Podcasts about deputy secretary

Several groups applaud the Senate Ag Committee's actions on increasing non-dairy milk options in schools, and key U.S. agriculture groups congratulated Stephen Vaden on his confirmation as USDA Deputy Secretary.

Several groups applaud the Senate Ag Committee's actions on increasing non-dairy milk options in schools, and key U.S. agriculture groups congratulated Stephen Vaden on his confirmation as USDA Deputy Secretary.

Tania Rishniw, Deputy Secretary of Employment and Workforce at the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) joins us in our latest episode to talk about how failure can lead to your biggest success. This episode showcases an engaging and authentic leader whose experience in crises and uncertainty offers excellent advice on overcoming challenges, managing risk, innovating, and building resilience.

Stephen Vaden, Tennessee native, former USDA general counsel and judge on the Court of International Trade has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture at USDA.

Deb Jenkins, Deputy Secretary of Corporate Enabling Services and Chief Operating Officer for the Department of Employment and Workplace and Relations, joins us in our latest episode to talk about fostering adaptability in teams. This episode affirms that to create great teams, you have to work hard at it. Deb shares that the cornerstones of great teams are built on relationships, a clear and shared purpose, and a diverse makeup, and these factors will always be fundamental in leading high-performing teams now and in the future. Deb also discusses the pivotal role that recruitment plays in ensuring you have the right fit for your team and how evolving your hiring approach to recruit talent can help you succeed in filling key skills gaps.

