practitioners, for people who work in the space, like we do.But to help with some scene setting, can you tell us about the report in broad brushstrokes? We'll then narrow in from there.DiResta: So I think about this as report part two. Last year, in September, almost one year to the day, we put out a provocation saying: “institutions need to change how they communicate in order to compete in the new media environment.” And we wrote a framing on why that was, on how social media was no longer this niche thing that those people over there did. If you wanted to reach the public, this is where people are—and you have to reach them where they are and in a manner that they find appealing. The way that you communicate is just different now.That attracted a lot of attention and it got us a ton of inbound, particularly from philanthropy, because we were also telling philanthropists you have to change how you think about outputs and outcomes that matter. For a lot of academics and others, participation in the public conversation is, if not discouraged, it's not really encouraged. It doesn't move the needle for your tenure committee, that sort of thing. How could philanthropists shift the thinking on why communicating to the public actually was critical? We got a ton of inbound on it and the question we got most often was: “How?”This report is the how. The basic premise is that most Americans now get their information and form their opinions through creators, podcasts, Substacks, group chats. Most traditional institutions have only minimal engagement or presence in those spaces. So that ecosystem runs on a very different model of legitimacy. People are following people, not institutions. They're following people that they find appealing or relatable. Somebody coming to you from their kitchen. Credentials and institutional polish actually can read as almost a sort of distance now.Those are the elites saying that stuff from over there, whereas this person is just talking to me in their kitchen. They're real.We write about how fact-based institutions have often thought about this shift to social as a repackaging job. “All right, how do I take my massive PDF”—and, by the way, this report is a massive PDF—“how do I take that and put out a couple screenshots on social media or generate a reel?” They see it more as engaging when you have something to release, when you have just put something out. So it's very self-serving. They're not using social media as a communicator in an ongoing conversation where they're having a back and forth with their audience. They're using it as a broadcast tool and they're reformulating the thing that they wanted to broadcast into a format that nominally works but is missing that dialogue.So our guide argues that it's a strategy problem—and that CEOs and boards have to own this. They have to think about it, not as the thing that happens after you've done your work, but as an active part of your ongoing relationship to the public. We framed the report as a series of questions to guide that thinking. We did a bunch of case studies, really spanning the communication ecosystem we have. How Jon Haidt turned some of his work into a movement. We have how Turning Point became a juggernaut. We have some of the Mamdani campaign stuff. Not endorsing any position there—but saying, “here's some interesting stuff that you can learn from how this group strategically chose to engage the public through these means.”Belvedere: I thought the guide did a really great job of bringing in real world examples. You also brought up David French and the reception he received. His case is a fascinating one because of what it represents and what it says about the subcommunity that he had that parting of the ways with, and the way they gate-kept him from continued access to it.But I want to pick up on something that you mentioned in passing just now in your broad overview. There's a line in the report that really struck me as I was reading it. As you put it, credentials and institutional polish—the CV virtues—now read as distance and disconnect rather than authority, which is what it used to read as. Do you think that's a permanent rewiring of how trust just works now?DiResta: It's an interesting question. Trust and authoritativeness are distinct. You trust your neighbor without necessarily thinking they're an authority. You just find them a trustworthy person. You would give them your keys. They can feed your dog, that sort of thing. And it doesn't matter what they do or what their professional credentials are. What matters is just that you have a relationship. You feel that this person is somebody who would support you if you need it, that they're going to level with you. They're going to tell you the truth, even if you might not want to hear it.That's the idea of trust as something that is deeper than expertise. Sure, it goes hand in hand with it at times. We would like it to be tightly coupled. We want people to trust experts, but the idea of relatability instead is: “Why would this person who seems just like me lie to me? Why would they deceive me? What do they get out of it?” Whereas people sincerely believe that elite institutions are working to serve their own agenda, and that is often seen as being at odds with the average, everyday person. You see this in politics when people ask, “Why is this politician talking about this thing, performing this action, when I just care about putting food on the table for my family?” You see that gap in what lands and resonates with people versus what people in elite or institutional positions want to talk about.Sometimes this is a disconnect that gets lamented in liberal spaces, particularly as, “well, if only they listened, they would understand that my policy proposal for this thing does help them 10 degrees and five years later.” But in the immediate here and now, it's that question of: Do I trust the person who's speaking to me? Do they seem just like me?I had this experience when I was a new mom. I was one of the first in my friend group to have kids. I didn't know what to do. I was living across the country from my family and didn't have much support. So I turned to the internet, right? Who are the people who are going to help me understand what I'm supposed to do with this baby? How do I make him sleep? How do I make him eat? How do I not screw this up? I think it's a very personal experience that a lot of people have where that sense that reading a PDF on an institutional website is not the same thing as somebody sitting there with you taking the time. There's a phrase that I think it was Jeff Jarvis who once said to me in conversation: “the media talks to the public and the influencers talk with them.”I think that's the best framing I've heard for that. Content creators understand how to talk with their audiences, where even people who may have better information, more expertise, authoritative content, are not necessarily communicating that in a way that feels real and connects to a sense that this person is telling me the truth.Belvedere: I'm wondering what's the right read on this broad question of trust that we're all grappling with. Take, for example, the aftershocks from a specific high profile instance of trust collapse—something like Covid. I think Covid's a really instructive episode in many different ways. There's been a lot of revisionism about it. What was different about Covid compared to other past trying moments in society is that Covid became politicized in a particular way by an extremely potent right-wing discourse-shaping machine. That's not going to stop being in place.“A lot of institutions are taught to stay on message at all times—if you hand your message to somebody else, you lose control of it. But you can't tell them what to say. They're going to say what they want to say. They might get it wrong. But counterintuitively, I think that actually generates more dialogue, more attention, and provides you with a way to accomplish something you might not be good at yourself. Your CEO might not actually be the best face to talk about this thing—the 20 year old you hired, who is much more comfortable with this, is actually the person who should be out there engaging, putting out the message, or working with a creator or creator lab and essentially briefing them.” — Renée DiRestaSo my overriding fear is that Covid is not an outlier. And that anything in society like Covid that requires elite management, whether it's the dissemination of information, policies that help curb some of the worst effects of not abiding by certain standards, all of that is going to run up against an information machine architecturally designed to demagogue that issue, to create a trust collapse, to point out any little mistakes and amplify them as though they're an example of the elites just completely botching everything. Is there any hope that that wanes?DiResta: That's a very interesting question—let me give you a couple of answers.Two things were true about Covid. I was writing about this in The Atlantic during the pandemic: the institutional communicators really dropped the ball—in my opinion, but I think that's been quite backed up at this point. I remember writing that it would be nice to see the CDC's website look more like Wikipedia, where you can see the change log, the public can understand in this fast moving situation—you can go back and read the edit history, you can see who made the change, you can understand how consensus forms in a scientific community. Because there's such a time lag, right? They are waiting until they are absolutely, 100% sure before they say something. In that time, the people are still looking for information, and they're going to get it from whoever is willing to give it to them. On social media, there's an incentive structure: if you're first, you get rewarded; if you're sensational, you get rewarded. If you're right? That doesn't really matter. Maybe you'll get a Community Note, maybe a fact check, but that's not really the point. The point is: Are you first, are you relatable, do you seem authentic, can your stuff go viral? It's a very different communication style and game.So the first thing that was true is that the institutions dropped the ball in comms during Covid communications. And I was writing about it as it happened, because my job was to study social media rumors and narratives around the vaccine. I was like: “Come on, guys! You gotta get in the game here! You're not going to content-moderate this out of existence—that's just not how it works. You're going to turn this into forbidden knowledge.” We did everything we possibly could to try to systematically change that. And the people who did respond were the first-person speakers who began to emerge: physicians. You saw doctors working shifts at Bellevue doing live updates about the morgue trucks—those were the people who managed to break through, because they had the credentials, but they were also able to say very directly to the public: this is the truth, this is what you need to know, Covid is real, even as the institutions weren't doing that.But the second thing that's true is that, as you note, the failures, flaws, and missteps get immediately weaponized. That turns into: “you can't trust those people, they didn't tell you the truth then, never forget what they did to us.” That rhetoric isn't really about finding truth, or understanding a novel pathogen, or whether a vaccine works—remember, this was the first time one had ever been rolled out in an emergency setting. It turns into: “here's why you can never trust those people, and you can only trust me.”That got reinforced through litigation. They lost all their court cases, but they still sued people who tried to deal with the falsehoods and misleading content, and any effort to label it or fact-check it got reframed as censorship. It was really wild to see what that machine juggernaut managed to do to reinforce that only it was going to tell its base the truth, and they couldn't trust anything on the outside. That's the kind of rhetoric you usually see from cults—“you can't trust anybody but me.” It's a very different style of communication, and I found it personally alarming to see it happen in the context of a pandemic, because it has serious downstream consequences.Belvedere: Yeah, and I mean, think about the way you just described that—an informational cult kind of environment, scaled up to half the country, or at least to a large share of people getting their news from less-than-ideal sources. I think it's going to continue to be a problem.DiResta: Let me follow up on that quickly. I spent about [six months] watching the vaccine rollout—February through August of 2021, as Operation Warp Speed rolled out. I watched what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other long-standing—just to be clear, long-standing—anti-vaccine activists did. These weren't people who simply didn't like the Covid shot; no, these were people who had been telling you vaccines cause autism, dating back to the 1990s. I watched them capitalize on this in the most incredible ways. They were absolutely transparent about it—they were like, “this is our chance to undermine confidence in the entire vaccine enterprise.” And that is exactly what they did. They didn't hide the ball—they were live-streaming taking about it. “This is our chance to tell the public that all of these things are poison.” And now we have kids dying of measles.That's the downstream effect of this: they managed to connect that distrust to other things. They didn't just create distrust around one incident or fact; they created the idea that nobody in the medical establishment has your best interests at heart. That's what they managed to achieve as a result of Covid.Belvedere: I want to stay on this, because I think we're all trying to figure out the right posture here. You bring up Joe Rogan and his effect on psychedelics policy: a lot of people know him through segments where he talks through his drug trips, or a guest's. Or, another example: online creators helping speed up the end of USAID. And there are other cases. But these are cases where influence and factual accuracy are completely decoupled. For organizations whose whole value proposition is getting reality right, being accurate—a lot of people in these spaces ask a question that is one neighborhood down but the same city: “Where's the liberal answer to Joe Rogan?” We've been asking that question since the post-mortem on 2024, and even before. A lot of our institutions feel saddled by the sense that in order to compete on reach, in this new marketplace of ideas, we can't really compete on accuracy's terms.Roger Ailes created Fox News in the '90s. It wasn't [presented] as a dominant player—it was a countervailing force: “the media is captured, so we're going to bring balance back.” “Fair and balanced”—that whole thing; a whole alternative institution positioned against the media itself. So [this side] has had an insurgent mindset from the start—Rush Limbaugh and others. I've brought this up a lot. Even the Ailes project, Fox News, it had institutional trappings, institutional clothing, but it really had this insurgent energy, whatever it said about itself early on. That posture was able to scale beautifully once podcasting, YouTube, and the internet more broadly made these tools available. It was disintermediation. People like Ben Shapiro with The Daily Wire, Charlie Kirk, really ran with the ball a lot better in these spaces, it seemed like. It never felt like liberals had their own Ailes moment, because it felt like they were fine with The New York Times and The Atlantic.Is the real gap here about talent, effort, and ability, or just needing to catch up after playing behind for so long? Or is it more that this is a different language, that [that side] can easily and naturally slot into, and for us it has to be more performative, a little contrived—like a theater kid having to learn how to act?DiResta: It's funny—there's so much in what you're saying there. First, when you can position yourself oppositionally—“we're the underdog, we're David, they're Goliath”—that's an archetype, a story everybody knows, that people immediately understand where you're positioning yourself. “They are all telling you the same thing”; “that is a monolith, that's the state propaganda machine manufacturing consent, we're the plucky little outlet trying to break through.” And then, of course, they maintain that outsider branding and status even as their audience becomes massive—quite a lot larger, in fact, than some of that so-called establishment media.You see this with a phrase that comes out of QAnon: “we are the media now.” What they're saying is: “we can break through, we can make stuff trend, we can make stuff go viral, we can take our (in the context of QAnon, I think it's fair to say) crackpot ideas and put them out there, get them seen, get them part of the discourse, and then people have to pay attention to us.” That's where “we are the media now” comes from. It was popularized by Elon, because he picked up that phrase and it is so much in the ether on X—I don't even know if he understands the provenance. But “we are the media now” becomes the idea that we're the opposition now, and all that legacy stuff—including Fox, mind you, which is legacy too—is old. You actually see the schisms now, especially since they're in power everywhere on the right: influencers going to war with Fox News.“I once had someone screenshot every social media post where I'd used a curse word and send it to my dean. And I was like: “I said all of that. That's 100% real.” This is the internet, after all. Would I use that language in a talk? Probably not. I'm from New York, so sometimes I do. But if you're constantly second-guessing, clarifying, checking yourself … and you do need to be correct, because in some cases your credentials are on the line when you're speaking about the thing you're actually presenting. But your delivery can afford to be a bit more flexible, a bit more relaxed.” — Renée DiRestaVenkatesh Rao wrote about this in “The Internet of Beefs”—one of the most astute assessments of how social media works, in my opinion. If you have conflict, that's fantastic: it benefits both parties, gets both parties attention, and there's no incentive to actually win the conflict, because the conflict itself is like a soap opera—it just keeps going. That's where you start to see right-wing influencers say, “Fox News is establishment, Bush-era media, and we'll tell you the truth—on social, on our platforms, on our streams, on our podcasts.” That's where you start to see that shift.There's also something Rachel and I wrote about in the first report: institutional and academic speakers are media-trained for a very different world, where you get a three- to five-minute segment. If you've never done TV before, they tell you roughly what you'll be asked, you prepare your talking points in advance because you have so little time, you deliver the soundbite, and the segment's over. That's completely different from what I experienced doing Rogan in 2019—a two-and-a-half-hour conversation with no prep. I'm going to be there and you either know your stuff or you don't. His audience either likes me or it doesn't. Half of them hated me!And that's fine—it is what it is. I showed up for a reason. There's a completely different vernacular, style, and approach when you're having a two-hour conversation with somebody, where you're going to listen to what they have to say, and you're responding back much more as a human than as a person who's there to digest for the public, in a three-minute hit, what you said in that report over there or what happened in the world and why you, the expert, with your credentials and your chyron should think about it. It's a completely different experience.So does it go back to the old way? I don't think it does—I haven't thought that for the better part of 10 years now. I started writing about the anti-vaccine movement in 2015, as a mom, saying: “I have got to say something about this.” What became MAHA is now a political movement that sits in power at HHS. What they understood was that empathy and relatability, the feeling that they are talking with you, matters so much more than a PDF or an academic paper that sits behind a paywall that nobody can read without an academic library license. That's not going back to normal. So the question that's motivated me and Rachel is: How do you teach people who do have the knowledge and the skill set to compete differently?Belvedere: On that note, on liberals' broad failure to penetrate a lot of these spaces, these subcommunities, these niche places where people gather … think about all the subcultures we have in the United States—there are plenty that liberals are just really poor at reaching, or at having any presence within at all.DiResta: I'm an independent. My complaint is about how liberals communicate versus how conservatives communicate. I spend a lot of time in both ecosystems, in person, and I try to engage with the media apparatus on the right too, partly because they make up conspiracy theories about me, so I feel like I have to. But there's a difference in how carefully you have to think through what you're about to say—what performance are you putting on in that moment? Conservatives use the word “based”—you're talking in a way that's almost intentionally provocative at times, and sometimes it goes way off the rails; sometimes it's not good at all. But there's a sense that when you're hearing from the liberal establishment, you're hearing qualifiers—everything is qualified.This is something I used to talk about when making content: on Instagram Reels, you've got three seconds to hook your audience. If you start with a qualifier about how what you're saying doesn't necessarily apply to all people, in all places, at all times, you're done—that took three seconds, that's it, we're done. So the question is: How do you get comfortable either owning an opinion unapologetically, or framing it in a way where you're just like, “yeah, whatever, somebody on the internet is always going to yell at me, I don't care, I'm going to say the thing anyway”? That's a limitation I just don't see in conservative spaces.Again, that means things can go way off the rails, and some of it is genuinely not good. But the flip side is that [liberal content] can sound stilted, practiced, polished. And the incentive structure is scary for the participant—for the academic who decides to try being more casual in their presentation. I once had someone screenshot every social media post where I'd used a curse word and send it to my dean. And I was like: “I said all of that. That's 100% real.” This is the internet, after all. Would I use that language in a talk? Probably not. I'm from New York, so sometimes I do. But if you're constantly second-guessing, clarifying, checking yourself … and you do need to be correct, because in some cases your credentials are on the line when you're speaking about the thing you're actually presenting. But your delivery can afford to be a bit more flexible, a bit more relaxed.What I've loved over the last few years since Covid is watching public health experts and epidemiologists start presenting as themselves: “here I am, I've got this expertise, and I'm also going to tell you about my kids, or this dress I bought, or this thing I did.” It makes them more relatable, more human—because they are, in fact, relatable and human. It's not an artifice. But they understand that doing this actually helps establish their credibility, more than just the credential. So if me saying a curse word on Twitter … normal people curse on Twitter.Belvedere: And not to be too cynical about it, but this is something intuitively understood by people on the wrong side of things. Trump will have a word randomly capitalized as a marker of his style, and without it, the message would feel too polished—even though, grammatically, it would be correct.One reaction people sometimes have to a discussion like this is: “all you're talking about is communication, this is social media stuff, it's more fluff than substance.” I think that couldn't be more wrong, because if we care about the issues we're writing about, if we want action taken on them …DiResta: Yes! It is a persuasive process.Belvedere: … if we want people to care about authoritarianism or corruption in government, raising the salience of those issues becomes really important. If we're collectively bad at it, if we don't have the “juice” that the other side does, our issues stay dormant, untouched, unlistened to, uncared about, while the other side's issues will be front and center, driving the conversation. You talk about issue salience needing to travel across networks before it becomes a thing. Could you unpack that? You've got multiple creators, adjacent communities … help us understand how that works.DiResta: So, often times, when you open your social media feed—whatever ranked platform you use, which is almost all of them—you're seeing what the platform has decided is important for you, and that's not the same as what's important to the person sitting next to you on the train. So you innately think a lot of people care about something, or are talking about something, when it turns out—take X as an example: you log in, there's a “trends” feature, and it'll surface a trend when there are maybe 200 posts about something. That's not a trend in any national sense; it's basically the platform tweaking a small number of people who'll respond to it. They see it and think, “there are 2,000 posts about this, I care a lot about that thing, I'm going to add my voice, retweet it, reshare it”—and if a sufficient number of people do that, it gets bigger, and eventually it shows up on something like a mass-movement leaderboard.I spent five years at the Stanford Internet Observatory taking a network-science approach to this. Let me give a specific example—we can stick with the pandemic, because I think it's quite important as a case study. I don't know how many people remember the Plandemic video. It featured Judy Mikovits, a woman with serious credential issues and at least one retracted paper, who'd had a series of dramatic career incidents that led to her being put into the autism-conference crankosphere. She was releasing a book and doing a lot of book promo, but she was never especially polished doing those direct engagements herself. The director, Mikki Willis, made the video—kept her on task, shot it very strategically. It's about 20 minutes long, and it argues that the pandemic is being used to keep people from “healing microbes on the beach,” and that's why they are locking down beaches, and so on—a very conspiratorial film.Now Mikovits had been saying these things on prior podcasts for a while, but it stayed confined; it got almost no reach outside the anti-vaccine networks, where that kind of content is normal and expected. What was different about Plandemic is that because of the polish, the packaging, the formatting, and Willis's own reach and network, it hopped out of the anti-vaccine ecosystem and started landing everywhere. We had a tool called CrowdTangle that let us pull where URLs were winding up and being shared, and the Plandemic link was showing up in the Corgi Club, the Beach Club, local school-board groups—everywhere. We could only see public data, so I'd imagine that's just the tip of the iceberg.The public really found it compelling. Reading the comments as part of that analysis, people were saying things like: “she seems so authoritative, she has this personal beef with Anthony Fauci, who I've also been hearing is untrustworthy; they are keeping us locked down in our houses, why is that happening?” It really landed and resonated. That's an actual moment where normally this speakers and those topics stay confined to a very specific niche part of the internet, with this video, they managed to absolutely blew out of the water. Here is how it works when you take something and you frame somebody in the right way, you make them seem relatable and resonant and you edit the content in a very compelling, exciting, and mysterious way. This is how you create a mass conversation about something. Ordinarily this person would have stayed confined to her niche, but in that particular moment, with that particular piece of content, they nailed it.Belvedere: I asked about that because on our side, we're trying to do some of the same work you're outlining. ISMA puts out LibCon and The UnPopulist—The UnPopulist is our flagship publication, LibCon is the conference series that we put out. The UnPopulist has buy-in from figures across the ideological spectrum; and the whole model of ISMA is to build a coalition—a realignment of liberal versus illiberal—and for us to be on that liberal side, spanning classical liberals, center-left, and center-right: people who are single-issue defectors, who have enough qualms with the authoritarianism we're seeing that they come over to our side. At our last LibCon, we had C-SPAN in the same room as a bunch of streamers broadcasting. It was an interesting mix, and that's the sort of work we're trying to do. As I said earlier, though, it's not necessarily the language that's easy for a lot of liberals to speak—it takes intentional partnerships, looking through different content forms, finding where a good ally or partner can be found.“These weren't people who simply didn't like the Covid shot; no, these were people who had been telling you vaccines cause autism, dating back to the 1990s. I watched them capitalize on this in the most incredible ways. They were absolutely transparent about it—they were like, ‘this is our chance to undermine confidence in the entire vaccine enterprise.' And that is exactly what they did. They didn't hide the ball—they were live-streaming taking about it. ‘This is our chance to tell the public that all of these things are poison.' And now we have kids dying of measles. That's the downstream effect of this: they managed to connect that distrust to other things. They didn't just create distrust around one incident or fact; they created the idea that nobody in the medical establishment has your best interests at heart. That's what they managed to achieve as a result of Covid.” — Renée DiRestaIt used to be that an organization could get away with just publishing a headline, an article image, and letting the feed auto-populate. Now every platform, the whole online space, requires more thoughtfulness, more intentionality, more strategic thinking. At the risk of asking for a One Neat Trick: is there one thing that, if a capacity developed overnight, would be a game changer for us on this path that we want to take—to be better communicators, to help the issues we care about get that amplification and resonance?DiResta: I think it is that co-creation and that incorporation of people who are innately good and talented at this. I was at LibCon this year with Whick and Soypill, two of the streamers who were there, because the first night of the conference happened to be the night Trump gave that speech about the election being rigged by China. As it happens, I have a lot of experience looking at Chinese influence operations around the 2020 election, so I'd been on Whick's stream before, and he asked if I wanted to come on. I said let's do it, and we broke it down live for the audience—here's what Trump's saying, here's a Georgetown professor who can help explain it—but done conversationally. It's funny, because you still carry that credential with you; you're still saying, “here's how I know this stuff.” And, of course, later on I'm going to write about this for Lawfare, I'm going to write about it on my Substack, I'm going to put it out as personal content. But in this moment the most impactful thing I think I can do is discuss it live with people who are watching it in a community, trying to make sense of it together. That's something streamers in particular are very good at—they bring people together to watch jointly.I don't know how many people have watched a Destiny stream, or, on the other side of the spectrum, a Hasan Piker stream, but it's the same appeal: people who are in a community, like-minded, enjoying that back-and-forth, not only listening to the streamer but participating in the community itself. It reminds me of being in New York in my 20s, gathering at someone's house to watch TV together on a Sunday night—that feeling of experiencing something together, reacting to it together. When you watch a news broadcast by yourself, it's not like that. When you're watching a stream, there's as much back-and-forth and community-building happening among the audience as there is between the audience and the influencer or streamer. That creates a feeling of belonging and participation, and when you want to ask people to take political action, there's a feeling that we're all in this together, we all want to see this thing accomplished. You see this when you watch political streamers across the spectrum doing fundraisers and things like that—“how can we galvanize and generate momentum?”This isn't limited to partisan politics—you can do the same with issue-based advocacy as well.One of the reasons institutions [struggle here] is a fear of relinquishing control. A lot of institutions are taught to stay on message at all times—if you hand your message to somebody else, you lose control of it. But you can't tell them what to say. They're going to say what they want to say. They might get it wrong. But counterintuitively, I think that actually generates more dialogue, more attention, and provides you with a way to accomplish something you might not be good at yourself. Your CEO might not actually be the best face to talk about this thing—the 20 year old you hired, who is much more comfortable with this, is actually the person who should be out there engaging, putting out the message, or working with a creator or creator lab and essentially briefing them like you would brief media: “here's your embargoed copy of my report, I'd love it if you talked about it, no pressure, no requirements, this is just me providing you with information about something we've done that I think your audience might care about—and then wherever it goes, goes.”Belvedere: And as you note in the report, this is already the cultural air a lot of these younger staffers breathe—they have to code-switch to seem more “professional,” to be someone who …DiResta: … doesn't curse on Twitter.Belvedere: Exactly. But that also gives them the advantage of understanding the discourse, the environment, the information landscape, far more natively. So they can put a message that the CEO might want in a way that will have more effectiveness.I want to bring up two of the case studies I found fascinating—David French and Zohran Mamdani. David French was trying to bring a [pluralist], depoliticized message into a very hostile, ideologically policed, polarized evangelical base. Zohran Mamdani, now the mayor of New York, built his campaign almost entirely on vibes, aesthetics, joy—messaging, sure, but messaging that met people where they were and responded to what they actually needed. One of those approaches got crushed by the gatekeepers; the other was able to bypass them. It's not that one was effective and the other wasn't—David French ran up against a buzzsaw that no Christian thinker, however winsome or articulate, probably would have fared well against. Mamdani certainly was very skilled in how he approached his campaign and carried it out. In these two profiles, is there a lesson there about why one got crushed and the other persevered?DiResta: It's very interesting, and I've thought about this a lot. So, first, some of it is: How heavy a hold does the establishment party have on the space you're speaking into? Are you entering fresh ground? Mamdani, of course, ran against an egregiously terrible establishment candidate. I mean, it was one of those “is this really the best we've got to offer?”Mamdani's politics weren't mine, but I'm from New York—I lived there for 30 years, still have a house and family in Brooklyn—and I watched that race, and I just thought … every time I saw Mamdani content in my feed, and there was a lot of it, because I'm still plugged into New York, I was like, “this is so inspiring. This is a person where that love of the city comes through.” I remember he did a thing with a bodega cat. I had a bodega cat, and it was amazing! In a way, the politics and the policy was almost secondary to the feeling that you were watching something genuine.The candidate he was running against—well, there were two, of course, including Curtis Sliwa, who really nailed it on the “genuine” front. I mean, my God, that man gave interviews that left my jaw on the floor—where he's like, “here's how they're trying to pay me to drop out of the race, let's talk about that.” It's a very New York political moment.Belvedere: Zero filter.DiResta: Oh, no filter. I mean, Cuomo doesn't lack a filter either. I'm New York Italian too—you know that. Someone should send him to his dean!It was wild watching that race and seeing what landed with the public. There was such a sense of “God, we need something new! We just need something new”—and that landed, I think, in a way, more than anything else, regardless of your opinions on specific policies. It was the way in which he turned people who found him personally appealing into organizers—fans became organizers. That's really the story of the Mamdani campaign. With French, by contrast, top-down control still held much more strongly. I don't think many New Yorkers love the Democratic Party establishment enough to say, “we really need to listen to what they tell us”—if anything, an official endorsement had become a bit of a negative signal by that point. That's at least how I experienced New York politics.Mamdani was also an unknown quantity, French was much more of a known quantity, so he had this experience of gatekeepers who used character assassination to attack, not so much his ideas as his person—finding things he'd said or done previously and using them to attack him personally and make it costly to associate with him and his ideas by extension. Once an establishment is well-networked enough to mount that kind of opposition, it's much harder to win. French was moving into a hostile, contested, polarized space. Mamdani, by contrast, faced an establishment, in his case the more centrist wing of the Democratic Party, that simply didn't have the social media clout or networks to make its attacks land. It was a very different dynamic.That's why we put French in a section of the report about figuring out what kind of space you're actually trying to participate in. Are you putting forward a policy or a vision that's going to be actively and adversarially rebuffed by very entrenched, well-networked forces? Or are you moving into a much fresher space—a new issue, a new take, less contested ground—where you are potentially going to run a very different kind of strategy?Belvedere: I think that's a great point. Trump is a good example in the political space—the GOP establishment was set against him initially. They had money behind other candidates, Jeb Bush chief among them, and had a war chest that was insane backing Jeb Bush. And that was … nothing in the end. It didn't amount to anything. All the work French had done in the past, caring about the Bill of Rights, about a constitutionally constrained vision of limited government—the intellectual energy the Republican Party used to draw on more heavily—had given way to something else. David went a different direction than a lot of evangelicals did, and there are enough of them to effectively block him now.Whereas Mamdani, I think, was able to bypass a lot of that resistance because there was more overlap with what a standard Democratic candidate might have offered—a lot of the same campaign substance, just a different approach on some issues. There were enough people who weren't already set against him. That's unlike the evangelical space, where mentioning French's name is practically like saying “Voldemort.” Which is sad, because on a lot of issues, especially theological tenets, there's still broad alignment between them.This is something that your report presses people to internalize: the idea that who you're speaking to matters, and how you're speaking to them matters. That's a lesson a lot of liberals still need to work out. There's a lot of trial and error right now, a lot of figuring out how to be effective in this new information landscape. But the report is genuinely helpful. I imagine a lot of people will read it and think: “okay, everything I thought I knew about what it takes to project credibility has been turned on its head, and I need to account for that or risk being left behind.” That's what makes it such an important read.DiResta: Thank you. We really tried to make it as tangible as possible—which is why it's long. We went back and forth at the end about whether to release different versions for different audiences: a philanthropist version, a C-suite version, a version for op-ed writers. In the end we put it all out as one document—you can always Control-F to find what's most relevant to you, there's an index, and AI can digest it too.But, in all seriousness, though, there has to be a shift. You mentioned Trump. His energy came from the internet. He was so good at tapping into … because he was almost a meme candidate at first; people didn't quite believe he'd be a serious thing. This was right around the time … I bring up Gamergate not for its specifics, but because it was a moment when people started realizing the internet could actually affect the real world. The Arab Spring was another one of those moments—realizing that people's voices online could genuinely accomplish things.“When you have this sclerotic sense that nothing happens in the United States, that no one is listening to you, that no change happens, that nothing you want to see in the world will ever be realized, that's an intoxicating moment. ‘Damn, we are the media now'—that phrase is literally about empowerment, the sense that someone powerful is listening to you and making something happen. That's the complete opposite of the faceless institution where you leave a comment in a form and never hear back, where nothing ever changes, your taxes don't change, your cost of living doesn't change. That's what Mamdani tapped into as well: ‘we are actually going to change things, we are going to do things, the world is going to be different starting day one, and here's how it's going to happen.' Whatever you think of the man's politics, he nailed that sense of empowerment—'this is a movement, and you're part of it.'” — Renée DiRestaYou mentioned my book. I'll give a shameless plug here—but only because the paperback just came out and it has a new epilogue. If you bought the Kindle version, go refresh it, because the new epilogue gets into exactly this. What was the appeal of DOGE? It was that the government was going to be transformed—that's great, it's a huge incentive for people who cared about that. Even liberals were like, “Maybe it's time to shake some stuff up.” But what DOGE did for the public, particularly Trump's base and Elon's base, was this: they'd tweet out some grant they found ridiculous, often with no real idea what it actually did, and Elon would respond with something like “killed,” “nuked,” “through the wood chipper,” about USAID.Belvedere: And a lot of those actually got Community-Noted on themselves—people pointing out that he was egregiously misreading the grant. They got fact-checked by their own system.DiResta: They did—but it didn't actually matter, because what mattered to the people participating was: “I said a thing, somebody powerful listened to me, and then a change happened.” When you have this sclerotic sense that nothing happens in the United States, that no one is listening to you, that no change happens, that nothing you want to see in the world will ever be realized, that's an intoxicating moment. “Damn, we are the media now”—that phrase is literally about empowerment, the sense that someone powerful is listening to you and making something happen. That's the complete opposite of the faceless institution where you leave a comment in a form and never hear back, where nothing ever changes, your taxes don't change, your cost of living doesn't change.That's what Mamdani tapped into as well: “we are actually going to change things, we are going to do things, the world is going to be different starting day one, and here's how it's going to happen.” Whatever you think of the man's politics, he nailed that sense of empowerment—“this is a movement, and you're part of it.” That's the same thing Trump tapped into online back in 2015: “we're going to change things, this is your movement, and I'm going to accomplish this for you.” Which can go off in some weird ways, when you look at exclusionary populism and authoritarianism, which you guys at ISMA focus so much on.I want to mention one more thing. In San Francisco, we recalled the school board: a very local, niche race that ended up becoming a story of national attention, for the same reason—people saying, “we've got to change something, what can we do?” The groups that grew out of that were advancing a very liberal policy—this was not the far-left, not the far-right doing it: “we'd like eighth-grade algebra back, we'd like schools reopened.” This is late 2021. “It would be nice for my kid not to have three years of no school.”It was an unapologetically liberal politics that was powering that, and it was unapologetic in how it framed itself, how it spoke, how it used social media. And I thought, “Okay, now maybe liberals will see”—again, not Democrats, but liberals, people who believe in the core liberal values—“people will start to see that there's real power in direct, unapologetic appeals.” And it is my sincere hope that we start to see that in a movement that rises to push back against the excesses of MAHA and things like that.[In the new edition of my book], the new epilogue is really about how these dynamics play out once a group is actually in power—because a lot of people think of social media as a tool of insurgency, and once you're in power, that's supposedly the end of it. What's been interesting watching Trump and DOGE is that they've kept that cycle going: people still believe they're having an impact, shaping policy.We saw a version of this with Obama, who was a very digital candidate—he rose to power on a lot of popular digital support, did interviews with content creators, that kind of thing. There were creators in the White House—my friend Destin Sandlin, who runs Smarter Every Day, did an interview with Obama. There was a sense that the administration was beginning to engage with new media, but there was still a divide: the new media was media, engaging with the president on certain terms, at certain times, in certain venues. What you're seeing from this administration is they're literally the press corps, seated front and center. Some of them are even working as special government employees, which is wild—and there are some real ethical issues there. But there's still a sense that the online movement, that source of validation that propelled someone to a win, is actively in there, working with them on governance and policy.Is that a mirage, to some extent? Yes—there's a veneer of them wanting to do something anyway and using online narratives to justify it. And I'd argue that once an influencer becomes a special government employee, they're no longer independent—they're speaking as an agent of the government at that point. But setting that aside, you really do see the way those boundaries are shifting, and that sense of personal participation is what keeps this particular populist movement feeling valuable to its participants.Belvedere: I remember when Madison Cawthorn infamously hired only comms people rather than policy people, and a lot of people in conservative-adjacent spaces saw that as the start of a new era. The model is no longer Paul Ryan-ing your way through, nor is it about governing—Cawthorn was actively, explicitly building a kind of image-only candidacy, seeing how far that element alone could carry him. It didn't carry him very far; a few things tripped him up, like, hilariously, a visit to Hitler's home. But he was building toward being a comms-only operation as the only thing that matters now. When Trump did the whole Alligator Alcatraz stunt, that's the same understanding at work—it's an ongoing comms exercise, you have to keep the performative aspect going, because the campaign never really stops.We're out of time. Thank you so much, Renée.Thanks for checking out The UnPopulist! Subscribe to support our project.© The UnPopulist, 2026Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X.We welcome your reactions and replies. Please adhere to our comments policy. Get full access to The UnPopulist at www.theunpopulist.net/subscribe

It's 25 years since the 9/11 attacks; in the aftermath, the CIA hunted down those responsible – detaining suspects and subjecting them to ‘enhanced interrogation.' One of the prisoners who was subjected to these tactics was Abu Zubaydah, who, at the time, was thought to be a top member of al-Qaeda. John Kiriakou, a former CIA operative who led the operation to capture Zubaydah, blew the whistle on the torture that prisoners like him experienced. As a result, Kiriakou went to prison, as well. Now, he's asking President Trump for clemency. This episode contains descriptions of violence and torture. This podcast was brought to you thanks to the support of readers of The Times and The Sunday Times. Subscribe today: http://thetimes.com/thestoryGuest: Josie Ensor, chief US reporter, The TimesHost: Manveen RanaProducer: Sophie McNultyWe want to hear from you - email: thestory@thetimes.comRead more: I went to jail for exposing America's darkest 9/11 secret. Trump should pardon meFurther listening: The 9/11 suspect - part 1Clips: ABC News, C-SPAN, Cleared Hot Podcast.Photo: Michael McCoy for The Times.This podcast was brought to you thanks to subscribers of The Times and The Sunday Times. To enjoy unlimited digital access to all our journalism subscribe here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What do kids really need from a mentor?In this episode, Zach sits down with Dr. Anthony Bradley to talk about fatherlessness, mentoring, and the kind of relationships that help kids grow into healthy adults.Dr. Anthony Bradley has spent nearly three decades studying boys, fathers, families, and human flourishing. He's written more than a dozen books, taught at the university level for decades, holds a PhD from Westminster Theological Seminary, and has been featured on CNN, Fox News, NPR, and C-SPAN. He is one of the leading Christian voices helping us understand what boys need from fathers, mentors, churches, and communities.Dr. Bradley challenges the idea that mentoring is primarily about giving advice, teaching lessons, or correcting behavior. Kids need adults who show up, spend time with them, listen, and genuinely enjoy being around them. Great mentors become the people kids know they can turn to when life gets hard.In this conversation:What fatherlessness can do to a childWhy boys need healthy men in their livesWhy presence often matters more than another lessonWhat it means to be a “warm” mentorWhy kids need to know that you actually like themHow listening builds trustWhy mentors should resist becoming drill sergeantsHow everyday experiences teach perseverance, failure, character, and lifeWhy the best mentors become trusted people kids can turn toHow healthy adults can help surround kids with the relationships they need to thriveDr. Anthony Bradley also unpacks the devastating data on father absence—suicide, homelessness, dropout rates, violence—and why ordinary men showing up with presence can rewrite a child's future. Through Bradley's own story of mentoring a drug-selling teen named JJ over two decades (from Denny's dinners to a transformed life as a husband, father, and leader), they reveal that mentoring isn't about being Superman; it's about consistent relationship, unconditional acceptance, and surrounding kids with a tribe of caring adults in the name of Jesus–Dr. Anthony Bradley has a brand-new book coming out called The Fatherhood Effect. It takes a hard look at what happens to kids, families, churches, and communities when fathers are absent, disengaged, or disconnected from their children, and what we can actually do about it. Anthony brings together research on fatherlessness, attachment, warmth, and the incredible influence fathers have on their kids, along with practical ways we can help fathers become more present and connected. If you care about mentoring, fatherhood, or helping the next generation thrive, I think you're going to want this one. The Fatherhood Effect releases November 17 and is available for preorder now on Amazon.You can learn more about him below:https://anthonybbradley.substack.com/--If this podcast has encouraged or equipped you, would you take 30 seconds to leave a 5-star rating? On Apple Podcasts, scroll to the bottom of the You Can Mentor page and click “Write a Review.” On Spotify, go to our page, click the three dots next to the settings wheel, and hit “Rate Show.” It helps us reach more mentors like you.--Want to go deeper?• Join our National Christian Mentoring Network• Sign up for our newsletter to stay in the loop• Check out our annual Mentoring Leadership Summit + other mentoring eventsYou can find everything at www.youcanmentor.com or follow us on instagram @youcanmentor--If you want to become a better mentor or build a stronger mentoring organization, check out the You Can Mentor book library. We've written resources on building trust, showing up consistently, understanding kids from hard places, partnering with families, sharing your faith, handling difficult situations, and leading with humility. Books like:You Can MentorThe Youth Mentoring Playbook Volumes 1,2,and 3Tell Me About Your FatherThese books were written to give mentors and mentoring leaders practical tools they can actually use. You can find all of our books and resources at You Can Mentor or find them on Amazon. 