 Santi: Hi, this is a special episode of Statecraft. I've got a wonderful guest host with me today. Kyla Scanlon: Hey, I'm Kyla Scanlon! I'm the author of a book called In This Economy and an economic commentator. Santi: Kyla has joined me today for a couple reasons. One, I'm a big fan of her newsletter: it's about economics, among many other things. She had a great piece recently on what we can learn from C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters, which is a favorite book of mine.Kyla's also on today because we're interviewing Wally Adeyemo, who was the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury in the Biden administration. We figured we each had questions we wanted answered.Kyla: Yeah, I've had the opportunity to interview Wally a couple times during the Biden administration, and I wanted to see where he thinks things are at now. He played a key role in implementing the Inflation Reduction Act, financial sanctions on Russia, and a whole bunch of other things.Santi: For my part, I'm stuck on Wally's role in setting up the IRS's Direct File program, where you can file your taxes for free directly through the IRS instead of paying TurboTax a hundred bucks to do it. “Good governance types” tend to love Direct File, but the current admin is thinking of killing it. I wanted to understand how the program got rolled out, how Wally would respond to criticisms of the program, and what he learned from building something in government, which now may disappear.Kyla, you've talked to Wally before. How did that conversation go? Kyla: I actually was able to go to his office in D.C., and I talked to a couple of key people in the Biden administration: Jared Bernstein, the former chair of the CEA, and Daniel Hornung, who was at the National Economic Council.We're talking to Wally on the day that the House passed the one big beautiful bill. There's also so much happening financially, like the bond market is totally rebelling against the US government right now. I'm really curious how he thinks things are, as a key player in the last administration.Santi: Wally, you've spent most of your career in Democratic Party institutions. You worked on the Kerry presidential campaign in 2004. You served in the Obama admin. You were the first chief of staff to the CFPB, the president of the Obama Foundation, and, most recently, Deputy Treasury Secretary in the Biden admin.30,000ft question: How do you see the Democratic Party today?My view is that we continue to be the party that cares deeply about working-class people, but we haven't done a good job of communicating that to people, especially when it comes to the things that matter most to them. From my standpoint, it's costs: things in America cost too much for a working-class family.I want to make sure I define working class: I think about people who make under $100,000 a year, many of whom don't own homes on the coast or don't own a significant amount of stocks (which means they haven't seen the asset appreciation that's led to a great deal of wealth creation over the last several decades). When you define it that way, 81% of Americans sit in that category of people. Despite the fact that they've seen their median incomes rise 5-10% over the last five years, they've seen the cost of the things they care about rise even faster.We haven't had a clear-cut agenda focused on the standard of living, which I think is the thing that matters most to Americans today.Santi: There are folks who would say the problem for Democrats wasn't that they couldn't communicate clearly, or that they didn't have a governing agenda, but that they couldn't execute their agenda the way they hoped to in the time available to them. Would you say there's truth to that claim?Most people talk about a communications issue, but I don't think it's a communications issue. There are two issues. One is an implementation issue, and the second is an issue of the actual substance and policy at the Treasury Department. I was the deputy secretary, but I was also the Chief Operating Officer, which meant that I was in charge of execution. The two most significant domestic things I had to execute were the American Rescue Plan, where $1.9 trillion flowed through the Treasury Department, and the Inflation Reduction Act. The challenge with execution in the government is that we don't spend a lot on our systems, on making execution as easy as possible.For example, the Advanced Child Tax Credit was intended to give people money to help with each of their children during the pandemic. What Congress called on us to do was to pay people on a monthly basis. In the IRS system, you pay your taxes mostly on an annual basis, which meant that most of our systems weren't set up to pay a monthly check to Americans. It took us a great deal of work to figure out a way to recreate a system just to do that.We've underinvested in the systems that the IRS works on. The last time we made a significant investment in the IRS's digital infrastructure was the 1960s; before we had an ATM machine, before we sent a man to the moon, before we had a personal computer. So that meant that everything was coded in a language called COBOL.So execution was quite hard in the American Rescue Plan. People were left out and felt that the government wasn't working for them. If you called the IRS, only 13% of your calls were being answered. We got that back up to 85% before we left. Ultimately, I think part of this is an execution challenge. In government we want to spend money coming up with new policies, but we don't want to pay for execution, which then means that when you get the policy passed, implementation isn't great.When Jen Pahlka was on your show, she talked about the need to focus on identifying the enablers to implementation. Direct File was one of the best examples of us taking implementation very seriously.But also, on some policy issues that mattered most to Americans, we weren't advancing the types of strategies that would've helped lower the cost of housing and lowering the cost of medicine. We did some things there, but there's clearly more that we could have done, and more we need to do going forward to demonstrate that we're fighting to bring down those costs. It's everything from permitting reform — not just at the federal level, but what can we do to incentivize it at the state and local level — to thinking about what we can do on drug costs. Why does it cost so much more to get a medicine in America than in Canada? That is something that we can solve. We've just chosen not to at the federal level.At the end of the year, we were going to take action to go after some of the middlemen in the pharmacy industry who were taking out rents and large amounts of money. It dropped out of the bill because of the negotiations between the Republican Congress and then President-elect Trump. But there are a lot of things that we can do both on implementation, which will mean that Americans feel the programs that we're passing in a more effective way, and policy solutions that we need to advance as a party that will help us as well.Kyla: Some people think Americans tend to vote against their own self-interest. How can your party message to people that these sorts of policies are really important for them?Ultimately, what I found is that most people just understand their self-interest differently, and for them, a big part of this was, “Who's fighting for me on the issues that I care most about?”From my standpoint, part of the problem we had with Direct File, which I think was an innovative solution, was that we got to implementing it so late in the administration that we didn't have the ability for it to show the impact. I'm hoping future administrations will think through how to start their implementation journey on things like Direct File sooner in the administration, when you have a great deal of political capital, so people can actually feel the impact over time.To your question, it's not just about the messaging, it's about the messenger. People tend to trust people who look like them, who come from the places they come from. When it came to the Child Tax Credit and also to Direct File, the biggest innovation wasn't the technology: the technology for Direct File has been used by the Australians, the British, and other countries for decades.The biggest innovation was us joining that technology with trusted people in communities who were going out to talk to people about those programs and building those relationships. That was something that the IRS hadn't done a great deal of. We invested a great deal in those community navigators who were helping us get people to trust the things the government was doing again, like the Child Tax Credit, like Direct File, so that they could use it.We often think that Washington is going to be able to give messages to the country that people are going to hear. But we're both in a more complicated media environment, where people are far more skeptical of things that come from people in Washington. So the best people to advocate for and celebrate the things that we're doing are people who are closer to the communities we're trying to reach. In product advertising today, more companies are looking to influencers to advertise things, rather than putting an ad on television, because people trust the people that they follow. The same is true for the things that we do in government.Santi: I've talked to colleagues of yours in the last administration who say things like, “In the White House, we did not have a good enough sense of the shot clock.” They point to various reasons, including COVID, as a reason the admin didn't do a good enough job of prioritization.Do you think that's true, that across the administration, there was a missing sense of the shot clock or a missing sense of prioritization? No, because I'm a Lakers fan. These are professionals. We're professionals. This is not our first rodeo. We know how much time is on the shot clock; we played this game. The challenge wasn't just COVID. For me at Treasury — and I think this is the coolest part of being Deputy Secretary of the Treasury — I had responsibilities domestic and international. As I'm trying to modernize the IRS, to invest all my time in making the system work better for customers and to collect more taxes from the people who owe money, Russia invades Ukraine. I had to turn a bunch of my attention to thinking about what we were going to do there. Then you have Hamas attacking Israel.There was more we should have done on the domestic end, but we have to remember that part of the presidency is: you get to do the things you want to do, but you also have to do the things you have to do. We had a lot of things we had to do that we weren't planning for which required all-of-the-administration responses.I think the most important lesson I've learned about that is that it comes down to both being focused on the things that matter, and being willing to communicate to the American people why your priorities have to change in light of things that happen in the world.But the people I'm sure you've talked to, most of them work on domestic policy alone, and they probably never have been in a National Security Council meeting, where you're thinking about the risks to the country. The president has to do both of those things. So I get how difficult it is to do that, just given where I sat at the Treasury Department.Santi: Looking back from an implementation perspective, are there things you would've done differently during your time at Treasury?The most important thing that I would've done differently was to immediately set up a permanent implementation and delivery unit in the Treasury Department. We always like to pretend like the Treasury Department is just a policy department where we make policy, we collect taxes. But in any crisis the country ever has, a great deal of responsibility — for execution or implementation of whatever the response is — falls to the Treasury Department. Think about the financial crisis, which is clearly something that's in the Treasury's domain. The vast majority of money for COVID flowed through the Treasury Department. You think about the IRA, a climate bill: the vast majority of that money flows through the Treasury Department.And Treasury doesn't have a dedicated staff that's just focused on implementation: How do we do this well? How do we make sure the right people are served? How do we make sure that we communicate this well? We did this to a degree by a team that was focused on the American Rescue Plan. But it was only focused on the American Rescue Plan. If I could start again, I would have said, “I want a permanent implementation structure within the Treasury Department of people who are cross-cutting, who only think about how we execute the policies that we pass through Congress and that we put together through an executive order. How do we do that extremely well?”Kyla: What you're talking about is very people-centric: How do we get an implementation team, and how do we make sure that the right people are doing the right jobs? Now we have DOGE, which is less people-centric. How do you reconcile what Doge is doing relative to what you would've done differently in this role that you had?As you would suspect, I wasn't excited about the fact we had lost the election, but initially I thought DOGE could be helpful with technology. I think marrying technology with people — that's the key to success for the government. We've never really been great at doing technology in the government.Part of the reason for that is a procurement process that is very slow because of how the federal acquisition rules work. What we are trying to do is prevent corruption and also waste, fraud, and abuse. But what that does is, it leads to slowness in our ability to get the technology on board that we need, and in getting the right people.I was hoping DOGE would bring in people who knew a great deal about technology and put us in a position where we could use that to build better products for the American people. I thought they would love Direct File, and that they would find ways to improve Direct File and expand it to more Americans.My view is that any American in the working class or middle class should not have to pay a company to file their taxes. We have the ability in this country, and I think Direct File was proving that. My goal, if we'd had more time, was to expand this to almost any American being able to use it. I thought they'd be able to accelerate that by bringing in the right people, but also the right technology. We were on that path before they took those two things apart.My sense is that you have to reform the way that we hire people because it's too hard to hire the right people. In some cases, you don't need some of the people you have today because technology is going to require different skills to do different things. It's easier to break something, I found, than it is to build something. I think that's what they're finding today as well.Santi: When I talk to left-of-center folks about the DOGE push, they tend to be skeptical about the idea that AI or modern technology can replace existing federal workers. I think some of that is a natural backlash to the extreme partisan coding of DOGE, and the fact that they're firing a lot of people very quickly. But what's your view? After DOGE, what kinds of roles would you like to see automated?Let me say: I disagree with the view that DOGE and technology can't replace some of the things that federal workers do today. My view is that “productivity enhancing” tech — it's not that it is going to make employees who are currently doing the job more productive. It is going to mean you need fewer employees. We have to be honest about that.Go to the IRS, for example. When I got there, we had a huge paper backlog at the IRS because, despite what most people think, millions of people still file their taxes by paper, and they send them to the IRS. And during the pandemic, the commissioner, who was then working for President Trump, decided to shut down the IRS for public health reasons — to make sure employees did not have to risk getting COVID.There were piles of paper backing up, so much so that they had filled cafeterias at the IRS facilities with huge piles of paper. The problem, of course, is that, unlike modern systems, you could not just machine-read those papers and put them into our systems. Much of that required humans to code those papers into the system by hand. There is no need in the 21st century for that to happen, so one of the things that we started to do was introduce this simple thing called scanning, where you would scan the papers — I know it sounds like a novel idea. That would help you get people's tax returns faster into the system, but also get checks out quickly, and allow us to see if people are underpaying their taxes, because we can use that data with a modern system. But over time, what would that mean? We'd need fewer people to enter the data from those forms.When we get money for the IRS from Congress, it is actually seen as revenue-raising because they expect it to bring down the debt and deficit, which is completely true. But the model Congress uses to do that is reliant on the number of full-time employees we hire. One challenge we have with the IRS — and in government systems in general — is that you don't get credit for technology investments that should improve your return on investment.So whenever we did the ROI calculations for the IRS, the Congressional Budget Office would calculate how much revenue we'd bring in, and it was always based on the number of people you had doing enforcement work that would lead to certain dollars coming in. So we got no credit for the technology investments. Which was absolutely the opposite of what we knew would be true: the more you invested in technology, the more likely you were to bring in more revenue, and you would be able to cut the cost of employees.Santi: If the CBO changed the way it scored technology improvements, would more Congresspeople be interested in funding technology?It is just a CBO issue. It's one we've tried to talk to them about over the last several years, but one where they've been unwilling to move. My view is that unlocking this will unlock greater investment in technology in a place like the IRS, because every dollar you invest in technology — I think — would earn back $10 in additional tax revenue we'd be able to collect from people who are skipping out on their taxes today. It's far more valuable to invest in that technology than to grow the number of employees working in enforcement at the IRS. You need both, but you can't say that a person is worth 5x their salary in revenue and that technology is worth 0. That makes no sense.Kyla: When we spoke about Direct File many months ago, people in my comment section were super excited and saying things like, “I just want the government to tell me how much money I owe.” When you think about the implementation of Direct File, what went right, and how do you think it has evolved?The thing that went right was that we proved that we could build something quite easily, and we built it ourselves, unlike many technology projects in government. We didn't go out and hire a bunch of consultants and contractors to do it. We did it with people at the IRS, but also with people from 18F and from GSA who worked in the government. We did it in partnership with a number of stakeholders outside the government who gave us advice, but the build was done by us.The reason that was important — and the reason it's important to build more things internally rather than hiring consulting firms or other people to build it — is that you then have the intellectual capital from building that, and that can be used to build other things. This was one product, but my view is that I want the IRS home page to one day look a lot more like the screen on your iPhone, so that you can click on the app on the IRS homepage that can help you, depending on what you need — if it's a Direct File, or if it's a tax transcript.By building Direct File internally, we were getting closer to that, and the user scores on the effectiveness of the tool and the ability to use it were through the roof. Even for a private sector company, it would've been seen as a great success. In the first year, we launched late in the filing season, mostly just to test the product, but also to build stakeholder support for it. In the limited release, 140,000 people used it. The average user said that before Direct File, it took them about 13 hours to file their taxes, and with Direct File, it took them just over an hour to file their taxes.But you also have to think about how much money the average American spends filing their taxes: about $200. That's $200 that a family making under $100,000 could invest in their kids, in paying some bills, rather than in filing their taxes.Even this year, with no advertising by the Trump administration of Direct File, we had more than 300,000 people use it. The user scores for the product were above 85%. The challenge, of course, is that instead of DOGE investing in improving the product — which was a place where you could have seen real intellectual capital go to work and make something that works for all Americans — they've decided to discontinue Direct File. [NB: There has been widespread reporting that the administration plans to discontinue Direct File. The GOP tax bill passed by the House would end Direct File if it becomes law. At the time of publication, the Direct File has not been discontinued.]The sad part is that when you think about where we are as a country, this is a tool that could both save people money, save people time, improve our ability to collect taxes, and is something that exists in almost every other developed economy. It makes no sense to me why you would end something like this rather than continue to develop it.Santi: People remember the failure of healthcare.gov, which crashed when it was rolled out all at once to everyone in the country. It was an embarrassing episode for the Obama administration, and political actors in that administration learned they had to pilot things and roll them out in phases.Is there a tension between that instinct — to test things slowly, to roll them out to a select group of users, and then to add users in following cycles — Is there a tension between that and trying to implement quickly, so that people see the benefit of the work you're doing?One of my bosses in the Obama administration was Jeff Zients, the person who was brought in to fix healthcare.gov. He relentlessly focused on execution. He always made the point that it's easy to come up with a strategy to some degree: you can figure out what the policy solution is. But the difference between good and great is how you execute against it. I think there is some tension there, but not as much as you would think.Once we were able to show that the pilot was a success, I got invited to states all over the country, like Maryland, to announce that they were joining Direct File the next year. These members of Congress wanted to do Direct File events telling people in their state, “This product that's worked so well elsewhere is coming to us next.” It gave us the ability to celebrate the success.I learned the lesson not just from Zients, but also from then-professor Elizabeth Warren, whom I worked for as chief of staff at the CFPB. One challenge we had at the CFPB was to build a complaint hotline, at that point mostly phone-operated, for people who were suffering. They said it would take us at least a year to build out all the product functions we need. We decided to take a modular approach and say, “How long would it take for us to build the system for one product? Let's try that and see how that works. We'll do a test.”It was successful, and we were able to use that to tell the story about the CFPB and what it would do, not just for mortgages, but for all these other products. We built user interest in the complaint hotline, in a way that we couldn't have if we'd waited to build the whole thing at once. While I think you're right that there is some tension between getting everyone to feel it right away and piloting; if the pilot is successful, it also gives you the opportunity to go out and sell this thing to people and say, “Here's what people who did the pilot are saying about this product.”I remember someone in Texas who was willing to do a direct-to-camera and talk about the ways that Direct File was so easy for them to use. It gets back to my point on message and messenger. Deputy Secretary Adeyemo telling you about this great thing the government did is one thing. But an American who looks like you, who's a nurse, who's a mom of two kids, telling you that this product actually worked for her: That's something that more people identify with.Healthcare.gov taught us the lesson of piloting and doing things in a modular way. This is what companies have been doing for decades. If it's worked for them, I think it can work for the government too.Santi: I'm a fan of Direct File, personally. I don't want this administration to kill it. But I was looking through some of the criticism that Direct File got: for instance, there's criticism about it rivaling the IRS Free File program, which is another IRS program that partners with nonprofits to help some folks file their taxes for free.Then there's this broader philosophical criticism: “I don't want the feds telling me how much I owe them.” The idea is that the government is incentivized to squeeze every last dollar out of you.I'm curious what you make of that, in part because I spoke recently to an American who worked on building e-government systems for Estonia. One of the things that has allowed Estonia to build cutting-edge digital systems in the government is that Estonia is a small and very high-trust society. Everybody's one degree of separation from everybody else.We're a much bigger and more diverse country. How do you think that affects the federal government's ability to build tools like Direct File?I think it affects it a lot, and it gets back to my point: not just the message but the messenger. I saw this not just with Direct File, but with the Advanced Child Tax Credit, which was intended to help kids who were living in poverty, but also families overall. What we found initially in the data was that, among families that didn't have to file taxes because they made too little, many of them were unwilling to take advantage of Direct File and the Advanced Child Tax Credit because they couldn't believe the government was doing something to just help them. I spent a lot of time with priests, pastors, and other community leaders in many of the communities where people were under-filing to try and get them to talk about this program and why it was something that they should apply for.One of the challenges we suffer from right now in America, overall, is a lack of trust in institutions. You have to really go local and try to rebuild that trust.That also speaks to taking a pilot approach that goes slower in some cases. Some of the criticism we got was, “Why don't you just fill out this form for us and then just send it to us, so that Direct File is just me pressing a button so I can pay my taxes?”Part of the challenge for us in doing that is a technology challenge: we are not there technologically. But the other problem is a trust problem. If I were to just fill out your taxes for you and send them to you, I think people, at this stage, would distrust the government and distrust the technology.Direct File had to be on a journey with people, showing people, “If I put in this information, it accurately sends me back my check.” As people develop more trust, we can also add more features to it that I think people will trust. But the key has to be: how do you earn that trust over time?We can't expect that if we put out a product that looks like something the Estonian government or Australia would put out, that people would trust it at this point. We have to realize that we are on a journey to regain the trust of the American people.The government can and will work for them, and Direct File was a part of that. We started to demonstrate that with that product because the people who used it in these communities became the spokespeople for it in a better way than I ever could be, than the Secretary or the President could be.Everyone knows that they need to pay their taxes because it's part of their responsibility living in this country. The things that make people the most upset is the fact that there are people who don't pay their taxes. We committed that we were going to go after them.The second frustration was: “Why do you make it so hard for me to pay my taxes? Why can't I get through to you on the phone line? Why do I have to pay somebody else to do my taxes?” Our goal was to solve those two problems by investing money and going after the people who just decided they weren't going to pay, but also by making it as easy as possible for you to pay your taxes and for most people, to get that tax refund as quickly as possible.But doing that was about going on a journey with people, about regaining their trust in an institution that mattered to them a great deal because 90 something-percent of the money that funds our government comes in through the IRS.Kyla: You have a piece out in Foreign Affairs called “Make Moscow Pay,” and what I found most interesting about that essay is that you said Europe needs to step it up because the United States won't. Talk through the role of Treasury in financial sanctions, and your reasons for writing this piece.People often think about the Treasury Department as doing a few things. One is working with Wall Street; another one is collecting your taxes. Most people don't think about the fact that the Treasury Department is a major part of the National Security Committee, because we have these tools called financial sections.They use the power of the dollar to try and change the behavior of foreign actors who are taking steps that aren't consistent with our national security interests. A great example of this is what we did with regard to Russia — saying that we're going to cut off Russian banks from the US financial system, which means that you can't transact in US dollars.The problem for any bank that can transact in dollars is that the backbone of most of the financial world is built on the US dollar. It increases their cost, it makes it more difficult for them to transact, and makes it harder for them to be part of the global economy, nearly impossible.And that's what we've done in lots of cases when it comes to Russia. We have financial sanction programs that touch all over the world, from Venezuela to Afghanistan. The US government, since 9/11, has used sanctions as one of its primary tools of impacting foreign policy. Some of them have gone well, some of them I think haven't gone as well, and there's a need for us to think through how we use those policies.Santi: What makes sanctions an effective tool? Positions on sanctions don't line up neatly on partisan lines. Sanctions have a mixed track record, and you'll have Republicans who say sanctions have failed, and you'll have Democrats say sanctions have been an effective tool, and vice versa.The way I think about sanctions is that they are intended to bring change, and the only way that they work is that they're part of an overarching foreign policy strategy. That type of behavior change was what we saw when Iran came to the table and wanted to negotiate a way to reduce sanctions in exchange for limits on their nuclear program. That's the type of behavior change we're trying to accomplish with sanctions, but you can't do it with sanctions alone. You need a foreign policy strategy. We didn't do it by the United States confronting Iran; we got our allies and partners to work together with us. When I came into office in 2021, Secretary Yellen asked me to do a review of our sanctions policies — what's worked, what hasn't — because it had been 20 years since the 9/11 attacks.And the most important lesson I learned was that the sanctions programs that were the most effective were the ones we did on a multilateral basis — so we did it with our friends and allies. Part of the reason for this is that while the dollar is the most dominant currency around the world, oftentimes if you can't do something in dollars, you do it in a euro, or you do it in a Japanese yen, or pound sterling.The benefit of having allies all over the world is that the dominant, convertible currencies in the world are controlled by allies and partners. When we acted together with them, we were more effective in curtailing the economic activity of our adversary, and our pressure is more likely to lead to them changing their behavior.We had to be very cautious about collateral damage. You might be targeting an individual, but by targeting that individual, you might make it harder for a company they're affiliated with to continue doing business, or for a country that they're in to get access to banking services. Let's say that you're a huge bank in America, and you're worried about sanctions risk in a small country where you do little business. Why not pull out, rather than having to put in place a huge compliance program? One of the challenges that we have is that the people who make the decisions about whether to extend sanctions don't necessarily spend a lot of time thinking about some of these economic consequences of the sanctions approach.Whenever I was around the table and we were making a decision about using weapons, there was a process that was very elaborate that ended up with something going to the president. You'd often think about kinetic force very seriously, because you were going to have to get the president to make a decision. We didn't always take that kind of rigor when it came to thinking about using our sanctions policy, but the impact on the lives of people in these countries was just as significant for their access to not only money, but to food and to the resources they needed to live.Santi: What do you make of the effectiveness of the initial sanctions on Russia after the invasion of Ukraine? I've heard mixed reviews from folks inside and outside the Biden administration.Sanctions, again, to my point, are only a tool. They've had to be part of a larger strategy, and I think those sanctions were quite effective. I think the saving grace for the Russians has been the fact that China has largely been able and willing to give them access to the things they need to continue to perpetuate.There was a choice for Ukraine, but when you think about Russia's economy today vs. Russia's economy before the sanctions were put in place, it's vastly different. Inflation in Russia still runs far higher than inflation anywhere else in the world. If you were a Russian citizen, you would feel the impacts of sanctions.The challenge, of course, is that it hasn't changed Vladimir Putin's behavior or the behavior of the Kremlin, largely because they've had access to the goods and supplies they need from China, Iran, and North Korea. But over time, it means Russia's economy is becoming less competitive. They have less access to resources; they're going to struggle.I think everyone hoped that sanctions would immediately change the calculus of the Kremlin, but we've never seen that to be the case. When sanctions are effective, they take time, because the economic consequences continue to compound over time, and they have to be part of a larger strategy for the behavior of the individual. That's why I wrote the article, because while the Kremlin and Russia are under pressure, their view is that ultimately the West is going to get tired of supporting Ukraine, financially and politically, because the economic consequences for us — while not as significant as for Moscow or for Kiev — have been quite significant, when you think about the cost of living issues in Europe.I think it's important to write this now, when it appears that Russia is stalling on negotiations, because ultimately, US financial support is waning. We just know that the Trump administration is not willing to put more money into Ukraine, so Europe is going to have to do more, at a time when their economic situation is quite complicated as well.They've got a lot to do to build up their economy and their military-industrial base. Asking them to also increase their support for Ukraine at the same time is going to be quite difficult. So using this money that Russia owes to Ukraine — because they owe them compensation at this moment — can be quite influential in helping support the Ukrainians, but also changing Russia's calculus with regard to the ability of Ukraine to sustain itself.Kyla: On CNBC about a month ago, you said if we ever have a recession over the next couple of months or so, it would be a self-inflicted one. Do you still resonate with that idea? To build on the point I was making, the economy has done quite well over the course of the first few months of the year, largely because of the strength of the consumer, where our balance sheets are still quite strong. Companies in America have done well. The biggest headwind the US economy faces has been self-inflicted by the tariffs the president has put on. Part of what I still do is talk to CEOs of companies, big and small. Small businesses feel the impact of this even more than the big businesses. What they tell me is that it's not just the tariffs and the fact that they are making it more expensive for them to get the goods that they need, but it's the uncertainty created by the off-again, on-again, nature of those tariffs that makes it impossible for them to plan for what supplies they're going to get the next quarter. How are they going to fulfill their orders? What employees are they going to need? It's having a real impact on the performance of these companies, but also their ability to hire people and plan for the future.If you go to the grocery store, you're going to start seeing — and you're starting to see already — price increases. The thing that Americans care most about is, the cost of living is just too high. You're at the grocery store, as you're shopping for your kids for the summer, you're going to see costs go up because of a self-imposed tax we've put in place. So I still do think that if we do find ourselves in a recession, it's going to be because of the tariffs we've put in place.Even if we don't enter a technical recession, what we're seeing now is that those tariffs are going to raise the cost for people when they go out to buy things. It's going to raise the cost of building homes, which is going to make it harder for people to get houses, which is ultimately going to have an impact on the economy that isn't what I think the president or anyone wants at this point.Kyla: Is there anything else we haven't asked about? I think the place where we continue, as a country, to struggle is that, given the federal system we have, many of these problems aren't just in Washington — they're in state and local governments as well. When you think about the challenges to building more housing in this country, you can't just solve it by doing things at the federal level. You have to get state and local governments unified in taking a proactive approach. Part of this has to be not just financial or regulatory from the federal government, but we have to do more things that force state and local governments to get out of the way of people being able to build more housing. I think that the conversations that you've had on your show, and the conversations we're having in government, need to move past our regular policy conversations of: “Should we do more on LIHTC? Should we try to fix NEPA?” Those, to me, are table stakes, and we're in the middle of what I'd say is a generational crisis when it comes to housing. We have to be willing to treat it like a crisis, rather than what I think we've done so far, which is take incremental steps at different levels to try and solve this. That's one thing that I wanted to make sure that I said, because I think it's the most important thing that we can do at the moment.Kyla: Absolutely. During your time there, the Treasury was doing so much with zoning reform, with financial incentives. What I really liked about our last conversation was how much you talked about how important it is that workers can live close to work. Are you optimistic that we will be able to address the problem, or do you think we are sinking into quicksand?I'd say a little bit of both, and the thing that I'm doing now is getting hyperlocal. One of the projects I'm working on in my post-administration life is I'm working with 15 churches in D.C., where they have vacant land and want to use it to build affordable housing as quickly as possible.I'm learning that even when you have the land donated for free and you're willing to work as quickly as possible, it's still quite hard because you have regulations and financial issues that often get in the way of building things. Part of what we have to do now is just launch as many natural experiments as possible to see what works.What I've learned already from this lived experience is that even cities that are trying to get out of the way and make it easier to build housing struggle because of what you all know to be true, which is that the local politics of this is quite complicated. Oftentimes, the way that you get them over the line is by creating incentives or disincentives.In the past, I talked a lot about incentives in terms of “giving people money to do things.” I'm now in favor of “not giving money to people who don't do things” — if you don't take steps to fix your zoning, some of the federal money that you regularly get is not coming to your jurisdiction. I'm going to reallocate that money to places that are doing this activity. I think we have to take those types of radical steps.It's similar to what we did with the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, where if you didn't spend your money, we could take your money back and reallocate it to people who were giving away emergency rental assistance money.That motivates people a lot — when they feel like something's going to be taken away from them. I'm of the view that we have to find more radical things that we can do to get housing built. If we don't, costs will continue to rise faster than people's incomes.Santi: Wally, I have to ask after that point you just made: did you read the paper by my colleague Chris Elmendorf on using LIHTC funds? The idea is to re-allocate those federal funds away from big, expensive cities and into other places in a state, if the cities don't commit to basic zoning reforms.I completely agree with him, and I think I would go even further than just LIHTC money. I would reallocate non-housing money as well, because from my standpoint, if you think about the most important issue for a family, it's being able to find housing that is affordable near their place of work and where their kids go to school. I said that on purpose. I didn't say “affordable housing.” I said “housing that is affordable,” because affordable housing is, in lots of ways, targeted towards a population of people who need it the most. But for even people who are middle income in this country, it crowds out their ability to pay for other things when housing costs continue to creep higher.The only way we solve that problem is if you get rid of restrictive zoning covenants and fix permitting. The natural thing that every city and state is thinking about right now is throwing more money at the problem. There's going to need to be money here, just in light of some of the headwinds, but it's going to be more costly and less effective if we don't fix the underlying issues that are making it hard to build housing where we want it.Right now in California, we're having a huge debate over what we do with infill housing in urban areas. A simple solution — you don't have to do another environmental review if one was already done in this area— is taking months to work through the California legislature, which demonstrates that we're going too slow. California's seeing an exodus of people. I just talked to a CEO who said, “I'm moving my business because the people who work for me can't afford to live in California anymore.” This is the kind of problem that you can solve. State legislatures, Congress, and executives have to get together and take some radical steps to make it easier to build housing.I appreciate what you said about what we were doing at Treasury, but from my standpoint, I wish we had done more earlier to focus on this issue. We had a lot going on, but fundamentally, the most important thing on housing is taking a step to try and build housing today, which is going to have an impact on the economy 10, 20, 30 years from now. We just have to start doing that as soon as possible.Thanks to Emma Hilbert for her transcript and audio edits. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