Twenty-five years after 9/11, is the United States better prepared to prevent another terrorist attack?This week's podcast is an edited rebroadcast of the Center's panel held to examine that question, discussing the role immigration and border security played in the attacks, the major policy changes that followed, and the national-security challenges that remain.Former U.S. Senator and Attorney General Jeff Sessions introduced the panel and offered brief remarks. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest at the time of the attacks, Sessions was deeply involved in congressional oversight of immigration and national security in the years following 9/11.The panel at examined how the attacks reshaped U.S. immigration policy, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, changes to visa screening and information sharing, and increased attention to border security. The panel also revisited the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission: What was implemented? What was left undone? In addition, a European security expert discussed how 9/11 affected policy there as well.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsGeneral Jeff Sessions, Former U.S. Senator and Attorney General.Andrew R. Arthur, CIS Fellow in Law and Policy, who served as immigration oversight counsel to House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner beginning in July 2001 and worked on major post-9/11 immigration and national-security legislation.George Fishman, CIS Senior Legal Fellow, who served for two decades as Republican Chief Counsel of the House Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee and worked on major post-9/11 immigration and national-security legislation.Jessica M. Vaughan, CIS Director of Policy Studies, who was at CIS on 9/11 and specializes in immigration screening, visa programs, immigration enforcement, and public safety.Viktor Marsai, CIS Fellow, Director, Migration Research Institute in Budapest, and professor of security studies at Ludovika University of Public Service.LinksPress Release and VideoStreams: YouTube, Facebook, XC-Span CoverageIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Josh Baker investigates one of the biggest missing-person cases of our time. American journalist Austin Tice vanished in Syria, but the US president says he's alive. For more than a decade Austin's mother Debra has been leading the search for her son. As Josh Baker and Sara Obeidat travel to Syria to help Austin's mother's search, a source gives Josh information that might unlock where he is - and a simple instruction: “Find Austin.”Archive: Houston Public Media; NBC; PBS; CNN; C-SPAN; MSNBC; The White House; BBC.Writer and showrunner: Josh Baker Investigative producer: Sara Obeidat Series producer: Simon Maybin Field producing: Ouday Al Hussein Additional producing: Lucy Burns Open source intelligence: Thomas Bordeaux & Gabor Friesen Production coordinator: Gemma Ashman Series editor: Clare Fordham Head of BBC News Long Form Audio: Emma Rippon BBC Radio 4 commissioning editor: Dan Clarke NPR producer: Monika Evstatieva NPR editors: Robert Little & Katie Simon NPR executive producer for Embedded: Irene Noguchi BBC World Service commissioning editor: Jon Manel Composer: Firas Abou Fakher Additional music: Karim Chehoury Theme music: Sam Slater Mix and sound design: Tom Brignell