May 29, 2025 ~ Lloyd, Jamie, and Kevin talk with Congressman Bill Huizenga about a Senate run, supporting the "one big, beautiful bill", and bipartisan efforts on finding savings. Also, talk with Michigan Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie about focusing on election security, exploring AI for election integrity, and much more!

Tevi Troy, author, historian, and former Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, joins the program to explore the epic clashes between U.S. presidents and powerful CEOs. He explains how these power struggles have been a historical norm—shaping public policy, shifting industries, and redefining the balance between government and business. We also examine the growing need for institutions to embrace diverse thought and open dialogue, rather than clinging to the tightly controlled intellectual echo chambers that dominate today's universities and policy circles.You can find Tevi Troy on his website at https://TeviTroy.org 

A 2021 Department of Justice investigation concluded that former Governor Andrew Cuomo sexually harassed 13 women, fostering a toxic workplace culture defined by power abuse, intimidation, and retaliation. In 2020, Lindsey Boylan did something brave and necessary. After years of working under former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, she became the first woman to publicly accuse him of sexual harassment. Her voice cracked the silence, and eventually, 13 women in total came forward as part of a Department of Justice investigation that began under the Biden administration. That courage forced Cuomo to resign, but now he's back, eyeing one of the most powerful posts in the resistance to Trump: New York City Mayor. Boylan's story is a warning. She worked closely with Cuomo from 2015 to 2018, first as the Chief of Staff at Empire State Development and later as Deputy Secretary for Economic Development. She resigned when the environment became, in her words, “more and more toxic.” When media reports floated Cuomo possibly joining the Biden administration as Attorney General, Boylan took to Twitter, risking everything to speak out. And now? Just last week, in the middle of the NYC mayoral primary, Cuomo flirted with a female radio host on air, asking her out on a date. That's Cuomo gloating that even he can stage a comeback, like Trump, after costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in legal bills fighting sexual harrassment claims. America cannot afford a sexual predator in the White House and in charge of one of our biggest cities, especially with activists, immigrants, and real journalists increasingly vulnerable to MAGA's creeping fascism. Share this interview with voters you may know in NYC. And New Yorkers, the mayor's race matters. Use ranked-choice voting wisely: do not rank Cuomo at all. Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit! Show Notes: The woman who brought down Andrew Cuomo: ‘I dropped a nuclear bomb on my life' https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/andrew-cuomo-chris-accuser-harrassment-b1926405.html Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo sexually harassed at least 13 women, DOJ says https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/26/cuomo-subjected-at-least-13-women-to-sexually-hostile-environment-doj.html U.S. Department of Justice opened civil investigation into sexual harassment claims against Andrew Cuomo https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-cuomo-sexual-harassment-federal-civil-investigation-department-justice/ New Yorkers Are Paying Over $60 Million for Andrew Cuomo's Legal Fights https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-24/andrew-cuomo-legal-bills-over-sex-harassment-covid-paid-by-ny-taxes                      

To coincide with International Human Resources Day (May 20th), this special compilation episode of AI and the Future of Work explores the promises and pitfalls of AI in hiring.HR leaders are under pressure to innovate—but how can we automate hiring ethically, avoid bias, and stay compliant with evolving laws and expectations?In this episode, we revisit key moments from past interviews with four top voices shaping the future of ethical workforce automation:

Ambassador Sullivan served as Deputy Secretary of State from 2017 to 2019. He then became Ambassador to the Russian Federation serving as Ambassador from 2019 to 2022. He served in both the Trump and Biden Administrations in the lead up to and early in the Ukraine War.

Eneasz is absent today, to Kelsey Piper joins Wes and David to keep the rationalist community informed about what's going on outside of the rationalist communitySupport us on Substack!Followups:The biggest terrorist attack on India soil since 2008 by Pakistani funded terroristsFederal judge says Trump can deport illegal aliens under the Alien Enemies Act, but must give 21-day notice and opportunity for hearingDifferent judge said Trump can't deport illegal aliens to countries where they aren't citizens without due processSCOTUS also halted some deportationsNew News:China tariffs lowered to 30%Trump even more openly taking bribesWe're accepting white refugees!Deputy Secretary of State: exception to asylum pause for people if they “did not pose any challenge to our national security and that they can be assimilated easily into our country"African National Congress: “No section of our society is hounded, persecuted, or subject to discrimination”Trump EO: pharma companies must sell drugs at “most favored nation” pricingTrump EO: “it is the policy of the United States to ensure the total elimination of [assorted drug cartels]'s presence in the United States, and their ability to threaten the territory.”Strikes by assorted federal law enforcement agencies against cartel bases in Texas, Colorado, Utah, and Montana.FDA doing an investigation into ingestible fluoride supplements with the goal of banning themFDA: “Ingested fluoride has been shown to alter the gut microbiomeJoe Biden diagnosed with “aggressive” prostate cancerMoody's downgraded US credit rating to Aa1Trump agreed to a ceasefire with the HouthisNo ceasefire with IsraelHappy News!We've transmuted lead into gold!Germany backing off its anti-nuclear energy policy to strengthen ties with FranceSupport AskWho Casts AI!Got something to say? Come chat with us on the Bayesian Conspiracy Discord or email us at themindkillerpodcast@gmail.com. Say something smart and we'll mention you on the next show!Follow us!RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/themindkillerGoogle: https://play.google.com/music/listen#/ps/Iqs7r7t6cdxw465zdulvwikhekmPocket Casts: https://pca.st/vvcmifu6Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-mind-killerApple: Intro/outro music: On Sale by Golden Duck Orchestra This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit mindkiller.substack.com/subscribe

Gov. Spencer Cox has been hosting the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Labor today as they tour the Utah Electrical Training Alliance and talk about the importance of apprenticeships for America's workforce. U.S. Deputy Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling joined the show to give an inside look of the trip.

5/22 Update: The House early Thursday narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a budget bill that includes a number of healthcare provisions that could have a significant impact on Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act. It has been over 100 days since President Donald Trump began his second term. During that time, Radio Advisory has received a steady stream of questions from leaders seeking guidance in an uncertain policy and business environment. With looming funding cuts, the restructure of HHS, the arrival of DOGE and MAHA, and more, leaders are grappling with what to focus on, how to respond, and how to engage productively with the federal government. To help answer these questions, Radio Advisory turned to policy experts from both parties to address your questions, acknowledge your anxieties, and highlight shared opportunities. This week, host Rachel (Rae) Woods welcomes Liz Fowler, former director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation under the Biden Administration, and Eric Hargan, former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services during the first Trump term. Together, they discuss how to navigate the shifting policies and priorities of the Trump administration's second term. Plus, stay tuned to the end of the episode, where co-host Abby Burns discusses the bill proposed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee that would reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than $600 billion over the next ten years. Links: Tracking the Medicaid Provisions in the 2025 Reconciliation Bill | KFF Ep. 244: What's happened in Washington (so far) and what policy changes we're bracing for Ep. 230: Elections results are in: What healthcare leaders need to know Thousands laid off at HHS: What you need to know Healthcare policy updates Listen to Radio Advisory's Health Policy playlist Subscribe to Advisory Board's Daily Briefing newsletter and get the most important industry news in your inbox – every day. A transcript of this episode as well as more information and resources can be found on RadioAdvisory.advisory.com.

It has been over 100 days since President Donald Trump began his second term. During that time, Radio Advisory has received a steady stream of questions from leaders seeking guidance in an uncertain policy and business environment. With looming funding cuts, the restructure of HHS, the arrival of DOGE and MAHA, and more, leaders are grappling with what to focus on, how to respond, and how to engage productively with the federal government. To help answer these questions, Radio Advisory turned to policy experts from both parties to address your questions, acknowledge your anxieties, and highlight shared opportunities. This week, host Rachel (Rae) Woods welcomes Liz Fowler, former director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation under the Biden Administration, and Eric Hargan, former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services during the first Trump term. Together, they discuss how to navigate the shifting policies and priorities of the Trump administration's second term. Plus, stay tuned to the end of the episode, where co-host Abby Burns discusses the bill proposed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee that would reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than $600 billion over the next ten years. Links: Tracking the Medicaid Provisions in the 2025 Reconciliation Bill | KFF Ep. 244: What's happened in Washington (so far) and what policy changes we're bracing for Ep. 230: Elections results are in: What healthcare leaders need to know Thousands laid off at HHS: What you need to know Healthcare policy updates Listen to Radio Advisory's Health Policy playlist Subscribe to Advisory Board's Daily Briefing newsletter and get the most important industry news in your inbox – every day. A transcript of this episode as well as more information and resources can be found on RadioAdvisory.advisory.com.

China is on the march, is very determined, and has some significant advantages over the U.S. What are they and how should we respond? Two esteemed China experts, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and National Security Council Deputy Senior Director for China Rush Doshi, say the key is to counter China's enormous scale by finding common cause with allies.  Listen, and learn a lot.