Welcome to RIMScast. Your host is Justin Smulison, Business Content Manager at RIMS, the Risk and Insurance Management Society.   In this episode, Justin interviews Janice Ochenkowski about her leadership, her career path, serving in RIMS External Affairs and later as RIMS President. They discuss the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the loss of lives, and the impact the attacks had on life in the U.S. Justin and Janice talk about Janice's role in passing the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA). They also address the financial and housing crisis of 2007-2008. Janice relates her testimony before Congress on various matters over the years, and how her RIMS leadership held her in her employment. Listen for wisdom on adapting and changing with the times, and using leadership opportunities to help your business as you move your risk career forward.   Key Takeaways: [:01] About RIMS and RIMScast. [:16] About this episode of RIMScast. We will be joined by former RIMS President Janice Ochenkowski. [:35] Janice will discuss how her time on the RIMS Board and as RIMS President helped ensure the passage of TRIA, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks. [:49] There will be plugs later on, and we will learn about Janice's fascinating career, but I wanted to address the fact that this episode is being released on September 8th, 2026, a few days before the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks in the U.S. [1:10] Before we get started, I'd like to welcome back RIMS's Chief Executive Officer, Gary LaBranche, to say a few words. [1:18] Message from Gary LaBranche: 2026 marks a quarter-century since terrorist attacks on the United States killed nearly 3,000 people, injured many more, and impacted the lives of millions. [1:30] This RIMScast podcast provides the opportunity to reflect on the lives lost and the lasting impact of this tragedy on survivors, families, friends, first responders, and everyone who witnessed that horrendous day and has borne its burden over the past 25 years. [1:51] The events of 9/11 also revealed the best in human nature, such as the warm, welcoming affection shown by Canadians when U.S.-bound flights were diverted to Gander, Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax, and other locations in the aftermath of 9/11, as we learn in this podcast. [2:11] RIMS played a leading role in crafting and passing the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), which established an insurance backstop in the event of a future large-scale terrorist attack on America. [2:24] RIMS is working right now on bipartisan legislation in both the U.S. House and Senate to reauthorize TRIA. As we commemorate this day, let us rededicate ourselves to the important work that risk management does to make the world safer, more secure, and more sustainable. [2:46] On with the Show! Here to provide a brief history of RIMS's collaboration with members of Congress and the global insurance and risk management community is Janice Ochenkowski. [2:59] Janice was RIMS President in 2007, and as we will learn in this episode, she had a colorful career with RIMS and with Jones Lang LaSalle, a commercial real estate property owner. [3:13] Her RIMS participation prior to her presidency was instrumental in helping her get TRIA passed by Congress, so there's a lot to learn today … Let's get to it! [3:23] Interview! Janice Ochenkowski, welcome to RIMScast!  [4:04] Janice joined the Chicago Chapter of RIMS, not understanding the larger RIMS organization. She became an active member and an officer. She was President of the Chicago Chapter the year that Chicago member Art Bostwick was RIMS President. [4:55] Janice says Art was a good mentor for her. He encouraged her to follow in his footsteps to be national president. She laughed, but many years later, she did. [5:20] Janice started her risk management career in 1980; she joined the RIMS Chicago Chapter in '82 or '83. After moving through the chairs in the Chicago Chapter, she became a delegate to the RIMS Conference, started working in various committees, and moved into leadership. [5:47] Janice was elected to the Board, took on responsibilities for different chairs, and ended up in charge of Government Affairs. [6:01] Lance Ewing, the President at the time, asked the Board what roles they wanted to take. Janice said she would do anything except legislative stuff, because she didn't know anything about it. He burst out laughing, and suddenly that was her mandate. [6:31] Janice says she absolutely loved it. Jim McIntyre, who was RIMS's Washington Counsel, was a phenomenal mentor. He prepared her to testify, prepared her for meetings, and explained who she was going to meet and how it was going to work, and so on. [6:53] Janice says, from there, I went into a few other responsibilities and ended up as the President. [7:10] Janice started her career in 1980 at LaSalle Partners in real estate and financial services. There were 150 employees operating in six states. Because of Federal regulations regarding their pension work, they needed a full-time risk manager. [7:35] The legislation said they needed a risk manager but didn't explain what the risk manager needed to do. Janice had been teaching high school, and she wanted to move into business. [7:47] Janice interviewed through an employment agency with a variety of companies, and decided LaSalle Partners sounded interesting and it would be a good platform for her to get some experience and then move on. [8:02] Thirty-eight years later, she was still there, and retiring. When she retired, there were 90,000 employees in 100 countries. Janice had 17 full-time staff, globally, working for her. [8:20] Janice says LaSalle Partners started as a privately held company. Janice was one of the partners. It became a corporation and, after acquisitions, merged with Jones Lang Wootton, a UK real estate organization, and became Jones Lang LaSalle. [9:17] Janice says her career was a wild ride. She says she never could have imagined the experiences she had, the friendships she made, and the things that she learned and had opportunities to do, through her company and through RIMS. [9:36] Janice says she was able to draw links between the benefits of RIMS and the business of her business. When she went to board meetings, they asked how her RIMS work was going. She showed that being in leadership at RIMS helped her company to achieve its goals. [10:27] Janice says, when she started at RIMS, there were the local chapters, and then there were industry groups. The real estate industry group was extremely active. It was populated by very experienced real estate risk managers. They served as mentors to anyone coming on. [10:47] The group met not only during RIMS, but also in New York, in the fall, outside of the RIMS conference. Eventually, Jones Lang LaSalle supported the group's meetings and allowed them to use JLL buildings and support from technology to go forward. [11:07] Janice says, when she was going to a RIMS conference, she asked the JLL Board if there was anything they wanted her to focus on when meeting up with risk managers of their clients and vendors. [11:33] Over time, she didn't have to ask. They asked her, if you're going to your RIMS meeting, talk to this person. See if you can find out about this issue. There was connectivity between what Janice did at RIMS and supporting JLL. [12:10] Justin asks what Janice taught in high school. It was English and French. She can still speak un petit peu of French. She enjoys opportunities to speak to people in French and ordering from French menus. As a teacher, she wanted something different and moved into business. [12:42] Justin says that in over 400 RIMScast episodes, Janice might be the first guest who went from teaching and transitioned over to insurance. Janice says making lesson plans and executing them is good training for business. [13:07] Janice says she learned how to explain things. She had to translate insurance into real estate speak for JLL. She had to take real estate speak and translate it into insurance speak for underwriters and brokers. [13:22] Janice was comfortable speaking to groups because she had been speaking to unruly teenagers and getting them under control. Talking to a bunch of business people, who at least pretended to be interested, was a piece of cake. Janice says it was fun, and a good transition. [13:55] Justin brings up Janice's time as the Director of Government Affairs for RIMS. She became chair of what is now known as the RIMS External Affairs Committee. Lance Ewing nudged her into the role in the late 1990s. Then the September 11 terrorist attacks happened. [14:40] Janice says that one thing that's missing from most recollections is the immediate impact that the 9/11 terrorist attacks had. Before 9/11, there was the general perception that our borders were safe; there wasn't going to be an attack on U.S. soil. [15:15] When we saw the towers burning, when the plane went down, when the Pentagon was hit, that illusion was shattered. There was fear. We didn't know if this was the first of an aerial attack. Janice was on the 70th floor of the Aon Building, so it was a real concern for her. [15:40] Janice says, we didn't know if there was going to be an invasion or similar attacks around the country. To develop good risk management practices, the first thing you have to do is define the risk. [15:53] Janice says, we couldn't define the risk. The only thing we could do immediately was respond to the situation. She was thinking more with her Jones Lang LaSalle hat than with her RIMS hat. The entire leadership and spouses were on the West Coast doing strategic planning. [16:20] Janice says most of them operated in the Midwest and the East Coast. They had to get back, but there were no planes, no trains, and no transportation. They tried to get rental cars. So did everyone else in the world. [16:50] When they couldn't get more rental cars, they went to a used car lot and bought vans, station wagons, and whatever they could find where couples could travel together to similar places. When they got to where they were going, they sold the cars. That's how they got back. [17:15] Janice says, meanwhile, our technology folks were setting up hotlines: one hotline to figure out where people were. We had people traveling or on vacation. We didn't know where they were, and there was very limited communication. Phone lines and internet were down. [17:45] We set up a hotline. Every employee was required to call in every day for a couple of weeks, identifying where they were, whether they needed help getting back to their home, and what other resources they might need. The hotline helped them to get those resources. [18:06] The second hotline was for families. Families called that line if they were unable to reach their loved one. If the employee had called the hotline, JLL could tell the family where the employee was, how things were going, when they might get home, and take note of needs. [18:26] Janice says that's what was happening on the home front, away from the immediate needs in each of these 9/11 sites. It was only after that that you could settle back and think strategically about what it meant on a broader basis, and that's when she put her RIMS hat on. [18:49] Justin guesses that at the time, Jones Lang LaSalle had thousands of properties across the U.S., with millions of square feet. So there is the security risk at those buildings, as well. Janice agrees, absolutely. [19:04] Janice says people focus on New York and D.C., but in Kansas, Nebraska, and all around the country, everyone was in shock and preparing for the worst. [19:26] Janice says she remembers sitting on the 70th floor of the Aon Building, once they let everyone in, after a few days. There were windows all around, and her window looked out onto Lake Michigan, where all the military patrols were, over the lake. [19:52] Janice clearly remembers many times over the next several weeks sitting there and suddenly seeing a black helicopter rise into view. She could see the pilot's face, and she waved. Then it would descend. She says it was reassuring but also scary. [20:30] Justin asks about the hotlines. Janice says Jones Lang LaSalle did things collaboratively. If Technology was working on something, they brought in Risk, Legal, and HR, and they all sat down and figured it out. They were all a part of whatever strategy was needed. [20:55] Janice was involved. She was an important member of the Security Team and the Safety Team, and was involved even in the aftermath, coming up with ways in which to strengthen and protect their buildings. [21:08] People were worried about chemicals being thrown into the ventilation. So they came up with ways to protect that while still letting air into the buildings. What to do to allow people back in. All of those things had to be considered, for safety and for the practical effect on operations. [21:33] A Quick Break! Many fantastic RIMS events are coming up in 2026. The 11th Annual Chicagoland Risk Forum will return to the Old Post Office on Thursday, September 24th, 2026. Visit ChicagolandRiskForum.org for more information. [21:46] The RIMS Western Regional Conference will be held from October 4th through the 7th in Seattle, Washington. The agenda is live, and registration is open. Visit RIMSWesternRegional.com and the link in this episode's show notes for more information. [22:02] Save the dates: October 18th through the 21st. In Quebec City, we will be hosting the 50th Annual RIMS Canada Conference. Booth sales are open, and sponsorship opportunities are still available. Visit RIMSCanadaConference.ca for more information. [22:24] Also, remember to check out RIMS.org/Canada for our spinoff show, RIMScast Canada, with a new episode every month. [22:32] The RIMS ERM Conference 2026 will be held on November 19th and 20th in Columbus, Ohio. Registration is open. Visit RIMS.org/ERM2026. [22:46] We're already looking to RISKWORLD 2027, which will be held over four days in New Orleans, Louisiana, from April 18th through the 21st! RISKWORLD 2027 Registration is open to organizational, individual, and associate RIMS members. [23:04] Get first access to the hotel block. Hotel reservations open on October 28th, ahead of public registration. Sitting this out is the real risk! The link to registration is in this episode's show notes. [23:17] Let's Return to Our Interview with Former RIMS President Janice Ochenkowski! [23:41] Janice says she needed to wear her RIMS hat almost immediately. She says everyone realized that there was "innocuous" language in all policies that said terrorist acts were covered. [23:57] There were no limits, sublimits, or deductibles. It was standard coverage because no one expected it to be a real issue. Then it was. There was an immediate concern as they looked at what their total exposure was. [24:14] There was the concern about what to do for new policies. There was a moratorium on policies, as there always is after a particular crisis. When they were reissued, that language was removed. That might not seem like a problem for organizations with no real risk. [24:35] Janice says, in the risk management area, there were covenants in our client contracts, from language pulled from insurance policies, that now we couldn't satisfy that requirement. We were in violation of our contract. [24:54] Janice says the more critical issues were loan agreements and mortgages. Lenders required terrorism insurance. They weren't going to take that out after 9/11. We were faced with a terrible conundrum. We were in violation of our loan agreements. [25:16] Janice says nobody moved quickly to foreclose on any of those things, but it was hanging over our heads. Unsuccessful efforts to renegotiate were going on, all across the country. Congress was absolutely unwilling to become the Federal program for terrorism. [25:39] Janice says Congress refused to consider it being another flood insurance program because that wasn't going too well. Insurers started trying to figure things out and made some limited amounts of coverage available. [25:55] At one point, globally, there was $10 million of terrorism coverage available. $10 million didn't satisfy anybody's loan requirement. Ultimately, it went up to $25 million, but it was still a problem. [26:24] Organizations like the Real Estate Round Table, RIMS, and other groups formed coalitions. Jim McIntyre was very helpful. He had contacts in all those groups. He inserted RIMS wherever he could. [26:49] JLL saw the basic need for what Janice was doing at RIMS, so she had carte blanche to go to Washington whenever she needed to work on these matters. These groups were able to explain to Congressional aides and the business press what things meant, in plain English. [27:33] Januce says, you tell them, this building goes into foreclosure, and the guy running the coffee shop doesn't have a job anymore. Development and construction totally stop. Nothing was being built. That impacts all the trades and unions, so they joined the coalition. [27:57] Unions became activists because their members, who thought they had jobs starting over the next several months, were now sitting on their hands with nothing to do. Small businesses set up around the potential sites had nothing happening. [28:18] Janice says there was a financial impact from that decision by insurers. It wasn't a faulty decision; they had shareholders. [28:33] Ultimately, after long discussions and negotiations, Janice testified before the President's Working Group on Terrorism, and before Congress, and met with Congressional Aides who were working on various bills, and was able to assist in passing TRIA. [28:58] TRIA wasn't perfect, but what it did was bring together the three major parties who had the most skin in that game and gave each of them a relative amount of financial responsibility in what happened. [29:12] These parties were the policyholders, with huge deductibles; insurance companies, with caps and reasonable premium allocations for risks, and the Federal Government, which came in after tens of millions of dollars had been paid out and criteria were met. [29:45] The Federal Government wasn't being capricious, or taking first-dollar risk, but was a backstop, so that there wouldn't be financial ruin and we wouldn't have a lot of bankruptcies. Imperfect as TRIA was, it solved a problem. [30:06] Janice says there have been several reauthorizations, and it has been tweaked each time to meet the issues and criteria that had to be met. Justin asks about cyber and forms of terrorism that may not be physical acts of terrorism. [30:31] Janice mentions the NBCR, for Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and Radiological threats. It raised the issue, and there were risk management processes that were able to minimize those risks. [30:49] One more Quick Break! RIMS, The Foundation for Risk ManagementTM, is dedicated to shaping the future of the profession. By making a contribution, you are strengthening the global risk management community and investing in the future of the industry. [31:09] The Foundation also supports the Spencer Educational Foundation but has a different mission. The Foundation focuses on providing opportunities for those professionals who have already decided to enter risk management and are just getting started. [31:23] You can learn more about the Foundation by visiting www.RIMS.org/FRM.  While you're there, be sure to check out information about the Susan Meltzer Scholarship Fund, which was established to honor Ms. Meltzer, who was RIMS President in 1999 and 2000. [31:42] Susan Meltzer was a cherished RIMS President and contributed so much to RIMS and the greater risk community. Learn more at RIMS.org/FRM. [31:51] Let's Return to Our Interview with Former RIMS President Janice Ochenkowski. [32:12] Janice says meeting with Congressional Aides and Policymakers on Capitol Hill was intimidating the first hundred times she did it. You're walking into these buildings that you've only seen photographs of. You're going into the offices. [32:24] Jim McIntyre had explained to her that Congressional aides have a lot of power over the bills and the language in the bills. The Congresspeople they work for look to these aides to be their technical resource. [32:42] While some people were angry that they couldn't meet with the principal; they were only going to meet with the staff, but you want to meet with the staff. [32:57] The staff will take the time to sit down with language and work with you on it, and you'll have a better chance of impacting things by developing relationships with them. It worked very well. Some of the work Janice did with Jim before 9/11 really helped. [33:22] There was some insurance legislation that was going on. Aides did not understand what it meant. Janice ran a lunch program for the aides and taught them the basics of insurance. She bought pizzas for them. Now, you can't do that because you can't buy them lunch. [33:44] Janice says they were coming to learn. Many of them were thankful because it gave them an understanding of what people were talking about and why certain things mattered. We had built some groundwork before TRIA. It helped because I already knew some of the aides. [34:00] There were already relationships. They were willing to sit down and talk with us. We were the voice of the insurance buyer. Previously, when insurance matters were discussed on the Hill, insurance companies and brokers were lobbying. This time, it was the voice of the buyer. [34:29] Janice says, We were constituents. We represented industries and organizations that were in their respective districts. Our voice became an important voice, distinct from the insurance industry. It reinforced RIMS's importance and raised our visibility on the Hill. [34:58] In 2004, Janice testified before a Senate Government Affairs Subcommittee on Insurance Brokerage Regulation regarding TRIA. Janice says, walking in, she was overcome with a sense of history. The panel was people she had seen on C-SPAN. [35:26] Janice says she was terrified she would say something wrong, that it would come out backwards, and that she would embarrass RIMS, JLL, and herself. She was used to speaking in public, but this was just different. It all went well in the end. [35:55] Janice says she had a prepared statement. Then there were five-minute questions and answers. Janice says there is a clock counting down, and when it gets to one minute, it starts flashing. She says it was a little unnerving and she stuttered a few times. [36:33] Janice says they interrupt your five minutes with questions, so your time is less. You're supposed to summarize what your position is and what you're testifying for. When you're on a panel, it's not the same as when they're conducting a hearing, accusing you of wrongdoing. [37:02] Janice says the Congress Members are trying to get information and a few sound bites to send home. It's not antagonistic. They're not trying to trip you up on anything. Once you become accustomed to it, the next time is a little easier, because you're relaxed. [37:29] In 2006, Janice appeared before the House Subcommittee on Financial Services about Insurance Modernization. Janice says it was a topic that she had a lot of comfort in speaking about. She wasn't quite as nervous about getting the facts mixed up or totally blanking. [38:05] Janice says she was part of a panel of five or six people. It's for an hour or so. They might pause if somebody has to take a call. [38:36] Janice became RIMS President soon after. [38:52] In 2012, Janice returned to Capitol Hill for a hearing before the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing, and Community Opportunity of the Committee on Financial Services in the U.S. House of Representatives. [39:08] Janice says she always spoke in RIMS's capacity. JLL did not do any lobbying. JLL joins groups, like the Real Estate Round Table, RIMS, and other groups that represent their interests. [39:36] Janice says that for the 2012 visit she had a greater comfort level. It was on an issue she was comfortable with: broker compensation. It was easier to discuss. She still had the same anxieties about being in Congress, in that room, with all the history, speaking to icons. [40:23] Justin says that TRIA was eventually passed. It's been reauthorized a couple of times. It has made a difference for companies and for society, at large. Janice says it raised RIMS's profile in the eyes of the others who were participating and testifying. [40:46] Janice says RIMS got a lot of press. The Wall Street Journal and the business press, in addition to insurance publications, presented information about RIMS. On a corporate level, when Janice's name was printed in association with JLL, clients asked about it. [41:18] Janice says, with things like TRIA, or general insurance questions, clients would go to their risk managers and ask them to contact me to get information. This delighted JLL because it was a closer client relationship. JLL had an initiative to provide specialist experts for clients. [42:23] Janice says if you go before Congress, the most important thing is to do your homework. Even if you're comfortable with public speaking, don't expect you can ad-lib to a Committee. Prepare, prepare, prepare, and understand the pros and cons. Practice with potential questions. [43:06] Janice practices loudly to learn what word combinations she stumbles over. Then she removes them from her presentation. She says when you're more prepared, you're more self-confident. That makes you a better presenter. Justin says, also, rehearse in different places. [44:29] Janice takes a somewhat formal draft and then "Janicizes" it. She writes it in a way that's more conversational, as she would speak, rather than reading something formally. That makes you more comfortable, so you're a better presenter. [45:22] Janice says it seems that everybody knows when it's time to pass the baton to the next generation. She loved what she did, and she did it well; she was open to new ideas, but she was standing in the way of the next generation of leaders moving forward. She didn't want to do that. [45:55] Janice says that people with new ideas, generational ideas, who could relate to what's coming up, need to be allowed to move forward. [46:12] Janice says, think about what's happening in Washington. People need to move aside to let a new generation of leaders come in. Otherwise, you're missing that energy and enthusiasm of a new group of leaders. That's life. You move away and let the new guy in. [47:05] Webinars: On September 17th, AXA XL returns to present the session, "Beyond the Loss Count: What Property Claims Reveal About Frequency, Severity, and Resilience." [47:16] On October 1st, Brown and Brown will make their RIMS Webinar debut with "The Future of Captives: What Risk Managers Should Think About Now." [47:26] On October 8th, Global Risk Consultants will present "The 2027 Risk Agenda: 10 Engineering Priorities Risk Leaders Should Act on Now." [47:35] On October 15th, Verisk Maplecroft will lead the session, "Beyond the Horizon: Turning External Risk Into Decision-Ready Insight." [47:44] On October 22nd, Zurich will present "Cybercrime, Fraud and AI: Real-World Threats and Practical Defenses for Business Leaders." [47:53] Origami Risk will return on October 29th with a topic that will be announced soon. [47:58] On November 5th, Riskonnect returns to deliver the session, "Signal Over Noise: Smarter Risk Analytics." [48:05] RIMS Certification Week will be held from September 21st through the 25th. All three webinars are complimentary for all and are available through the Webinars Page on RIMS.org/Webinars. [48:21] Let's Conclude Our Interview with Former RIMS President Janice Ochenkowski! [48:34] Justin says Janice became RIMS President during the housing and mortgage crisis of 2007-2008. Janice says it's something risk managers need to think about. When there is a crisis, you don't step away from it; you step into it. You show leadership.  [49:17] Janice says she was able to help resolve something that was one of the most critical issues at that time. At the beginning, the financial crisis focused on AIG and its vulnerability to bankruptcy, and what that meant to the entire insurance industry. [49:47] Janice says it was really difficult because AIG was a major insurer for almost every large corporation in the U.S. and globally. Suddenly, senior board members were wondering if their claims in process would be paid. Will AIG go bankrupt, and what will happen to those claims? [50:15] They wondered if they should cancel their policies mid-term and underwrite with someone else, and if so, who? What will the financial impact of that be? Boards were coming to risk managers with those questions. Janice had those questions herself. [50:35] Janice says we were totally unprepared to answer them. We didn't have any more information than you were reading in The Wall Street Journal. Janice and the phenomenal RIMS staff put together a series of podcasts, the first of which was in three weeks. [50:59] Janice says they got sponsors and speakers. They contacted experts in various areas and senior executives at the major insurers, including AIG, and insurance brokerages. They were willing to sit and talk to their clients and to be shown as thought leaders in the area. [51:20] Janice says at the time there were 1,000 talking heads saying what should be done, but there were very few facts. You can't form a good risk management response to anything until you have facts; until you have data you can rely on and move forward with. [51:50] Janice says RIMS strove to provide facts. When they did the podcasts, they did not only invite RIMS members. They sent invitations to the C-Suites of major corporations. They told The Wall Street Journal and other business publications they were running these podcasts. [52:06] There was a series of podcasts. People tuned in. They were interested. RIMS established credibility with the information they provided. RIMS gave them tools and told them what to think about and consider, and what the ramifications could be, and let them decide for themselves. [52:55] Janice says that it seemed to be a popular series, and it raised RIMS's profile within the general business community and the C-Suite, even in areas that didn't have dedicated risk managers who reported to the C-Suite. It was one of the most important things RIMS did. [53:25] Janice says, then they went to Congress and talked to them about solvency and more. Also, Janice says they kept in touch with Congressional staff between meetings. The key to relationships on the Hill is meeting with aides. Many move from one Congressperson to another. [53:49] You keep up the relationships, and that gives your organization credibility. You're there consistently. Once an aide called and asked her to help define risk management for a piece of legislation. They had no real idea. She helped them craft something reasonable but not onerous. [55:14] Justin brings up the RIMS Annual Legislative Summit. They have a presence on Capitol Hill every year. It's a two-day or two-and-a-half-day event, so members who attend can get onboarded, know their talking points, and know the issues. Janice elaborates on preparation. [56:15] Janice says the Legislative Summit brought a lot of people from local RIMS chapters into the External Affairs Committee. That was a good pipeline. [56:31] Justin says his experience in 2018, for the reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, was everything Janice mentioned. There was a small card with talking points, there was a rehearsal, coaching from professional lobbyists, and industry leadership. [57:10] Justin says it was a great experience. They met with aides, brought maps, and showed flood zones. They had the talking points down, and it was effective. It was one of the best experiences he could have had as a new RIMS staff member. It was excellent. [57:59] Justin remarks that Janice was the right person for the job. Her experience at Jones Lang LaSalle was terrific. Janice was a lifer. She retired in 2018, after 38 years. [58:46] Janice says risk management has certain basic things, but you have to evolve with the times. You can't resist change; you have to look at change as an opportunity. [59:00] If you're a smart risk manager, you're going to lean your company into that opportunity. Janice says, when people were working in her generation of RIMS, it wasn't unusual to spend a career at one or two companies. There was stability. You didn't need to leave to be promoted. [59:26] Janice became a Partner. When they were incorporated, she became an officer. When she ended her career, she was an Executive Vice President and part of the Global Operating Team, which set strategies for all JLL businesses. They reported directly to the Board. [59:51] Janice says risk management had a fairly high profile. New risk officers may not have that opportunity because the business world is demanding that you move every three to five years to get promoted. [1:00:23] Janice says whatever works for you and your organization and helps you move forward is what your personal strategy needs to be. Janice says, not only those who died in the towers, in the Pentagon, and in the field, but those who walked away with scars, visible and invisible. [1:00:40] Justin takes a moment to address and honor everyone who lost their lives during the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, on its 25th anniversary. [1:01:04] Janice speaks of the first responders and volunteers who rushed in to help and walked away with lifelong consequences from the materials that they inhaled. [1:01:19] Janice says, We just need to spend a few minutes on 9/12 remembering them and making sure that the relevance and their sacrifices are noted. [1:01:36] Janice, you've given us so much inspiration, and told us what it took for you to be an effective RIMS President. To anyone thinking about pursuing a leadership role at RIMS, starting out now, what advantages do they have to position them for success as a RIMS leader? [1:02:06] Janice says, the most important benefit that exists today, that didn't when I was starting, is technology. Today we do Zoom calls. Getting together and communicating was much more onerous. [1:02:23] It wasn't as easy to get people from across the country together and work collaboratively. We can do that easily now. People are taking advantage of that. They're using social media to spread ideas. [1:02:41] Janice says her generation struggled with social media. She did it because that's what she had to do. You can't stagnate. You've got to move with the changes as they come and figure out how to use those changes to move yourself forward. [1:02:58] What will technology and AI mean to risk management? What will they mean to RIMS? How is RIMS going to use AI? How is RIMS leadership going to use AI to promote what the important basics of risk management are and can be? Those are things you have to consider. [1:03:18] In order to be an effective leader at RIMS, you have to get the absolute support of your organization. You've got to connect those dots. You've got to show how and why your leadership at RIMS is going to benefit your company. [1:03:42] Telling your leadership you're going to a conference is not going to convince them that there's anything important going on. [1:03:56] The way to convince them is to tell them there's a conference. These are the sessions that they're going to have. This is the speaker they will have. That speaker is someone I think will tell me information about how to address this issue. [1:04:13] This session is about an issue that we faced last year. I want to go and see how others are doing with it. The next step is to come back and write a note telling leaders what you learned in that session. Ask, Can I meet with you to talk about these things I think we can implement? [1:04:42] You're showing that you're taking the information you're learning and using it to improve risk management in your company, and more importantly, the business of the business you are working in. [1:05:00] When Janice was President, she would visit a chapter and ask everybody who's in the insurance industry to raise their hands. They would raise their hands. Then she told them, no, you use the products of the insurance industry, but you are your company's representative. [1:05:51] Janice Ochenkowski, thank you so much for all your time and your insight today. It's such a pleasure to meet you face-to-face, and I hope we get to do that in person at a future RIMS event. [1:06:06] Special thanks again to former RIMS President Janice Ochenkowski for joining us here on RIMScast! This was a lot of fun, and there are plenty of great takeaways about TRIA, RIMS, public speaking, and honoring the victims of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks. [1:05:26] It was a real pleasure to meet Janice Ochenkowski, one of our most revered leaders. [1:06:30] Plug Time! Become a RIMS member and get access to the tools, thought leadership, and network you need to succeed. Visit RIMS.org/membership or email membershipdept@RIMS.org for more information. [1:06:48] Risk Knowledge is the RIMS searchable content library that provides relevant information for today's risk professionals. Materials include RIMS executive reports, survey findings, contributed articles, industry research, benchmarking data, and more. [1:07:04] For the best reporting on the profession of risk management, read Risk Management Magazine at RMMagazine.com. It is written and published by the best minds in risk management. [1:07:17] Justin Smulison is the Business Content Manager at RIMS. Please remember to subscribe to RIMScast on your favorite podcasting app. You can email us at Content@RIMS.org. [1:07:29] Practice good risk management, stay safe, and thank you again for your continued support!   Links: Spencer Educational Foundation's 2026 Funding Their Future Gala | Sept. 17, 2026 ChicagoLand Risk Forum | Sept. 24, 2026 RIMS Certification Week: Sept. 21‒24 | Complimentary For All RIMS Western Regional Conference — Oct. 4‒7, 2026 | Seattle, WA | Register Today. RIMS Canada Conference — Oct. 18‒21, 2026 | Quebec City | www.rimscanadaconference.ca | Sponsorship Opportunities Available RIMS ERM Conference 2026 | November 19‒20 in Columbus, Ohio | Registration Now Open! | www.rims.org/ERM2026 RISKWORLD 2027 Registration RIMScast Canada — Episodes Now Live — Watch the new video with Sophie Grégoire Trudeau. The Strategic and Enterprise Risk Center RIMS, the Foundation for Risk Management Spencer Educational Foundation — Scholarships and Grants | Open Calls and Timelines. RIMS Now RIMS-Certified Risk Management Professional (RIMS-CRMP) | Insights Video Series Featuring Joe Milan! RIMS Diversity Equity Inclusion Council RIMS-CRMP Stories RISK PAC | RIMS Advocacy RIMScast on YouTube! RIMS Risk Management magazine | Contribute | Q2 2026 Issue Now Available Sponsor RIMScast — Sales@RIMS.org Upcoming RIMS-CRMP Virtual Workshops: Full RIMS-CRMP Prep Course Schedule See the full calendar of RIMS Virtual Workshops   Upcoming RIMS Webinars: RIMS.org/Webinars "RIMS Student Series: Classroom to Career Part 2" | Sept 9 | Complimentary for all "Beyond the Loss Count: What Property Claims Reveal About Frequency, Severity and Resilience" | Sponsored by AXA XL | Sept. 17, 2026 "RIMS Certification Week: Sept. 22‒24" | Complimentary for All "The Future of Captives: What Risk Managers Should Be Thinking About Now" | Sponsored by Brown & Brown | Oct. 1, 2026 "The 2027 Risk Agenda: 10 Engineering Priorities Risk Leaders Should Act on Now" | Sponsored by Global Risk Consultants | Oct. 8, 2026 "Beyond the Horizon: Turning External Risk Into Decision-Ready Insight" | Sponsored by Verisk Maplecroft | Oct. 15, 2026 "Cybercrime, Fraud and AI: Real-World Threats and Practical Defenses for Business Leaders" | Sponsored by Zurich | Oct. 22, 2026 "Signal Over Noise: Smarter Risk Analytics" | Sponsored by Riskonnect | Nov. 5, 2026   Related RIMScast Episodes: "Opening Windows of Tolerance with Sophie Grégoire Trudeau" "When Geopolitics Hits the Balance Sheet with Cari Stinebower" "RIMS Advocacy in 2026 with Mark Prysock"   Sponsored RIMScast Episodes: "48 Hours From a Storm: What to Do Before A Hurricane Strikes" | Sponsored by Global Risk Consultants, a TÜV SÜD Company (New!) "AI-Scale, Risk Ready: Engineering Controls for the New Data Center Boom" | Sponsored by Global Risk Consultants, a TÜV SÜD Company "Facing Into Risk: Navigating the New Risk Landscape" (New!) | Sponsored by AXA XL "Secondary Perils, Major Risks: The New Face of Weather-Related Challenges" | Sponsored by AXA XL "The ART of Risk: Rethinking Risk Through Insight, Design, and Innovation" | Sponsored by Alliant "Mastering ERM: Leveraging Internal and External Risk Factors" | Sponsored by Diligent "Cyberrisk: Preparing Beyond 2025" | Sponsored by Alliant "The New Reality of Risk Engineering: From Code Compliance to Resilience" | Sponsored by AXA XL "Change Management: AI's Role in Loss Control and Property Insurance" | Sponsored by Global Risk Consultants, a TÜV SÜD Company Demystifying Multinational Fronting Insurance Programs | Sponsored by Zurich "Understanding Third-Party Litigation Funding" | Sponsored by Zurich "What Risk Managers Can Learn From School Shootings" | Sponsored by Merrill Herzog "Simplifying the Challenges of OSHA Recordkeeping" | Sponsored by Medcor "How Insurance Builds Resilience Against an Active Assailant Attack" | Sponsored by Merrill Herzog "Third-Party and Cyber Risk Management Tips" | Sponsored by Alliant   RIMS Publications, Content, and Links: RIMS Membership — Whether you are a new member or need to transition, be a part of the global risk management community! RIMS Virtual Workshops On-Demand Webinars RIMS-Certified Risk Management Professional (RIMS-CRMP) RISK PAC | RIMS Advocacy RIMS Strategic & Enterprise Risk Center RIMS-CRMP Stories — Featuring RIMS President Manny Padilla!   RIMS Events, Education, and Services: RIMS Risk Maturity Model®   Sponsor RIMScast: Contact sales@rims.org or pd@rims.org for more information.   Want to Learn More? Keep up with the podcast on RIMS.org, and listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.   Have a question or suggestion? Email: Content@rims.org.   Join the Conversation! Follow @RIMSorg on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.   About our guest: Janice Ochenkowski, Former RIMS President   Special introduction by RIMS CEO Gary LaBranche   Production and engineering provided by Podfly.

Italy is increasingly pushing back against Europe's approach to illegal immigration, including a growing dispute with Germany over who should take responsibility for migrants rescued in the Mediterranean. On this week's episode of the Center for Immigration Studies' Parsing Immigration Policy podcast, Italian journalist Francesca Ronchin offers an Italian perspective on the migration pressures facing Europe and the growing frustration with uncontrolled flows.Ronchin, a journalist with RAI-Radiotelevisione Italiana, Italy's national public broadcaster, focuses on immigration in Europe. She explains the Italian government view that when German NGOs rescue migrants in the Mediterranean, Germany should take responsibility for them, rather than bringing them to Italy and subsequently asking Italy to take them back.Among the topics discussed:Italy and Germany: The dispute over Mediterranean rescues, asylum responsibility, and whether NGO rescue operations create an incentive for additional migration.Ceuta and weaponized migration: The large-scale arrival in Spain's North African exclave of Ceuta at the end of July, including the role of social media and traffickers and the view that Morocco used migration as a political tool.Immigration and Italy's demographics: Whether immigration can solve Italy's exceptionally low birth rate and what large-scale immigration means for wages, employment, taxes, and the welfare state.Integration and assimilation: The challenges of absorbing large numbers of newcomers and the difficulty of discussing assimilation openly in Italy.The migration route from Africa to Europe: Ronchin's documentary, La Grande Bugia – Eritrea Andata e Ritorno (The Great Lie – Eritrea There and Back), which examines migration from northeastern Africa and questions surrounding claims of Eritrean nationality and asylum. An English-language version is forthcoming.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestFrancesca Ronchin is a journalist with RAI-Radiotelevisione Italiana.LinksFrancesca Ronchin's X Account“La Grande Bugia – Eritrea Andata e Ritorno” (“The Great Lie – Eritrea There and Back”)Francesca Ronchin's author page at LaVeritaIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

On today's Midday Report with host Terry Haines:President Trump says he'll make a campaign swing through Alaska, to help U.S. Sen Dan Sullivan. A Seattle startup is betting nuclear power could change how ships move through the Arctic. And could a catastrophic glacial collapse happen in Alaska?Photo: President Trump lauded one Alaska candidate named Dan Sullivan and disparaged the other while speaking to reporters at the White House on Sept. 2, 2026. (C-Span)

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A.M. Edition for Sept. 2. Bonds are selling off again with investors left unimpressed by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's seeming indifference to the recent rise in yields. Economics editor Paul Hannon and WSJ reporter Chelsey Dulaney explain how the bond rout is impacting markets, consumers and businesses and what it will take to calm investors. Plus, Open AI restricts its latest AI model, rating it a 'critical' cyber risk. And Google tries to challenge the frontrunners in agentic coding. Luke Vargas hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This week we're discussing private ownership of immigration detention facilities. The same companies that run private, for-profit prisons are holding detainees for ICE. Our guests consider how a profit motive influences the treatment of people being held, share what they know about the conditions inside, and discuss the ways their communities are coming together to fight for detainees' rights. Recorded in part at an ICE vigil in downtown Los Angeles, August 2026. This episode includes discussion of detention conditions, self-harm and suicide. Featuring: Kevin Foster, independent journalist who has reported on immigration for Mother Jones Stacy Tolchin, immigration attorney, Pasadena, California Michelle Arkin, founding member, No Camps California Nicole Edry, Democracy Action Network Archival audio: Thomas Beasley, then Chairman, Corrections Corporation of America — C-SPAN, 1987 Perla Trevizo, ProPublica — C-SPAN "Washington Journal," June 9, 2026 Rob Bonta, California Attorney General — press conference, May 15, 2026 Eduardo Delgado, Migrant Equity Southeast — from Sonali Kolhatkar's "Breaking ICE" Credits: * Host and Producer: Mel Buer * Senior Producer: Dan Pavlish * Producer: Vanessa Kolb * Editor: Andrew Stelzer * Executive Producer and Audio Editor: Ace Estwick * Engineer: Mark Maxwell Music: * [MUSIC SOURCE] Thanks: Archival audio of Thomas Beasley and Perla Trevizo courtesy C-SPAN. Special thanks to Sonali Kolhatkar for permission to air an excerpt from her book "Breaking ICE: Community Defense Against State Terror and MAGA Fascism." Learn More: * https://nocampsca.com/ * https://unitedwedream.org/ * https://immigrantjustice.org/ * https://www.sevenstories.com/books/4889-breaking-ice Making Contact is an award-winning, nationally syndicated radio show and podcast featuring narrative storytelling and thought-provoking interviews. We cover the most urgent issues of our time and the people on the ground building a more just world.