With Israel conspicuously absent from Trump's first major Middle East trip, Christiane speaks with Biden's former Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman about the ethical concerns surrounding his overseas deals and meetings, the U.S. role in the war in Gaza, and new revelations about efforts by Biden's inner circle to conceal his decline ahead of the election. Then, Ukraine's former Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, speaks to Christiane about what the country should reasonably expect and where the crisis stands now after Putin was a no-show for ceasefire talks in Turkey. Clare Sebastian reports on Russia's propaganda campaign to maintain its grip on the occupied Ukrainian port city of Mariupol. And, as the war in Gaza continues with no ceasefire in sight, Israeli Alon Lee-Green and Palestinian citizen of Israel, Rula Daood, co-directors of "Standing Together", a Jewish-Arab movement for peace, discuss their hopes for ending the conflict, and shared activism. Also, as the first group of white South Africans landed as welcome refugees in the U.S. this week, from Christiane's archive, her 1997 report on the long post-apartheid path to reconciliation in the country.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Delegations from Russia and Ukraine are due to meet in Turkey for peace talks but the leaders of both countries will not be present, despite President Putin proposing the talks take place. Moscow has notably withheld its top diplomatic heavyweights, which according to Zelensky, means the nation is "not serious" about peace. US President Donald Trump has weighed in, saying peace won't happen until he meets with Putin himself. Ukraine's former Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba joins the show in London to discuss  Also on today's show: former Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman; author Dr. Jerry Avorn  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What does the future of industrial policy in America look like, and what state capacity investments are needed to get there? How does China factor into the future of the U.S. semiconductor industry? And what do government affairs offices at large technology firms actually do? To explore these questions, we're concluding our CSIS Chip Chat series with Bruce Andrews. Bruce has had a long career on Capitol Hill, led government affairs for Ford, served as Deputy Secretary of Commerce under President Obama, and most recently headed government affairs at Intel. He's now a fellow at CSIS. We discuss… The decline of bipartisanship and how to bring expertise back to Capitol Hill, The case for a new “Department of Competitiveness”  Industry's role in policymaking and what it took to get semiconductor manufacturers on board with the CHIPS Act, Why Silicon Valley suddenly became interested in politics, How to optimize industrial policy in a stick-focused political environment. Outro music: Moon River, Frank Ocean 2018 (YouTube Link) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What does the future of industrial policy in America look like, and what state capacity investments are needed to get there? How does China factor into the future of the U.S. semiconductor industry? And what do government affairs offices at large technology firms actually do? To explore these questions, we're concluding our CSIS Chip Chat series with Bruce Andrews. Bruce has had a long career on Capitol Hill, led government affairs for Ford, served as Deputy Secretary of Commerce under President Obama, and most recently headed government affairs at Intel. He's now a fellow at CSIS. We discuss… The decline of bipartisanship and how to bring expertise back to Capitol Hill, The case for a new “Department of Competitiveness”  Industry's role in policymaking and what it took to get semiconductor manufacturers on board with the CHIPS Act, Why Silicon Valley suddenly became interested in politics, How to optimize industrial policy in a stick-focused political environment. Outro music: Moon River, Frank Ocean 2018 (YouTube Link) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

船越健裕外務事務次官とランドー米国務副長官外務省は１４日、船越健裕事務次官が１５～１７日に米国を訪れ、ランドー国務副長官と会談すると発表した。 Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Takehiro Funakoshi will visit the United States for three days from Thursday to hold talks with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, the Foreign Ministry said Wednesday.

Frank Lavin talks about Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S. with John Sullivan, former U.S. Ambassador to Russia and former Deputy Secretary of State. John was serving in Moscow when Putin launched Russia's invasion of Ukraine and this was the basis for his book, “Midnight in Moscow.” John also recommends H.R. McMaster's “At War With Ourselves.”

SEASON 3 EPISODE 124: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:45) SPECIAL COMMENT: The new Trump plot to beg, borrow, or steal a third term has dropped (that makes four different) and it follows the others in that a) somebody besides Trump has suggested it AND b) they've made it seem harmless AND c) they've made it seem like Trump has nothing to do with it and probably won't do it anyway AND d) they'll leave it to the will of the people to decide to convince him to, reluctantly, violate the Constitution. The twist in this new one is, it's positioned as: "The Constitution is Unconstitutional!" - namely, that because only the presidency is term-limited among federal offices, this must be invalid and overturned. Not that Trump wants it to be overturned. No, YOU want it overturned. Not that HE wants to stay on. But YOU will want him to. People are still not taking it seriously and still see the 22nd Amendment as a bulwark against any possibility of it happening. I'll review the other three plots and the fact that they've been working on them since at least 2017, and why you should never ever keep your eye off their machinations, nor forget the Trump Political Mantra: I'm going to do it - TRY AND STOP ME. STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE: Trump and Stephen Miller are so scared that they won't get away with renditioning Kilmar Abrego Garcia that they have now thrown up the "State Secrets" crap to further stall his return. And they're talking about kidnapping people off our streets and sending them to Libya or Ukraine. And Trump's craziness continues to double as we get the back story on the movie tariffs and a redux on windmills and it makes me mad enough to SING ABOUT THE WINDMILLS IN TRUMP'S MIND. B-Block (49:30) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: The far right's open racism is on display as a Minnesota woman calls a five-year old the N-word and a million dollars is raised to defend her. Laura Loomer employs one of Hitler's first catchphrases. And they so distrust the Deputy Secretary of State that they won't let him touch the thermostat in his office. C-Block (58:22) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: This time of year in 1997 I saw a ghost. I know who he was. I know why he was there. I know why he was silently laughing at me. And I did what he wanted me to do. His name was Glenn Corneliess and there's a reason the new facilities of WVBR-FM in Ithaca, N.Y. are the Olbermann-Corneliess studios.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

During the past decade, public confidence in education has been declining. In this episode, SUNY Chancellor John B. King Jr. joins us to discuss his new book that provides a compelling narrative of the value of education in transforming lives. Chancellor King  has a long history of involvement with education. After graduating from Harvard, he acquired a Master's degree from Teacher's College at Columbia University and taught high school social studies. He later co-founded Roxbury Preparatory Charter School and served as a co-Director for five years. Under his leadership, students in this school attained the highest scores of any urban middle school in the state and closed the racial achievement gap. After acquiring his doctoral degree from Columbia and a law degree from Yale, Dr. King served as New York State's Education Commissioner from 2011 to 2014. He left NY for a while to work in the Obama administration as Deputy Secretary of Education from 2015 to 2016 and joined Obama's Cabinet as Secretary of Education from 2016 to 2017. Following his work in the Obama Administration, Dr. King continued to advocate for increased educational equity and access as President and CEO of the Education Trust. He now serves as Chancellor of the State University of New York. We're interviewing Dr. King in his role as the author of his new book and not in his role as the SUNY Chancellor. A transcript of this episode and show notes may be found at http://teaforteaching.com.

Part 1:We talk with Stephanie Hanes, who has written broadly on subjects ranging from climate and the environment to education, families, food and farming. She has been an Alicia Patterson fellow and a multiple-time grant recipient from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. She holds teaching positions at Yale University's School of the Environment and The College of William & Mary.We discuss the push to drill and dig in the administration, when many of the minerals and metals we need are already available in the byproducts of existing mining an drilling, in addition to the resources available in discarded items. We talk about the amount of waste produced, and buried in land fills, when when it could be reprocessed and used.Part 2:We talk with Julie Su, a nationally recognized workers' rights and civil rights expert who served in President Biden's cabinet as the Acting Secretary of Labor where she successfully led efforts to build worker power and union strength, negotiate historic contracts, and expand good jobs for all. Prior to her nomination as U.S. Labor Secretary, she served as the Deputy Secretary, and before that as the California Labor Secretary appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Secretary Su brought a wealth of experience as a nonprofit attorney representing low wage, vulnerable workers for nearly two decades prior to being appointed to government positions and as California Labor Commissioner from 2011-2018, where she was widely credited with a renaissance in enforcement and creative approaches to combating wage theft and protecting immigrant workers. Secretary Su graduated from Stanford University and Harvard Law School. She speaks Mandarin and Spanish.We discuss the information skimming that the DOGE boys are doing. Different government agencies have data about US residents, most of it private. However DOGE is pushing for access to ALL data, by unauthorized individuals who are part of DOGE, with no controls or oversight. This data can be used in many ways to exploit in many ways detrimental to us. Music: David RovicsWNHNFM.ORG  production

The former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration, Abul Rizvi joined John Stanley to speak about the immense challenges the incoming immigration minister who's appointed for the second Albanese Government will face. Listen to Nights from 8pm Monday to Thursday on 2GB/4BC.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Rod and Greg Show Daily Rundown – Wednesday, April 23, 20254:20 pm: Park MacDougald, a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute joins the program for a conversation about his piece for The City Journal on whether Democrats can ditch their woke ways and pivoting to the political center.5:05 pm: Utah Speaker of the House Mike Schultz joins Rod and Greg for a conversation about a federal plan to ban artificial petroleum-based food dyes, announced yesterday by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.6:05 pm: John J. Waters, an attorney and former Deputy Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security joins the program to discuss his piece for American Greatness about Donald Trump's courage to fight.6:38 pm: Al Perotta, Contributing Editor to The Daily Signal joins the program for a conversation about his recent piece on the politicians that make up the current Democratic Party Mount Rushmore.

By May 7, all U.S. citizens are supposed to have their federally required “Real ID” so that they can travel by air or enter a federal building. But what about using them to register to vote to ensure they are legally present in the country and eligible to vote in our elections? The SAVE Act, introduced by Republican Texas Rep. (and University of Virginia alumnus) Chip Roy, recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives and now is awaiting action in the Senate. The SAVE Act, among other things, would require proof of citizenship for voter registration in federal elections and strengthen verification processes to ensure voter rolls only contained eligible citizen voters. The Daily Signal sat down with former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, former Virginia Attorney General, and current National Chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative Ken Cuccinelli to talk about the bill's likelihood of making it to President Donald Trump's desk. Keep Up With The Daily Signal Sign up for our email newsletters: https://www.dailysignal.com/email     Subscribe to our other shows:  Problematic Women: https://www.dailysignal.com/problematic-women  The Signal Sitdown: https://www.dailysignal.com/the-signal-sitdown    Follow The Daily Signal:  X: https://x.com/DailySignal  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thedailysignal/  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/  Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@DailySignal  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/DailySignal  Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/TheDailySignal    Thanks for making The Daily Signal Podcast your trusted source for the day's top news. Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform and never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tech billionaire Elon Musk has become one of the most influential figures in American politics thanks to his significant role in the second Trump administration. Despite his lack of political experience, Musk has become the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, participates in some cabinet meetings, and even spent millions on federal and state elections. And though Musk's relationship with the White House may be unusual, it's not unprecedented. Senior Fellow at the Ronald Reagan Institute and former Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Tevi Troy looks back at other political outsiders who played key roles in influencing presidents throughout history. President Trump's top domestic priority is the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which includes key parts of his agenda like strengthening the border, bolstering defense capabilities, and extending the Trump tax cuts. While Republicans control both the House and Senate and seem broadly united on getting many—or all—of the items done, passage is not inevitable. Florida Republican Congressman Byron Donalds discusses the “Big, Beautiful Bill” and how it will wind up on the President's desk. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Eric and Eliot welcome former Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Rush Doshi, Assistant Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown University's school of Foreign Service and author of The Long Game: China's Grand Strategy to Displace American Order, to discuss their article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, "Underestimating China: Why America Needs a New Strategy of Allied Scale to Offset Beijing's Enduring Advantages." They discuss China's massive advantages of scale in the strategic competition with the United States and the metrics that can be used to measure it including manufacturing capacity, not only in traditional industries but also in areas like biotechnology and aviation where the U.S. used to have the lead. They note how this translates into military production of ships, ballistic missiles, and drones. While acknowledging ongoing Chinese demographic, economic and environmental problems and continuing U.S. advantages they call for right-setting U.S. understanding of China rather than swinging from defeatism to triumphalism and back again. They examine the prospects for a U.S. led alliance to offset China's scale advantages but argue that it will require a new kind of alliance management by Washington policymakers that they call "capacity-centric statecraft." They also touch on the prospects of conflict over Taiwan in the next 5 years and whether it will take the form of a cross channel invasion or a blockade.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk has become one of the most influential figures in American politics thanks to his significant role in the second Trump administration. Despite his lack of political experience, Musk has become the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, participates in some cabinet meetings, and even spent millions on federal and state elections. And though Musk's relationship with the White House may be unusual, it's not unprecedented. Senior Fellow at the Ronald Reagan Institute and former Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Tevi Troy looks back at other political outsiders who played key roles in influencing presidents throughout history. President Trump's top domestic priority is the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which includes key parts of his agenda like strengthening the border, bolstering defense capabilities, and extending the Trump tax cuts. While Republicans control both the House and Senate and seem broadly united on getting many—or all—of the items done, passage is not inevitable. Florida Republican Congressman Byron Donalds discusses the “Big, Beautiful Bill” and how it will wind up on the President's desk. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tech billionaire Elon Musk has become one of the most influential figures in American politics thanks to his significant role in the second Trump administration. Despite his lack of political experience, Musk has become the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, participates in some cabinet meetings, and even spent millions on federal and state elections. And though Musk's relationship with the White House may be unusual, it's not unprecedented. Senior Fellow at the Ronald Reagan Institute and former Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Tevi Troy looks back at other political outsiders who played key roles in influencing presidents throughout history. President Trump's top domestic priority is the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which includes key parts of his agenda like strengthening the border, bolstering defense capabilities, and extending the Trump tax cuts. While Republicans control both the House and Senate and seem broadly united on getting many—or all—of the items done, passage is not inevitable. Florida Republican Congressman Byron Donalds discusses the “Big, Beautiful Bill” and how it will wind up on the President's desk. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Host Marcia Franklin talks with Strobe Talbott, a former journalist and diplomat who was the president of the Brookings Institution from 2002 to 2017. Talbott, who wrote for Time magazine for more than 20 years, has also penned a dozen books. Franklin and Talbott talk about his passion for the subject of global warming, and whether the issue is still on the political radar for politicians and the public. His book, Fast Forward: Ethics and Politics in the Age of Global Warming, suggests political and societal solutions for reversing climate change. The two also discuss his views on global governance, about which he writes in The Great Experiment: The Story of Ancient Empires, Modern States, and the Quest for a Global Nation. Talbott also sits on North American Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission. The two discuss some Americans' fears of a "One World government." Talbott, who was Deputy Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton, specialized in working with the new independent states of the Soviet Union. He talks with Franklin about a scandal in which Russian spies were found to have been living in the United States for many years. The two also discuss Brookings Mountain West, an offshoot of the Brookings Institution in Las Vegas, which examines public policy issues pertaining to the Intermountain West. Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast and visit the Dialogue website for more conversations that matter!  Originally Aired: 12/16/2010 The interview is part of Dialogue's series, "Conversations from the Sun Valley Writers' Conference," and was taped at the 2010 conference. Since 1995, the conference has been bringing together some of the world's most well-known and illuminating authors to discuss literature and life.

Today's podcast is focused on the BOGUS lamestream media story about the "wrongfully deported Maryland father".Check it out as two of the highest quality guest experts (Breitbart reporter Randy Clark, who has over 30 years of experience as a border patrol agent AND former acting Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli) join our host, Mike Slater, to talk about the truth about what happened and why there's been so much leftist distortion on this pretty basic criminal illegal immigration incident!

Countries around the world are asking whether it is in their best interest to align  more closely with China or the United States. Kurt Campbell helped guide US-  China policy through multiple administrations and was Deputy Secretary of State  under Joe Biden. He joins Christiane for his first TV interview since leaving  government.    Also on today's show: Director Marcel Mettelsiefen discusses his new  documentary on the Israel-Palestine conflict, “A State of Rage”; business owners  Debbie Wei Mullin and Sarah LaFleur on the impact of the Trump tariffs  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

//The Wire//2300Z April 17, 2025////PRIORITY////BLUF: MASS SHOOTING ATTACK AT FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, MULTIPLE CASUALTIES REPORTED. PLANE HIJACKED IN BELIZE, HIJACKER SHOT DEAD BY PASSENGER. DNI DECLASSIFIES DOCUMENT OUTLINING DOMESTIC DISARMAMENT INITIATIVES.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE----- -International Events-Belize: A man with a knife attempted to hijack a small Tropicair flight (registration: V3-HIG) this morning. During the regional flight, authorities state that American passenger Akinyela Sawa Taylor produced a knife and attempted to seize control of the aircraft. The hijacker's demands included transit out of the country, and enough fuel to do so. In the ensuing fray, multiple passengers were stabbed, with at least one passenger receiving severe lacerations. After some time, the pilots were able to barricade themselves in the cockpit to conduct an emergency landing at Philip S. W. Goldson International Airport. After the aircraft came to a halt on the runway, a brief hostage situation ensued before Taylor was shot dead by another passenger onboard the aircraft who had a firearm.AC: While it may seem odd for a passenger to have a gun on a plane, this was a local charter flight and the passenger who shot the hijacker was properly licensed as per the local police commissioner. Additionally, local authorities state that the hijacker was illegally in the country, and had been denied entry just a few days prior.  -HomeFront-Florida: An active shooter was reported at Florida State University this afternoon. Initial reports indicate that two separate gunmen conducted a complex small arms (SMARMS) attack at the FSU Student Union. As of this report, 2x victims are deceased, and 4x others are wounded. Reports have varied throughout the day, however many locals suggest that one of the shooters was neutralized at the scene by police, and the second shooter was taken into custody. One of the shooters has been identified as Phoenix Eichner, the son of a local Sheriff's Deputy who used his parent's service weapons in the attack.AC: This incident could meet the technical criteria for a Complex Coordinated Attack (CCA). For the past several days the Tallahassee Police Department has been warning locals of a training exercise that would involve loud explosions and sounds of gunfire. This exercise was scheduled for the exact time the shooting occurred. If this timing was deliberately chosen, this indicates more deliberate planning efforts on the part of the shooters, who likely sought to use the confusion of a training exercise to increase the effectiveness of their attack. Since one of the shooters has been identified as the son of a Sheriff's Deputy, he would probably have had even more knowledge of this drill taking place. Choosing to conduct an attack during a training exercise would have increased confusion on the part of first responders, maybe even delayed a response time, and would have reduced the number of people calling 911, since most people would have thought that gunshots would be related to the drill, and not a legitimate terror attack.Additionally, some of the videos and photos of the aftermath that are circulating social media right now are exceptionally anger-inducing for reasons that would not be wise to comment on at the moment.Virginia: Throughout the defense community, several personnel shakeups have taken place at the Pentagon over the past few days. So far, the list of personnel placed on suspension is as follows:1. Colin Carroll, Chief of Staff for the Deputy Secretary of Defense2. Dan Caldwell, Senior Advisor to the SECDEF3. Darin Selnick, Deputy Chief of StaffAll three have been placed on administrative leave following developments in investigations pertaining to various leaks of defense policy.AC: At the moment, it's not really clear as to what is going on. These firings

Obion County native Stephen Vaden testified Tuesday in front of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry Committee in his first nominating hearing. Vaden is President Trump's pick to be the new U.S. Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. Vaden is expected to be confirmed in May.