President Ronald Reagan was a strong anti-Communist. He also liked to tell jokes.   So, he combined those two passions into one pursuit. Telling jokes that mocked and ridiculed Soviet Communism ... I have a new hobby. I am collecting jokes. And these jokes are jokes that I can absolutely prove are written -- not written -- are invented by the people of the Soviet Union and told among themselves. And they reveal a great sense of humor that we would all find very simpatico with us, but they also reveal a certain cynicism about facets of their system. That was President Reagan October 1988 ... speaking at the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles...   Why did President Reagan tell jokes about Communism? And what did Soviet leader Mikhel Gorbachev – Reagan's Cold War adversary and summit partner -- think of those jokes? Find out in this week's episode of C-SPAN's podcast "Extreme Mortman." Find "Extreme Mortman" wherever you get podcasts. What were President Reagan's favorite jokes about Communism? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The connection between immigration and housing costs is the subject of this week's episode of the Center for Immigration Studies' Parsing Immigration Policy podcast. Jason Richwine, a resident scholar at the Center, discusses his forthcoming study, scheduled for publication this fall in the peer-reviewed journal Cityscape.The large majority of academic studies find a positive relationship between immigration and housing prices, with relatively little debate over the basic nexus. Richwine's research updates the evidence using 2014 and 2023 data and examines the effects of increased immigration on rents across nearly 1,700 public-use microdata areas (PUMAs).Among the findings:A 1 percentage-point increase in the foreign-born share is associated with approximately a 1.5 percent increase in rents paid by natives, when direct and spillover effects are included.Immigration in one area also raises rents in surrounding areas, creating a ripple effect beyond the community experiencing the initial increase.Housing construction cannot necessarily respond quickly enough to accommodate large, sudden increases in population, while restrictions on new construction and opposition to higher-density housing further constrain supply.Richwine also discusses research linking higher housing costs to lower fertility and increases in the sheltered homeless population, arguing that the difficulty of rapidly expanding housing supply is another reason to favor "lower and slower" immigration.In the episode's commentary, CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian discusses a NYT article reporting a private meeting between Jared Kushner and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries about potential areas of immigration policy agreement. Krikorian considers what the administration can do to reassure immigration restriction supporters that it will not compromise on its agenda, including more aggressive workplace enforcement and further measures to tighten legal immigration.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJason Richwine is a Resident Scholar at the Center for Immigration StudiesLinksAbstract: “Immigration and Rent: PUMA-Based Spatial Analysis”Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Ten days ago, Natalie Harp was a name known almost exclusively to those in Washington's political circles but when a Democratic senator name-checked her in a campaign speech, it caused a war of words. So who is she and why does she matter so much to the president?This podcast was brought to you thanks to the support of readers of The Times and The Sunday Times. Subscribe today: http://thetimes.com/thestoryGuest: Philip Wegmann, White House reporter, The Wall Street Journal.Host: Manveen Rana.Producers: Olivia Case, Jennifer Kennedy. We want to hear from you - email: thestory@thetimes.comRead more: How Trump's Ever-Present Executive Assistant Became the Talk of WashingtonFurther listening: The fraudsters pardoned by TrumpClips: Jon Ossoff / YouTube, Forbes, CNN, CSPAN, ABC7, One America News Network, Decoding Fox News / Twitter, Real News Insights, Global News, Brut / Facebook, Daily Mail, Fox.Photo: Getty Images.This podcast was brought to you thanks to subscribers of The Times and The Sunday Times. To enjoy unlimited digital access to all our journalism subscribe here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Erick Erickson opens on the Georgia governor's race, where Keisha Lance Bottoms, running against his friend Rick Jackson, told a C-SPAN audience she was proud to end Atlanta's multimillion dollar agreement with ICE because “all money ain't good money,” and Erick answers with Laken Riley and with a 29 year old named Ramon Harris stabbed […]

Today's Poll Question at Smerconish.com: Should cameras be allowed in every government proceeding that the public has a right to attend? Today Michael makes the case for a “Smerconish Sunshine Rule”: if citizens are legally entitled to watch their government conduct public business, cameras should be allowed to watch too. With C-SPAN simulcasting his SiriusXM program this week, he looks at nearly 50 years of government television and asks why the same transparency shouldn't extend from school boards and courtrooms to the Supreme Court. But Sarah Isgur offers a sharp counterargument: cameras can encourage grandstanding, viral soundbites, and political performance instead of serious deliberation. Where should transparency end? Listen here, vote there! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Joe takes a sledgehammer to state-level corruption, exposing the systemic decay fracturing American elections, courts, and cultural foundations. From Hastings Charter Township, Michigan—where County Clerk David Olson is pleading for federal intervention to inspect tainted voter rolls—to explosive SCIF evidence revealing over 240,000 ineligible, indefinitely confined voters exploited to tilt elections, this episode leaves no stone unturned. Joe breaks down how bad actors, administrative overreach, and manipulated voter ID laws operate like a treatable cancer that will prove terminal to our constitutional republic unless patriots continuously "Wreck It Ralph" the system to force immediate accountability.Turning the spotlight on judicial tyranny, returning guest Sherry McGann, founder of Judicial Alchemy, steps into the ring to detail how bad-faith attorneys, bankruptcy trustees, and the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC) weaponize legal loopholes against everyday citizens. McGann exposes the shocking "Bankruptcy Protection Loop" and details her recent submission to the Department of Justice documenting systemic attorney misconduct, abandoned counsel, and institutional sabotage. Her powerful account illustrates how court-sanctioned corruption drains victims of their livelihoods while shielding bad actors within Colorado's legal cartel.The show closes with an unsparing analysis of cultural collapse and political hypocrisy. Joe dissects the systematic purging of men from the American workforce, highlighted by a stark C-SPAN call out of Michigan revealing the stark contrast between disenfranchised workers and subsidized illegal immigrants. The episode wraps by exposing how political operatives weaponize racial division—illustrated by Texas Senate contender James Talarico's attacks on the judicial system—and how activist liberal judges continue attempting to sabotage presidential appointments.

Americans visiting beaches, neighborhood pools, summer camps, and resorts this summer are likely to encounter foreign workers filling jobs as lifeguards, ice-cream scoopers, housekeepers, counselors, and restaurant workers. Many may not realize that these workers are in the United States on J-1 exchange visas—a program the State Department promotes as an instrument of cultural exchange and public diplomacy.A new episode of the Center for Immigration Studies podcast Parsing Immigration Policy examines the findings of the recently published CIS report, Exchange Visa Programs Operate Mainly For Cheap Labor, Not Cultural Exchange, with Jessica Vaughan, the Center's director of policy studies.The report finds that the J-1 program has evolved into a major temporary foreign-worker program:About 75 percent of the 275,000 J-1 visas issued in 2025 went to workers, while only about 25 percent went to more traditional exchange programs.Summer Work Travel alone accounted for 105,000 visas, making it the largest J-1 category. Another 32,000 went to foreign camp counselors.The State Department has approved more than 1,500 third-party organizations to administer J-1 programs, effectively outsourcing much of the program's oversight to organizations that can benefit financially from placing foreign workers with U.S. employers.J-1 summer exchange workers are supposed to head home soon, but thousands will ignore the rules and overstay, joining the illegal population. The J-1 category has one of the highest overstay rates among U.S. entry categories, according to DHS overstay data.The episode also examines potential reforms, including stronger penalties for sponsors, greater scrutiny of countries with high overstay rates, the termination of the subcategories that have no meaningful public diplomacy value, and transferring work-based J-1 programs to the Department of Labor for appropriate labor-market oversight.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration StudiesLinksExchange Visa Programs Operate Mainly For Cheap Labor, Not Cultural ExchangeJ-1 Visas: Cheap Labor as Cultural ExchangeIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

It's Hump Day at The Majority Report On today's program: There was good news and bad news from last night's primary elections in Florida. The bad news is Oliver Larkin and Elijah Manley will not be advancing to the general election after losing to establishment Democrats in Jared Moskowitz and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The good news is that Angie Nixon trounced her opponent in the primary for Senate setting up a race against GOP incumbent Ashley Moody.   Angie Nixon gives an inspirational and emotional victory speech from her HQ in Duval County, Florida. We take a look back at when then State Rep. Nixon proposed a State House Resolution to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza back in November of 2023. Karen Attiah, journalist and publisher of the Golden Hour newsletter on Substack, joins to discuss her piece, "Jason Arday's Death and the Age of digital Racial Terror". Rania Khalek, journalist and host of Dispatches on BreakThrough News discussing the GOP-led House Ways and Means Committee issuing a subpoena to BreakThrough News. In the Fun Half Gary, Indiana has been without power for 8 days following tornados and FEMA has not lifted a finger to help. Further reporting on Trump obsessed aide, Natalie Harp, once climbed into a SUV trunk after being denied a seat in the president motorcade. Protestors dress as Gandalf the Grey and demonstrate in front of Peter Thiel's mansion in Argentina. Amazon is destroying rare books as a part of their AI training process. A former Biden staffer goes on a racist rant about 9/11 after a C-SPAN caller asks how he can call himself a Democrat when he is campaigning against Abdul El-Sayed. all that and more. To connect and organize with your local ICE rapid response team visit ICERRT.com The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AM Quickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: ONESKIN: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code MAJORITY at https://www.oneskin.co/majority FUTURE HINDSIGHT: Search for Future Hindsight wherever you get podcasts. SUNSET LAKE CBD: Use coupon code "Left Is Best" (all one word) for 20% off of your entire order at SunsetLakeCBD.com. Please fill out this form to request Bryan to come to your town to do stand-up comedy @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech On Instagram: @MrBryanVokey Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's YouTube channel: https://ww.youtube.com/Th3Discourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here: https:/www.youtube.com/@avaraiza

In the political history of the United States, books have had a big impact on who the public follows in elections. In 1956, John F. Kennedy published "Profiles in Courage," which sold 2.8 million copies by his death in 1963. Jimmy Carter released his title "Why Not the Best?" in 1975, the year before he was elected president. When Barack Obama first released his life story in 1995, he only sold approximately 9,000 copies. When it was re-released in 2004, he sold 4.7 million copies. President Trump's "Art of the Deal," published in 1987, sold at least 1.5 million. JD Vance was unknown in 2016 when he appeared on C-SPAN's Q&A. His book "Hillbilly Elegy" has sold over 3 million copies. Ten years later he's 42 and has been a U.S. Senator for two years and Vice President of the United States since January of 2025. Here he is from 2016. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

CannCon flies solo again on the now permanent Tuesday format and opens with a genuinely wild polling scandal, where a brand new firm openly admits to running what it calls a social experiment after getting caught pushing wildly inflated numbers for a socialist candidate that ended up losing by half a point. He connects that to Rasmussen quietly getting booted from a major polling aggregator despite years of accuracy. From there he digs into a fresh CBS poll on how Democrats increasingly favor socialism over capitalism, breaking down the branding gap between what Republicans and Democrats think the word even means, and framing the whole thing as a widening civil war between the DSA and the old guard establishment. He closes with a fascinating C SPAN caller clip that has to be seen to be believed. Plenty of economic theory and political speculation packed into a solo Tuesday.