The amount of time children and adolescents spend with a screen is absolutely stunning. Lots of people, including parents, health leaders, educators, elected leaders from both parties I might mention, and even children themselves, are highly concerned and are discussing what might be done about all this. I'm delighted to begin this series of podcasts on children and screen time. Today we're welcoming two very special guests who can talk about this topic in general, and especially about what's being done to protect children and adolescents. Several podcasts will follow this one that deal with food and nutrition in particular. Our first guest, Kris Perry, is Executive Director of Children and Screens, an organization devoted to protecting children. In the digital world by addressing media's impact on child development, communicating state-of-the-art information, and working with policymakers. Prior to joining children in Screens, Kris was senior advisor of the Governor of California and Deputy Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency. Our other guest, Dr. Dimitri Christakis is a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and director of the Center for Child Health Behavior and Development at Seattle Children's. He's also editor-in-chief of JAMA Pediatrics and both Chief Scientific Officer and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of Children and Screens. He's also the co-editor of a new book that I'm very excited to discuss. Interview Summary Download The Handbook of Children and Screens: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-69362-5 Kris, let's start with you. Could you set the stage and give us some sense of how much time children spend in front of screens, children and adolescents, and what devices are being used and what kind of trends are you seeing? Yes, I'd be happy to. I had better news for your listeners, but as you might imagine, since the advent of the smartphone and social media, the youth digital media use has been increasing each year. Especially as children get older and have increasing demands on their time to use screens. But let's just start at the beginning of the lifespan and talk about kids under the age of two who shockingly are spending as much as two hours a day on screens. Most spend about 50 minutes, but there's a significant chunk spending up to two hours. And that rises to three or three to five hours in childhood. And eventually in adolescence, approximately eight and a half hours a day our adolescents are spending online. Also wanted to talk a little bit about middle childhood children, six to 12 years of age. 70% of them already have a social media account, and we all know social media wasn't designed for children. And there are restrictions on children under 13 using them, and yet children six to 12 most have an account already. Over half of four-year-olds have a tablet and two thirds of children have their own device by the age of eight; and 90% of teens. This probably won't be surprising, and yet we should really think about what this means; that 90% of teens are using YouTube, 60% are on TikTok and Instagram, and 55% use Snapchat. I'll stop by ending on a really alarming statistic. Oh my, there's more? There's more. I know it! I told you. I'll be the bearer of bad news so that we can talk about solutions later. But, children are checking their devices as often as 300 times per day. 300 times. 300 times per day, and we're talking about screen time right now. And we know that when you're using time to be on screens, you are not doing something else. And we know that childhood is full of challenges and skill building and mastery that requires repetition and tenacity and grit and effort. And the more children are on their screens, whether it's social media or other entertainment, they're not doing one of these other critical child development tasks. That's pretty amazing. And the fact that the older kids are spending more time on before a screen than they are in school is pretty alarming. And the younger, the really youngest kids, that's especially alarming. So, Dimitri, why should we fret about this? And I realize that fret is kind of a mild word here. Maybe all I'll panic would be better. But what are some of the major concerns? Well, I don't think panic is ever the right reaction, but the numbers Kris conveyed, you know, I think do paint a, let's say, concerning story. You know, the simple reality is that there's only so much time in a day. And if you think about it, teenagers in particular should sleep for eight to 10 hours a day at a minimum. They really should be in school six and a half, seven hours a day. And then when you add the numbers, Kris conveyed, you realize that something's giving because there isn't enough time left to spend eight and a half hours a day. The two things at a minimum that are giving are sleep. Kids are losing sleep to be on screens. And I'm sorry to say that they're losing school while they're on screens. We just published a paper that used passive sensing to see where and when children are on their screens. And found that the typical child in the United States spends an hour and a half during the school day on their device. And it's not, before any of your guests ask, on Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica. It's on the usual suspects of social media, TikTok, etc. So, you know, we talk about displacement, and I think it's pretty obvious what's being displaced during school hours. Its time focused on learning if it's in the classroom, and time focused on being authentically present in real time and space if it's during recess. School hours are precious in that way, and I think it is concerning that they're spending that much time in school. And I told you the median. Of course, some kids are above that, a significant half of them are above it. And at the high end, they're spending 30 to 40% of school time on screens. Now, some schools have enacted policies. They don't typically enforce them very well. One of the things that drives me nuts, Kelly, is that as an academic, you know we love to argue amongst ourselves and hem and haw. And this issue about whether or not there's such a phenomenon as digital addiction is still being hotly debated. Honestly, the only behavioral addiction that's being seriously considered at this point is gaming disorder. The DSM-5 didn't consider gaming, considered it, but didn't include, it said it needed further study in 2013. In 2022, the WHO did include gaming disorder as an ICD-11 diagnosis. But just as further evidence how slow science is compared to technology., I mean gaming, while it's still an entity, represents a small fraction of most people's screen time. And the numbers that Kris conveyed, a small fraction of that for some on average was gaming. For some people, it's their screen use of choice, but for many, it's social media. YouTube, although I consider YouTube to be a social media, etc. And at the high end when you hear the numbers Kris conveyed in my mind that's a behavioral addiction any way you define it. Well, and if you think about things that we all agree are addictive, like nicotine and alcohol and heroin, people aren't doing it 300 times a day. So it's really pretty remarkable. And that's exactly right. One of the salient criteria for those addictions is that it's interfering with activities of daily living. Well, you can't be on a screen for nine hours a day when you're supposed to be asleep for 10 and at school for six without interfering with activities of day. The math isn't there. And things like being physically active and going out and playing. That's right. It doesn't add up. So, you don't need the DSM-5. You don't need a psychiatrist. You need a mathematician to tell you that there's too much time on this thing. Alright, so Kris, talk to us if you will, about the Children and Screens organization. I have a lot of respect for the organization and its work. Tell us how it got started and what its objectives are. Well, it's so great to be on this show with you and get to see you in your day job, Kelly. Because you've been an advisor, like Dimitri, to the institute almost since its inception, which is in 2013. As you know, our founder, Dr. Pamela Hurst-Della Pietra, really became concerned as a parent about the way digital media was impacting her children and sought out some answers. Well, what does this mean? Why is this happening? What should I do? And found out that this, of course, is 2013, this is a long time ago. There wasn't that much research yet. And it was multidisciplinary. In other words, there might be a study among neuroscientists or developmental psychologists, even ophthalmologists. But there really hadn't been, yet, a concerted effort to bring these different disciplines and the research together to try to answer some of these hard questions about the impact on kids. And lo and behold, here we are, almost 13 years since the advent of the smartphone and social media. And there is an astounding amount of research across disciplines. So, what we do at the institute is we try to translate it as fast as we can and make it actionable for parents, providers, and policy makers. And we do that through our Ask the Experts webinar series where we bring the experts themselves directly to our audience to talk about these impacts and answer questions. We also create printables, you might say, like tip sheets and Research at a Glance Digest, and newsletters and FAQs and we've upgraded our website to make it very navigable for parents of kids of all ages. I even started my own podcast this year, which has been really fun. Dimitri was my first guest, so it's great to see him here. And we have convenings. We're having our third Digital Media Developing Mind Scientific Congress this summer where the experts come together in person to discuss issues. And we really try to focus them on advancing research and supporting it, translating it, and positioning the issue as a policy priority. We'll be in Washington, DC where we know lawmakers are grappling with the impact of digital media on child development, how to make online, products safer for kids and protect their data. The Institute is in the middle of all of this, trying to facilitate more discussion, more results and more support for parents primarily. Kris, a couple of things occur to me. One is that the breadth of work you do is really very impressive because you're not only having very hands-on kind of in the real world ex advice for parents on how to navigate this world, but you have advice for and helpful resources for policy makers and for researchers and people. It's really quite an impressive breadth of work. The other thing that occurred to me is that I don't think you and I would have any podcast career at all if it hadn't been for Dimitri helping us out. So thanks Dimitri. Yeah. So, let me ask you, Dimitri, so I know that both you and Kris are committed to an evidence-based approach to making policy. Yeah. But technology advances way more quickly than scientists can evaluate it. Much less come up with policies to deal with it. And by the time research gets funded, completed, published, you're on to eight new levels of technology. So how does one handle this fundamental problem of pace? It's a really good question. I mean, I can tell you that we should at a minimum learn from the mistakes we've made in the past. And, you know, one of the most critical, frankly, that most people don't really understand is that we talk about the age at which children get social media accounts in this country. Kris pointed out that actually pre-teens routinely have social media accounts. Social media companies do very little to age gate. They're trying to do more now, but even the age at which we've accepted it is being normative is 13. Few people know where that comes from. That doesn't come from talking to pediatricians, psychologists, parents about what age is the appropriate age. It comes entirely from COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act), which basically was the original privacy act that said that before the age of 13, companies could not collect data from children. So, because these companies were interested in collecting data, they set the age at 13 so as to not have any constraints on the data they collected. Well, that's not even common sense-based policy, let alone evidence-based policy. And it's never been revisited since. It's very troubling to me. And as things move forward, I think we have to learn from those mistakes. Medicine has a maxim which is do no harm. We use that phrase a lot and I think it's a good one in this case. I think it's a particularly good one as we see the new technologies emerging around artificial intelligence. And you know, again, like any new technology, it has incredible upside. We made the mistake and we're still paying for it, about not appreciating the downsides of social network sites, and frankly, the internet in general. And I would hope we put guardrails in place now. And if you will apply the same standard we apply to other non-technology based products. You can't introduce a new pharmaceutical to anybody, let alone to children, until you show it's safe and effective. You can't bring toys to the world that are dangerous. Why do we have more safety precautions around toys than we do around websites for children? You know, a lot of it involves changing defaults, doesn't it? Because if the default is that government or somebody out there has to prove that something is harmful before it gets taken away. That changes everything then if you began at a different point where these companies have to prove that these things are safe. Correct. Or they're permitted. Then the companies would find workarounds and they would play games with that too, but at least that would help some. Well, it would help some. And at least we'd be philosophically in the right place. By the way, Kris didn't say it, so I'll say it. You know, the mission of Children and Screens, lest we sound like Luddites here, is not get kids away from technology. Take away their smartphones. We all recognize that technology is here to stay. I think all of us appreciate the incredible upside that it brings to children's lives. The mission of Children and Screens is to help children lead healthy lives in a digital world. And part of the reason she and I often talk about the concerns we have is because the pros make the case for themselves. I mean, you know, no one needs to come here and tell you how amazing it is that you could Google something or that you could get somewhere with GPS. I mean, we know it's amazing and we all rely on it. And none of us are ever talking about getting rid of that stuff. That makes good sense. It's like, you know, children benefit from the fact that they can get around with their parents in the automobile. But you want to have car seats in there to protect them. Exactly. And that's exactly right. There needs to be assurances of safety and they're none. I mean, they're really virtually none. The age getting is a joke. And even if we accept it as effective, the age set of 13 is too young, in my opinion. We started this conversation talking about these medias being addictive, I believe they're addictive. There are legitimate academics that will debate me on that, and I'm happy to join that debate. But as I said before, it's a tough argument to win when people spending upwards of 10 to 16 hours a day doing it. I don't know what you call that besides addictive. We can argue about what percentage are doing that, but nevertheless, once you accept something as addictive, for other addictive things we immediately age gate it above 18 or 21, right? Mm-hmm. We don't believe that the teenagers have the ability to regulate their alcohol or tobacco or gambling, all of which we accept are addictive. In