In the political history of the United States, books have had a big impact on who the public follows in elections. In 1956, John F. Kennedy published "Profiles in Courage," which sold 2.8 million copies by his death in 1963. Jimmy Carter released his title "Why Not the Best?" in 1975, the year before he was elected president. When Barack Obama first released his life story in 1995, he only sold approximately 9,000 copies. When it was re-released in 2004, he sold 4.7 million copies. President Trump's "Art of the Deal," published in 1987, sold at least 1.5 million. JD Vance was unknown in 2016 when he appeared on C-SPAN's Q&A. His book "Hillbilly Elegy" has sold over 3 million copies. Ten years later he's 42 and has been a U.S. Senator for two years and Vice President of the United States since January of 2025. Here he is from 2016. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jennifer Briney is host of the hugely popular and influential podcast "Congressional Dish." It's a rare breed of podcast: Focusing not on the politics of Congress behind the scenes, but the policy developed in full view on C-SPAN. And it's deeply researched — which makes Jennifer Briney one of America's closest watchers of the House and Senate — the floor and the hearings... You might wonder: What are Jennifer Briney's top 5 favorite or most meaningful or most consequential moments from watching the House and the Senate for so many years? In this week's episode of C-SPAN's podcast "Extreme Mortman" — she tells us! Which five moments did Jennifer Briney pick? Why did she pick them? Do any of these moments come from the current Congress? And what does Jennifer Briney think these five favorite moments teach us about how Congress operates and makes policy? Find out in "Extreme Mortman." Find "Extreme Mortman" wherever you get podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing birthright citizenship has renewed debate over one of the most consequential questions in immigration policy for any nation: Who should be entitled to citizenship?To examine the current state of citizenship policy, especially as it relates to immigration, the International Network for Immigration Research (INIR) held a panel discussion featuring policy experts from the United States, France, Israel, and Hungary, hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies. The panel explored how different democracies define citizenship, the historical development of their laws, and the policy choices that shape them today.While the United States has long interpreted the 14th Amendment to confer citizenship broadly on nearly all children born on U.S. soil, many countries have adopted different approaches. Some place greater emphasis on parental citizenship, while others have modified their laws over time; France, for example, revised its citizenship laws in the 1990s to move away from automatic citizenship at birth.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestsPawel Styrna is the Director of International Relations at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Washington, D.C.Nicolas Pouvreau-Monti is the Executive Director of the Immigration and Demography Observatory (OID), Paris.Yonatan Jakubowicz is the Executive Director of the Israeli Immigration Policy Center, Jerusalem.Viktor Marsai is the Executive Director of the Migration Research Institute, Budapest.LinksPress ReleaseVideoTranscriptLive StreamIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here:If you want my help...STARTING a business: join me here at ZERO TO FOUNDER: https://tombilyeu.com/zero-to-founder?utm_campaign=Podcast%20Offer&utm_source=podca[%E2%80%A6]d%20end%20of%20show&utm_content=podcast%20ad%20end%20of%20showSCALING a business: see if you qualify here.: https://tombilyeu.com/callGet my battle-tested strategies and insights delivered weekly to your inbox: sign up here.:https://tombilyeu.com/**********************************************************************If you're serious about leveling up your life, I urge you to check out my new podcast, Tom Bilyeu's Mindset Playbook —a goldmine of my most impactful episodes on mindset, business, and health. Trust me, your future self will thank you.**********************************************************************FOLLOW TOM:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=enTwitter: https://twitter.com/tombilyeuYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeuQuince: Free shipping and 365-day returns at https://quince.com/impactpodWhatnot: Download the Whatnot app today and get free shipping on your first order.Monarch Money: Start your free trial and get 50% off your first year of total money clarity at https://monarchmoney.yt.link/QxOLEVx or code TB50 for 50% Off Monarch Core tier.ATT Business: Switch to AT&T Business at business.att.comKetone IQ: Visit https://ketone.com/IMPACT for 30% OFF your subscription orderNetsuite: For the first time ever you can try NetSuite Next for free. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, go to https://NetSuite.ai/Theory.Surfshark: Go to https://surfshark.com/TOMB or use code TOMB at checkout to get 4 extra months of Surfshark! The team digs into Bernie Sanders going on CNN to embrace what's being called a "red wave"—the surging energy of the DSA within the Democratic Party—and his refusal to disavow Hasan Piker even when pressed on Piker's most controversial statements. What follows is a genuinely two-sided, and at times heated, debate. On one side: the argument that this is a pivotal cultural moment, that "politics is downstream of culture," and that figures like Mamdani and Hasan Piker represent a one-two punch pushing DSA ideas into the mainstream—ideas the host warns point toward an ideology with a catastrophic historical track record, making him feel morally obligated to sound the alarm even when he admits it's bad for business. On the other side: a sharp policy-focused rebuttal arguing the show spends too much time dissecting 30-second streamer clips and not enough on actual bills, appropriations, and the money-in-politics mechanisms that drive real outcomes—"more C-SPAN, less Twitch stream recaps." The conversation traces historical parallels (the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Bolsheviks vs. Mensheviks), debates whether the DSA is unintentionally clearing a path for a charismatic strongman, and wrestles with how the left should handle provocative voices. It also gets personal and philosophical: the "parchment guarantee" idea that a constitution only matters if the culture enforces it, a reflection on youth as an energy that rightly shakes up an ossified society, and a candid riff on competing cultural metaphors—jihad-as-waging-war versus the Christian "spark of the divine in the individual"—and the tension between drawing a hard line and being careful with war rhetoric in a volatile moment. A substantive, disagreement-driven look at where American politics may be heading.Tom digs into Mayor Mamdani colliding with a basic truth of policy: create an incentive structure, and people will follow it—sometimes by abusing it. Joining Tom is Drew, who pushes back and adds important nuance throughout. The flashpoint is Mamdani's city-owned grocery stores: with goods priced well below market, Tom argues there's an obvious incentive to buy cheap and resell at market value, which is why Mamdani may need some form of ID to wall off who can shop—running headlong into the same "require ID" logic the left resists elsewhere. Drew makes the key distinction that a grocery ID (a driver's license) is not the citizenship-level verification the SAVE Act demands (a passport), and Tom agrees that a sensible ID standard is reasonable. From there, Tom lays out his broader, and more contested, thesis about incentive structures, voter-ID politics, and how DSA-aligned cities increasingly attach the phrase "regardless of immigration status" to taxpayer-funded programs—from grocery initiatives to childcare to housing and legal-support hotlines. He argues this is happening beyond New York, in cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, and challenges the claim that undocumented immigrants are net contributors to social systems, drawing a parallel to immigration debates in Nordic countries. Tom's bottom line: you can't simultaneously say government spends too much, oppose borders and ID requirements, and promise to care for everyone who comes—mathematically it doesn't work, and if you genuinely want to help people, you have to care for a finite number well rather than incentivizing unlimited inflow. He also breaks down why Mamdani's budget gap is likely to keep growing.Tom untangles one of the most consequential and least understood stories in global finance: the United States buying yen for the first time since 1998. Joining Tom is the team as he explains why this isn't a sign of strength but an emergency effort to stop a total collapse of the Japanese economy—one so dangerous because the yen carry trade has locked the US and Japan tightly together for decades. Tom speed-runs the history: Japan's 1989 real estate bubble, thirty years of ultra-low rates, and how cheap Japanese money flooded the world as liquidity that America benefited from enormously. He walks through the trap Japan is now in—raising rates to fight post-Covid inflation triggers a carry-trade unwind, but every intervention to slow it signals weakness and sends money fleeing. He breaks down the concept of risk-adjusted return, why Japan has nothing like the AI trade to justify its risk, the Bessent Camp David notepad photo he believes was a deliberate signal (and the roughly $1 trillion it briefly wiped from US markets), and why the New York Fed selling euros for yen further strains an already-tense relationship with Europe. Tom's blunt diagnosis: propping up the yen is Advil for a brain tumor; the only real cure is a painful decade of killing off zombie companies and getting Japan innovating and growing again. He then connects it to the bigger board—Argentina and Milei as a success story the US wants to use to pull South America back toward capitalism and away from China's debt-trap Belt and Road, and his view that America is becoming a regional rather than global hegemon. Throughout, Tom stresses intellectual honesty about how Covid-era authoritarian decisions helped break the system, and reminds viewers to treat official reassurances as propaganda.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Anthony Fauci appeared before the Senate under subpoena on July 29, 2026, and declined to answer the committee's questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment right. He had already received a preemptive pardon from President Joe Biden before any criminal charges had been filed.This episode examines the accountability questions surrounding that decision: what a preemptive pardon actually protects, why Fauci's attorneys still advised him to remain silent, why the committee chairman now says the underlying legal issue has never been tested in court, and why Canada—which used the Inquiries Act to investigate the Emergencies Act—has never opened a national inquiry into its own pandemic response.I also explain where I stand on COVID-19 origins, and why. The FBI, the Department of Energy, and the CIA have all assessed a laboratory origin as the more likely explanation, while China has withheld the records that could help settle the question for six years. That is my position, clearly identified as my opinion, with the supporting sources below so you can evaluate the evidence for yourself.Every source is linked—including sources that disagree with me.SourcesSenate HSGAC hearing page — https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/testimony-of-anthony-fauci/Hearing video (C-SPAN) — https://www.c-span.org/event/senate-committee/dr-anthony-fauci-testifies-on-the-covid-19-pandemic/445410Diary package (Sen. Rand Paul's office) — https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdfDiary "Prequel" (Sen. Rand Paul's office) — https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.27_Diary-Prequel-.pdfNPR (July 29, 2026) — https://www.npr.org/2026/07/29/nx-s1-5910542/fauci-rand-paul-diary-coronavirus-origin-lab-leak-hearingCBS News (Live Updates) — https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/anthony-fauci-rand-paul-covid-origins-senate/CBS News (Diary coverage) — https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anthony-fauci-rand-paul-diary-release/NBC News — https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/anthony-fauci-5th-amendment-testify-covid-hearing-rand-paul-rcna589793TIME — https://time.com/article/2026/07/29/fauci-fifth-amendment-senate-hearing-covid-rand-paul-republicans/STAT News — https://www.statnews.com/2026/07/29/fauci-pleads-fifth-criticizes-rand-paul-senate-hearing/The Hill (Contempt vote) — https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5997184-paul-plans-contempt-vote-fauci/The Hill (Sen. Gary Peters) — https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5996425-gary-peters-rand-paul-anthony-fauci-covid-hearing/ABC News — https://abcnews.com/Health/fauci-invokes-5th-amendment-senate-testimony-refrains-answering/story?id=135185235CBS News (Biden pardons) — https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-pardons-anthony-fauci-mark-milley-january-6-committee/WHO SAGO Origins Report (June 2025) — https://www.who.int/news/item/27-06-2025-who-scientific-advisory-group-issues-report-on-origins-of-covid-19CBC (Calls for a Canadian national inquiry) — https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/top-medical-experts-call-for-national-inquiry-into-canada-s-covid-19-failures-1.6916419BMC Medicine, "Canada needs a national COVID-19 inquiry now" — https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-024-03756-7Allison Inquiry / COVID Testimony Association — https://covidtestimony.com/media-centre/

Peabody Award Honoree, ACLU, Emory University, C-Span, Writer, HistorianThe United States Supreme Court decided the redistricting case had significant nationwide implications. In Milligan v. Merrill (now known as Merrill v. Milligan before the Supreme Court), in which LDF is delivering oral arguments, the Court determined Alabama's new congressional map violates the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 by placing Black voters into legislative districts in a way that dilutes their political power.Yet the Alabama State Legislature Decided in July of 2023 Not to Vote for the Supreme Courts decision that Alabama have two minority Legislative Districts even though The Capital of Montgomery & Birmingham are predominately Black.Mid-Decade Redistricting: Following a subsequent Supreme Court decision (Louisiana v. Callais) that altered Section 2 voting rights act enforcement, Alabama Republicans attempted to reinstate a GOP-drawn map that reduced the Black voting-age population.I am a proud resident of the Washington D.C. Metro Area & know of the redistricting process, having learned this issue as a kid thru Gerrymandering. I bounced thru several district grade schools for years!Steve Suitts is an adjunct at the Institute for Liberal Arts of Emory University, a position he has held for the last twenty years, and has been chief strategist for Better Schools Better Jobs, a Mississippi-based education advocacy project of the New Venture Fund. Suitts began his career as a staff member of the Selma Project. He was founding director of the Alabama Civil Liberties Union, a post he held for five years; the executive director of the Southern Regional Council for eighteen years; and program coordinator, vice president, and senior fellow of the Southern Education Foundation for nearly twenty years.He is the author of Overturning Brown: The Segregationist Legacy of the Modern School Choice Movement and Hugo Black of Alabama: How His Roots and Early Career Shaped the Great Champion of the Constitution. He was the executive producer and one of the writers of Will the Circle Be Unbroken, a thirteen-hour public radio series that received a Peabody Award for its history of the Southern civil rights movement.© 2026 All Rights Reserved© 2026 Building Abundant Success!!Join Me on ~ iHeart Radio @ https://tinyurl.com/iHeartBASSpot Me on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/yxuy23baAmazon Music ~ https://tinyurl.com/AmzBASAudacy:  https://tinyurl.com/BASAud

40 years ago this summer, the beloved film "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" was released. You might remember this scene: "In 1931, in an effort to stop the... Anyone? Anyone?... The Great Depression, Congress passed the Hawley Smoot Tariff Act which, anyone? Raised, lowered?... Anyone, anyone raised tariffs, to halt The Great Depression. Did that work? Anyone, anyone? Bueller? Bueller?" That was Ben Stein playing the role of a boring economics professor. But that quote doesn't come from the 1986 movie. It's from the 2000 Republican National Convention. In this week's episode of C-SPAN's podcast "Extreme Mortman," we celebrate 40 years of "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" – by hearing politicians talking about the movie – and quoting it verbatim. Which Federal Reserve chairman cited Ferris Bueller?   Which First Lady cited Ferris Bueller?   Which Supreme Court Chief Justice cited Ferris Bueller? And which other politicians have quoted the wit and wisdom of Ferris Bueller? Find out in "Extreme Mortman" –40 years after a legendary movie came out – and found a home in politics. Find "Extreme Mortman" wherever you get podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The surge of more than 60,000 migrants into Spain's North African exclave of Ceuta has reignited debate over border security, immigration policy, and the growing use of migration as a geopolitical weapon. In the latest episode of the Parsing Immigration Policy podcast, Fellow in Law and Policy Andrew Arthur, filling in for host Mark Krikorian, welcomes European immigration expert Juan Soto to examine the causes of the crisis and the lessons it holds for the United States.Soto argues that the July 30 mass crossing was more than a spontaneous migration event. Instead, he contends it was a coordinated effort intended to send a political message to Spain, given Morocco's continued claims to sovereignty over Ceuta, Melilla, and the Canary Islands. He explains how recent Spanish government policies, including a broad legalization program for illegal immigrants, a citizenship expansion law, and a Spanish Supreme Court ruling limiting the immediate return of migrants arriving by sea, contributed to the crisis.Arthur and Soto also examine the broader geopolitical context of the surge, the muted and often critical response from the European Union and the United States, and how Spain's recent foreign policy positions may have shaped international reactions to the crisis.The episode concludes with Soto's recommendations for responding to instances where migration is used as a geopolitical weapon. He argues that governments must "fix the facts" by accurately describing coordinated mass crossings as hybrid attacks rather than ordinary immigration crises and establish clear consequences in advance—from diplomatic measures to economic sanctions—to deter foreign actors' use of migration to advance political and strategic objectives.HostAndrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJuan Soto is a European immigration expert and co-founder and CEO of Fortius Consulting.LinksJuan Soto's X AccountJuan Soto's Author Page at the Hungarian ConservativeJuan Soto's INIR Article: Battlefield, CeutaIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The largest single illegal border crossing in the history of the European Union took place last week as 60,000 migrants arrived in the Spanish city of Ceuta on the north coast of Africa. But why did they all come at once? Was a Spanish legal change to blame, or foreign actors annoyed at Spain's lenient migration policy? And how did it reignite questions about migration in the UK?This podcast was brought to you thanks to the support of readers of The Times and The Sunday Times. Subscribe today: http://thetimes.com/thestoryGuests:Katie Gatens, Europe correspondent, The Sunday Times.Peter Frankopan, Professor of Global History at Oxford University.Host: Manveen Rana. Producers: Olivia Case and Jennifer Kennedy.We want to hear from you - email: thestory@thetimes.comRead more: Reform pledges to send in the navy to stop small boat crossingsFurther listening: Europe on fireClips: Al Jazeera, GB News, CSPAN, 9 News Australia, The Mirror, Reform UK, El Debate, The New York Post. Photo: Getty Images.This podcast was brought to you thanks to subscribers of The Times and The Sunday Times. To enjoy unlimited digital access to all our journalism subscribe here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Morning XTRA with Tug and Los delivers conservative talk on the biggest political, cultural, and news stories of the day. Smart analysis, unapologetic opinions, and real conversations every weekday morning. Every weekday from 6a to 10a! First thing to know: The Island of Misfit Toys RFK Jr didn’t take any crap from Dana Bash on CNN Hopefully, many more Dems will wake up Atlanta's ONLY All Conservative News & Talk Station.: https://www.xtra1063.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Morning XTRA with Tug and Los delivers conservative talk on the biggest political, cultural, and news stories of the day. Smart analysis, unapologetic opinions, and real conversations every weekday morning. Every weekday from 6a to 10a! Tug and Los break down the biggest stories of the day, including RFK Jr.'s fiery CNN interview with Dana Bash, the ongoing debate over COVID vaccines and the response to questioning mainstream coverage of COVID, and why more Americans are starting to rethink the country's direction. The guys also discuss collectivism, personal responsibility, and the importance of protecting yourself and your community. On today's show:• The Braves' big weekend win and the MLB Trade Deadline• What happened to the "worldwide leader in sports"• RFK Jr. pushes back on CNN's Dana Bash• Hopefully, more Democrats are starting to wake up• The debate over America's COVID vaccine response• Bill Maher vote is in play, and all it took was socialism• A good man with a gun was able to stop a dangerous threat in IdahoAtlanta's ONLY All Conservative News & Talk Station.: https://www.xtra1063.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Fourteen years ago, on August 30th, 2012, the Republican presidential nominee gave his acceptance speech. But before Mitt Romney addressed the convention that night — there was another big-name speaker. Clint Eastwood! Well, I know even some of the people in your own party were very disappointed when you didn't close Gitmo. And I thought, well, closing Gitmo — why close that? We spent so much money on it. But I thought maybe as an excuse. Oh, what do you mean shut up? OK, I thought it was just because somebody had the stupid idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York City. Maybe that was it. Wait — Who was Clint Eastwood talking to? And who tells Clint Eastwood to shut up? The answer: A chair! And it's one of six big convention moments you'll hear in this week's episode of C-SPAN's podcast "Extreme Mortman." Why talk about conventions now? Consider it a therapeutic service for fellow political junkies who have gone two years without a national party convention — and have to wait an unbearable two years before the next one. And who chose those 6 memorable moments? CBS News' top political junkie – Major Garrett! Which convention moments did Major Garrett pick? Why did he pick them? How is Major Garrett himself holding up having gone two years without covering a convention – and having to wait two more years for the next one? And why was Clint Eastwood talking to a chair? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week's episode of the Center for Immigration Studies' “Parsing Immigration Policy” podcast features Nicolas Pouvreau-Monti, co-founder and executive director of the French immigration think tank L'Observatoire de l'Immigration et de la Démographie (OID), discussing how record immigration, failed assimilation, and growing public frustration have made immigration the dominant political issue in France ahead of next year's presidential election.The discussion examines immigration's demographic, economic, and cultural impacts on France, as well as the emergence of OID as one of the country's leading sources of non-partisan immigration research at a time when immigration has become the central issue in French politics.Founded just three years ago by six co-founders concerned about France's migration crisis, OID was established to fill what Monti describes as a void in public debate by providing reliable data, research, and analysis on immigration.Among the topics discussed:France's foreign-born population has reached a historic high, with immigration increasingly originating from outside Europe.Why most French citizens support lower immigration levels, yet government policy has largely failed to respond.The economic effects of large-scale immigration, including workforce participation, welfare spending, and pressure on public services.France's retreat from assimilation and the challenges of integrating immigrants from culturally distinct regions.Why immigration is expected to be the defining issue in France's 2027 presidential election.Monti is the author of the award-winning book Immigration, Mythes et Réalités, which challenges common claims about immigration using demographic and economic data. OID is a member of the International Network for Immigration Research (INIR), joining the Center for Immigration Studies and other partner organizations in the United States, Israel, and Hungary.In his commentary, Krikorian, the Center's executive director, introduces new CIS Fellow Mahvash Siddiqui, a former U.S. Foreign Service Officer. Siddiqui's first analyses for the Center examine industrialized fraud in the H-1B visa program, based on her experience as a consular officer, and a recent federal court decision striking down the Trump administration's $100,000 entry fee for H-1B visa holders .HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestNicolas Pouvreau-Monti is the co-founder and executive director of the French immigration think tank L'Observatoire de l'Immigration et de la Démographie (OID).LinksL'Observatoire de l'Immigration et de la DémographieImmigration, Mythes et RéalitésMahvash SiddiquiIntro Voices in the opening montage:Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week on the GovNavigators Show, Robert and Adam welcome back Howard Mortman, Director of Communications at C-SPAN. Howard reveals what's new with the network, the trends he's been seeing, and how public affairs broadcasting has been changing. The episode dives into the role C-SPAN footage plays in spurring political conversation on social media, and the network's new show aiming to bring tough policy questions and civil discourse that feeds solutions on air. Robert, Adam, and Howard also discuss C-SPAN programming, including America 250 festivities and a special initiative to send reporters to the field to augment 2026 campaign coverage. Plus, new developments on Howard's podcast, Extreme Mortman, including an exciting name change, behind the scenes information on process, and the episodes he's looking forward to the most. Show Notes House Appropriations: Continuing Resolution Press Release Time Magazine: House Passes $1.15 Trillion Defense Spending Bill House Armed Services Committee: FY27 NDAA Resources HHS: Press Release on Deferring California and Minnesota Medicaid Payments Reuters: US pauses $1 billion in Medicaid payments to California, Minnesota C-SPAN: C-SPAN Website C-SPAN: America 250 C-SPAN: Campaign 2026 The Hill: C-SPAN inks deal with YouTube TV, Hulu C-SPAN: Ceasefire C-SPAN: Extreme Mortman What's on the GovNavigators' radar? July 28th: Digital Government Institute 14th Annual 930Gov Conference, Washington, D.C. July 30th: ATARC NextGen Cyber Operations: AI in Action Summit, Reston, VA Potomac Officers Club 2026 Air and Space Summit, McLean, VA 