fact, in the case of alcohol, we raised the age from 18 to 21 because we thought even 18-year-olds weren't able to do it. And yet somehow for this behavior, we think of it as just so different that it doesn't require greater cognitive capacity. And I don't believe that. Yeah, very good point. Kris, let me ask you a question about how you and your colleagues at Children and Screens set priorities because there are a lot of things that one could potentially worry about as outcomes. There's violence that kids see on social media. There's cognitive and brain development, social developments, social interactions, and bullying. Mental health, body image, diet, all these things are out there. How do you decide what to work on? Well, we try to work on all of it. And in fact, we've built up a fair amount of expertise and resources around almost 25 different topics. And we also understand that, you know, childhood is a long period of time. Birth to 18, birth to 21, birth to 25, depending on who you talk to. So, we're able to take those 25 topics and also provide deeper, you might say, resources that address the different stages of development. We're really trying to do as much as we can. What's been interesting over these last few years is trying to figure out when to be reactive, when to be proactive. And by being proactive, we go out looking for the research, translating it, digesting it, and creating materials with it that we think are really accessible and actionable. At the same time, as Dimitri points out, there are policy windows and there are opportunities that present themselves that you have to react to. If you just only talk about what you want to talk about to each other you're missing some of these external opportunities to inform policy and policy makers. Help influence the way that parents and providers are talking about the issue. Framing it in such a way that engages youth and makes them want what we want for them. We're really excited by increasing opportunities to partner in coalitions with others that care about kids and teachers and nurses and doctors. But we also are speaking directly to leaders in states and school districts at the federal level, at the local level. You would be, I'm sure, not surprised to hear that we are contacted every day by groups that support parents and families. Asking for resources, asking for support, because they're seeing the impact now over many years on their children, their development. Their academic ability. Their cognitive and analytical ability. Their social emotional ability. Their ability to pay attention to tasks that we all know are critical in building that foundation for essentially, you know, future success. The Institute is being pulled in many directions. Ee try really hard to be strategic about what are people asking us for? What does the research say and how can we get that to them as quickly as possible? Dimitri - Can I add to that? You know, I want to emphasize that the concern around the effects of screen use on children's lives is shared by parents on both sides of the aisle. 75% of parents are concerned about the impact of screens on their children's lives. 35% of teenagers are concerned about their dependents on screens and that it has a negative effect on their lives. Actually by some studies, some surveys, even more than 35 to 50% of teenagers are concerned. And both sides of the political aisle agree in large part of this. And Kris and Kelly, you guys are the policy wonks, you can speak more to that. So it's a serious indictment on us as grownups and as a society that we have not done more to deliver on this issue. Why? When there's bipartisan agreement amongst many policymakers. This is not a political [00:22:00] issue to speak of and there is widespread concern on the part of parents and even teenagers. Why is nothing happening? Well, one has to look no further than where the money is. And that's a problem. I mean, that's a serious indictment on our political system when we can't deliver something that is needed and basically wanted by everybody but the industry itself. We'll come back and talk in a few moments about the policy issues and where industry gets involved here. But let me take just a bit of a detour from that and talk about the book that I mentioned earlier, because I think it's such a valuable resource. Now, when I mention the name of this book I'm urging our listeners to write this down or to remember it because you can get the book at no cost. And I'll come back, Kris, and explain what made that possible and why the decision was to make this an open access book. But Dimitri, let's begin with you. So you, along with Lauren Hale, edited this book that's entitled, The Handbook of Children and Screens: Digital Media Development and Wellbeing From Birth Through Adolescence. I think it's an extraordinary piece of work, but tell, tell us about the book.  It was an extraordinary undertaking. There's I think 178 or 180 authors. Literally, it's a who's who of experts in children and media research in all disciplines. It represents pediatrics, psychiatry, psychology, communications experts, demography, lawyers, neuroscientists. I don't know who I'm forgetting. Every single discipline is represented. Leading scientists in all of those areas. Virtually every topic that someone might be of interest to people. And we deliberately made the chapters short and easily accessible. So, it is, I think, a great resource for the constituents we serve. For teachers, for parents, for researchers, for policymakers. And it is free. The hardest part of it, to be honest, as an editor, was getting peer reviewers because unfortunately, every expert was conflicted since they all had an article in it. But it was a long time coming. And again, this was really the brainchild of Pam (Pamela Hurst-Della Pietra) and we're grateful to have brought it along. So, you go all the way from the neuroscience, how children's brains are reacting to this, all the way out there into the public policy and legal arena about what can be done about it. And then kind of everything in between. It's remarkable how much the book covers. It's almost a thousand pages. I mean, it is a tome to be sure. And don't forget to mention, Dimitri, we aren't even two months post publication, and we have 1.6 million views of the document, despite its gargantuan size. I think that is really a tribute to experts like you and others that have really studied this issue and can speak directly to its impacts. It's been great to see the success so far. You know, not a small number of those views is from me logging on. And then a million from me and then we got there. So, it is free because it's online and you can download it. You can also order a hard copy for I think, $60, but I'm not sure why you would do that if you can download it for free. But it's up to you. So, Kris, it's unusual for a book like this to be made open access and free to the general public. What made that possible and why was that so important? We want the maximum number of people to use it and treat it like the premier resource that it is. And the only way you can really do that is to fund it to be open access and find a publisher that does open access publishing, which we did with Springer. I mean, most journal articles are behind a paywall and publishers do require you to purchase either a subscription or the document itself to download it or order it. And we just really wanted maximum access. So, we funded it to be published in that way. And I think honestly, it helped us even sort of create it in the first place. People want to be a part of something that has that level of access and is available so widely. So, I think it was a kind of mutually beneficial. It gets more people to read it, but it got more people to write for it too, I think. Right, Dimitri? Dimitri - I agree. I mean, you know, the numbers 1.6 million are extraordinary. I mean, Kelly, you've been internal editor. I mean, as a editor of JAMA Pediatrics, if an article gets 70,000 views, it's in our top 1%, you know, 200,000 views is 0.01%. 1.6 million in growing is really extraordinary. And that's about the number of people that read my articles. 1.6. And of course, they're not all scientists. I mean, many of them are parents and maybe are policy makers, but that's Kris's point, you know. The moment anyone hits a paywall, even if it's a dollar or two, they're going to walk away. It's great to see it get so much traction. Alright, so again, for our listeners, the title of the book is The Handbook of Children and Screens. And it's really a terrific resource. Alright, so let's turn our attention to a really important matter. And we've sort of touched on this, but who's in charge of protecting our children? You know, Dimitri at the end of the day help survey this landscape for us. I mean, is it congress, is it the administrative branch of government? What role do the courts play? Are there legal actors taking meaningful action? What's being done does it come anywhere near, meeting the need. Tell us about what that landscape is like? Well, there isn't adequate protections for children. And we talked a little bit about that earlier. There's been an enormous loophole, unfortunately, created by Congress when they added the Section 230 to the Communications Decency Act in 1996. And that was put in place essentially to provide protections for internet companies. And it basically said that they should be treated like bookstores and not publishers. That they weren't responsible for content they were just conveying it. And what that means, in effect, was that the companies had sort of carte blanche to do whatever they want. And they've used that very effectively, legally, to argue that any restriction, any culpability on their part, is protected by that Act. That they're exonified for any ill that occurs as a result of their product. The only exception that's been made of it, to date, was around sex trafficking on back page, if anyone remembers that. But other than that, social media sites and internet sites in general have been able to say that they're not liable for anything that's done. And I think that was a huge mistake that was made. It needs to be rectified. It's being challenged in the courts presently. My own belief is that, and I'm not speaking as a lawyer, is that when that law was passed, it was under the assumption as I said, that they were just conveying information. No one at the time foresaw the development of algorithms that would feed the information. It's really not a bookstore when you are making recommendations. Once you start recommending things, I think you're no longer merely a purveyor of product. You're actually pushing it. So, Kris, tell us about the Children and Screens and the role the organization plays in this space. And how do you deal with policy and is it possible to be bipartisan? Yeah, I mean, it's essential. There's no way to get anything done, anywhere on these policy matters at a population level without working in a bipartisan or non-partisan manner, which is what we've always done. And it's easy to do that when you're following the science, not ideology. And you're putting the science first and you're creating resources and tools and support for those mostly staffers, honestly, that are trying to help their bosses get smarter and better at talking about these issues as they evolve and become more complicated over time. It takes more effort to staff a lawmaker on this front. And they're very anxious to learn and understand because they're meeting with parents of children who have been harmed. Or frankly didn't even survive their childhood because of the social media platform. There's great urgency on the part of policymakers. We've heard everything from school phone bans to outright social media bans proposed as policies. And one thing I like to come back to is it's one thing to want to take action and make your best guess at what would have the best impact. But it's another thing to study whether or not that policy actually achieved its result. And it's a part of this that by staying bipartisan, nonpartisan allows us to say, 'Hey lawmaker, if you're able to get that to happen, we'd really like to come in and help study whether or not your idea actually achieves the results that you wanted, or if it needs to be adjusted or amended over time.' Fantastic. That's so important to be doing that work, and I'm delighted the organization is doing it. Let me ask a question here. If you think about some of the areas of public health that I've been following, like tobacco, for example. Opioids more recently. Vaping products. And in the case of my own particular work food policy. The administrative legislative branches of government have been almost completely ineffective. If I think about food policy over the years, relatively little has been accomplished. Even though lots of people have worked really hard on it. Same thing happened with tobacco for many years. Opioids, same thing.  And it's until you get the third branch of government involved, the judiciary, and you start suing the actors who were causing the harm do you get much action. Not only do the lawsuits seem to have an effect, but they soften the ground for legislative things that then can occur because public opinion has changed. And then those things help make a difference as well. What do you think about that kind of issue in this space?  I think you're exactly right. I mean, I think the failure of our legislative branch to enact policy leaves us with very few options at this point anyway, except to try to pursue it through the judiciary. There are challenges there. First and foremost, it's a big and well-funded industry, not unlike tobacco or big food, as you mentioned and there's this Section 230 that's given them kind of blanket immunity to date. But there are many, many very large pending cases in several jurisdictions brought by individuals, brought by school districts, brought by states. And those, at least provisionally have gotten further than prior cases have with which have been thrown out based on Section 230. So, we'll see what happens with that litigation. But right now, my guess is it's the best chance we have to set some guardrails. And I think there are plenty of guardrails that could be set. Everything that these companies have done to make their products addictive can be undone. Can be made protective. The tobacco company deliberately designed their products to be addictive. While they tried to make the claims that they were less addictive, you know. They made light cigarettes that had holes in the filter so that it would diffuse the carbon and nicotine, but people quickly learned they could cover those up with their fingers and think they were smoking light cigarettes, and smoke more of them. There's a lot of things that can be done in this space to undesign the problematic nature of the products. And quite apart from the financial settlements, which will get companies attention, I hope that that's part of any settlement if it gets that far. It'll be interesting to see where those go. And, also historically, one important part of these lawsuits is what gets turned up in discovery. And what sort of intent the companies have and how much do they know about harms. And how much do they know about addiction and things like that. And how they might have proceeded in the face of that information that then doesn't get disclosed to the public. In any event, we'll see where that goes. Dimitri, what about the argument that responsibility resides with parents. It's up to parents to protect their kids from this, and government doesn't need to be involved. I've never understood that argument. I mean parents obviously are children's most important safeguard, but as a society, we enact policies and laws to assist parents in that. I mean to