Facing climate fatigue and denial, a backlash against green policy, and increasingly urgent warnings from scientists, the green movement is shifting into a new era. Two environmentally-minded politicians spell out their opposing visions for where the movement should go next. Zack Polanski is the leader of the Green Party, preaching a message of ‘eco-populism'. John Gummer is a Conservative Lord and former head of the Climate Change Committee; he thinks the most powerful tool to make change is the free market.What is the future of the green movement?Presenter: Justin Rowlatt Series Producer: Ellie House Editor: Matt Willis Sound Design and Mix: James Beard Production Coordinators: Maria Ogundele, Brenda Brown, Sabine Schereck Commissioning Editor: Dan Clarke Archive: Doechii at Glastonbury, Glastonbury and Doechii filmed by BBC, 28/6/2025 Green Party Hustings at Glastonbury Speakers Forum, The Green Gathering, filmed by Zoe Broughton, 8/7/2025 Margaret Thatcher speech to the United Nations General Assembly, C-SPAN, 8/11/1989

A woman calls a C-SPAN political talk show and drags democrats for acting like it's impossible for Latinos to get IDs. Listen as she asks CA Rep Gil Cisneros why democrats are opposed to voter ID when they act as though no fraud exists. The answer? Racism. Oh boy. Plus a look back at an NBC story from 2024 debunking then candidate Trump's claims that illegals are voting in US elections. Gavin Newsom looks awful and sounds terrified.   

Are you a Stephen Colbert fan? Think you know everything there is to know about Stephen Colbert… and politics? Well, did you know about this? QUESTION: Jake, Stephen Colbert, Senior White House Correspondent for the Daily Show. Will the President be making any more statements today? SIEWERT: The President I expect will be making a statement this afternoon, and you're invited to attend that. QUESTION: Will he be available for one-on-ones? SIEWERT: He will not be available for a one-on-one with the Daily Show. QUESTION: Could you at least ask? SIEWERT: We could check. I don't know -- unfortunately, you know, D.C. Cable -- and I'm a long-time subscriber to D.C. Cable -- doesn't carry the Daily Show, as you may or may not be aware. So he may not be familiar with the show. QUESTION: Make sure he knows it's Stephen Colbert, not Stephen Carell, okay? That's C-o-l-b-e-r-t. He'll see me. SIEWERT: Okay. That's right – that really was Stephen Colbert asking a question at a White House press briefing. January 16th, 2001 … with Clinton press secretary Jake Siewart. And it's just one of 22 fun facts about Stephen Colbert and politics you may not know or remember. In this week's episode of C-SPAN's podcast "Extreme Mortman" - for the first time ever - you can hear them all! When did Stephen Colbert show up at the White House? Why did he testify to Congress? And what have politicians said about him — even when he wasn't in the room? 22 fun facts about Stephen Colbert and politics. ... Can you name them all? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy is a rebroadcast of a recent installment of the Center's Immigration Newsmaker series featuring the White House Border Czar Tom Homan.In the interview hosted by Center Executive Director Mark Krikorian, Homan discusses the recent pause in traffic stops, the administration's enforcement priorities, recent record-setting ICE arrests, sanctuary jurisdictions, and the future of mass deportations.A highlight of the conversation is Homan's proposal to dramatically expand I-9 inspections by creating a centralized operation staffed by contractors to conduct large-scale audits. Rather than relying exclusively on armed Homeland Security Investigations agents to review employment records, Homan argues that contractors could identify criminal and administrative violations and refer those cases to investigators — freeing agents to focus on criminal investigations and enforcement operations.In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian discusses a regulatory change that will end the Department of Homeland Security's “duration of status” policy for F, J, and I nonimmigrant classifications.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestTom Homan is the White House Border Czar.LinksImmigration Newsmaker Press ReleaseImmigration Newsmaker Videommigration Newsmaker TranscriptImmigration Newsmaker SeriesDHS Ends ‘Duration of Status' for Students, Exchange Visitors, and Foreign MediaIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

My conversation with Susan begins at 42 minutes  Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Lincoln Square CEO Susan Demos  I am a writer, editor, ghostwriter, speechwriter and researcher. I'm also an avid hiker, a mom of two, and a lifelong Midwest resident. While working as a journalist for the last 25 years, I've gone through a lot of upheavals in the industry. But I learned that always means new opportunities — if you're willing to assume some risk. That's never been a problem for me. As the CEO and Executive Editor of Lincoln Square, I run one of the fastest-growing independent political publications in the nation. Each week, I host two shows, The Weekly Assignment, where we discuss the latest headlines and what we can do to fight back against authoritarianism, and First Draft, where I talk to journalists and authors about their important work and the stories behind them. As an expert on Michigan and national politics, I've also appeared on C-SPAN, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, NewsNation, the Australian Broadcast Corporation, Sky News, Jyllands-Posten (Danish TV), WKAR-TV's Off the Record and more. Previously, I was the founding Editor-in-Chief of the nonprofit Michigan Advance for over six years. I also served for five years as the Editor and Publisher of Inside Michigan Politics, the most-cited political newsletter in the state. And in a past life, I worked as a Democratic campaign strategist during the 2018 campaign cycle (which was a pretty darn good year for the party). My award-winning political analysis has run in more than 150 national, international and regional media outlets, including the Guardian U.K., NBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, RealClearPolitics, Salon, HuffPost, and The Detroit News. And you'll find me trekking in the mountains whenever I can break away. Why I Write Writer. Entrepreneur. Mother. Public Speaker. Political Analyst. Those are all just words to describe me. What you need to know, most of all, is what drives me to fulfill those roles. I've wanted to be a writer since I was seven, scribbling down observations about people and events in ratty spiral notebooks. My mother always told me that my unique ability to understand people and feel what they were going through was both a gift and a curse. I struggled for many years to make ends meet, especially before my first child was born. I wondered if I'd ever be able to contribute anything of value, something to make the world a better place. I found my calling in journalism, honing my craft for the last 25 years. Being a writer has always been who I am. But now it's also what I do. I have an insatiable curiosity to investigate what's going on in America and the world. I believe in speaking truth to power and following Mencken's rule to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." I've taken on the Old Boys Club in politics (and political journalism) and won, always preserving my integrity. All this has given me a distinctive voice and fearless style to communicate with people why things are happening and what can be done.

Brian gets his 51-year-old baby tooth shaved down and immediately fixes the show. Justin and Brian debate the literally overheated way to see The Odyssey, give the Doomsday trailer a “needs improvement,” and plant a flag for a town-to-town Ben Grimm procedural. Plus: forced scam operations, a deeply inadvisable dictator T-shirt, Austin's NGO audit, Laura Bush crushing on C-SPAN, evil Krusty the Clown, and sleeping Valdosta raccoons. Get an extra episode every week only at https://www.patreon.com/greatnight!

Brian gets his 51-year-old baby tooth shaved down and immediately fixes the show. Justin and Brian debate the literally overheated way to see The Odyssey, give the Doomsday trailer a “needs improvement,” and plant a flag for a town-to-town Ben Grimm procedural. Plus: forced scam operations, a deeply inadvisable dictator T-shirt, Austin's NGO audit, Laura Bush crushing on C-SPAN, evil Krusty the Clown, and sleeping Valdosta raccoons. Get an extra episode every week only at https://www.patreon.com/greatnight!

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin says states who do not take certain steps to safeguard election security will lose federal counterterrorism grant money, and he promises to aggressively pursue voter fraud cases; He spoke the day after President Donald Trump gave a primetime address on election fraud, claiming U.S. election infrastructure has vulnerabilities, China has been amassing U.S. voter data and a quarter million illegal voters are on U.S. rolls; North Carolina U.S. Senate Republican nominee Michael Whatley accuses his Democratic opponent Roy Cooper of being soft on crime, in that very closely watched race that will likely help decide which party controls the Senate after this year's election; U.S. & Iranian military trade fire for a sixth night since the collapse of the ceasefire; House Financial Services Committee Chair French Hill (R-ARK) pushes the Senate to join the House and pass a cryptocurrency and digital asset bill known as the CLARITY Act; Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney asked about U.S. lawmaker complaints about the wildfire smoke coming down from Canada and choking many U.S. cities; British Labour Party officially elects a new leader, Andy Burnham, who will on Monday become the new Prime Minister, replacing Keir Starmer, who is resigning. We will talk about the swap with C-SPAN's Westminster Correspondent Peter Knowles. (49) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Prefer to listen? Play the latest episode below. Episode Summary Wednesday's show is a real sampler platter of beautiful American rot: autistic train ecstasy, woodland white-pride poetry, a fat-fetish social network full of horny weirdos, a military asshole-blister crisis, Chuck Schumer possibly farting on C-SPAN, and a Florida woman accidentally rolling around with a license […] The post Blueberry Fetish And The Fat Feeder Fans first appeared on Distorted View Daily.

After 47 years of C-SPAN televising the Congress of United States, we feel there is no better place to hear accents and dialects of the American people 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In her book "Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents," Valerie Fridland promises to unlock "the secrets of what linguistic science, psychology and history tell us about the evolution of human speech." Valerie Fridland teaches in the Great Courses series at the University of Nevada, Reno. She did her undergraduate work at Georgetown in 1990 and received her PhD from Michigan State in 1998. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Katherine Massey Book Club @ The C.O.W.S. hosts the GRAND FINALE (Session 12) on lyin' Michelle Alexander's *The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness*. Alexander has a living White mother and a deceased Black father. Despite 15 years of institutional celebration for her work, Gus T. anticipated this title being one of the "5 Worst Books Ever." History shows that racists generally do not promote literature that provides an accurate understanding of the System of White Supremacy. This week, we drop the final Mario Elie "Kiss of Death" three-pointer on this text, permanently closing the casket on a 15-year academic hustle. We open the final chapter, *Obama: The Promise and the Peril*, and interrogate the absolute peak of her biographical dishonesty where she explicitly labels Affirmative Action a "racial bribe" that Black people must surrender to play academic "games of chicken" with their own survival. We back up our 12-week forensic media audit by deploying a devastating 14-minute custom audio track from our own 2010 CREE archive and 2016 public media slips. We let the Pusha T, Kendrick Lamar, Ray Charles, and Neely Fuller Jr. audio do the talking because Michelle Alexander has officially fouled out of the game! THE 15-POINT FORENSIC AUDIT SUMMARY: 1. The Manufactured "Underdog" Narrative: Claims she launched to half-empty rooms to conceal the massive institutional "push" that put her on C-SPAN, NPR, and Democracy Now within 5 months of publication. 2. Systemic Deception by Omission: Completely erases COINTELPRO, Jon Burge's torture ring, Attica, and the Black Panthers to bury earlier, more accurate structural work on the Prison-Industrial Complex. 3. Hidden Biographical Motivation: Willfully conceals her multi-ethnic background to hide her personal family defenses under the guise of objective scholarship. 4. Centering White Trauma: Explicitly argues that White women who chose to have interracial relationships under Jim Crow were primary, injured victims of a racial caste system. 5. The Fraudulent "Bribe" Thesis: Claims White people must be "bribed" to practice Racism, belied by a System of White Supremacy where whiteness automatically requires total domination. 6. Reckless Statistical Manipulation: Arbitrarily changes her state prison violent offender statistic from 33% to 52% between editions with zero data reconciliation or explanation. 7. Specious Claims as Fact: Drops massive, sweeping assertions straight onto the print page with absolutely zero footnotes or supporting empirical documentation. 8. The 1980s Progress Myth: Asserts that by the 1980s, the vast majority of White people opposed the practice of Racism—a completely ahistorical claim unsupported by any evidence. 9. Pathologizing Defense Mechanisms: Labels Affirmative Action a "racial bribe" for Black people, telling the victims of state terror to disarm while the system keeps its weapons. 10. Erasing the Real Beneficiaries: Refuses to inform readers of macro-data showing that White women have historically benefited most from Affirmative Action pipelines. 11. The "Accidental" Absolution: Labors mightily to frame the White power structure as ignorant, well-meaning, and "accidentally" racist to shield calculated state intent from exposure. 12. Coddling Whites, Targeting Black Institutions: Sweeps away structural White guilt while using print space to aggressively scold the CBC, the NAACP, and Bill Cosby. 13. Minstrel Linguistic Framing: Selectively quotes Black interviewees in broken, stereotypical English to frame them as inarticulate and implicitly deserving of incarceration. 14. Double-Dipping the Carceral Ledger: Hides that her husband Carter Stewart profited as a federal prosecutor caging Black bodies, while she profited off the fake literary outrage industry. 15. White-Identified Pronoun Usage: Deploys a slippery use of "we," "us," and "our" to identify with White spaces and lump the victims of Racism in as equally culpable for the system. Call: 720.716.7300 Code: 564943#

Steve says there's one mistake he sees some pro-Israel voices making when it comes to analyzing the U.S.-Iran deal. Then, the team plays an extended round of Fake News or Not, reacting to Steve's weekend appearance on C-SPAN. Pop Culture Tuesday is Steve's review of Steven Spielberg's latest movie, "Disclosure Day." TODAY'S SPONSORS: PREBORN: https://give.preborn.com/preborn/media-partner?sc=IABSD0123RA KEKSI: https://www.keksi.com/ use promo code DEACE15 RELIEF FACTOR: VISIT https://www.relieffactor.com/ OR CALL 800-4-RELIEF FAST GROWING TREES: https://www.fast-growing-trees.com/?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=audio&utm_campaign=Steve+Deace+Show code DEACE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices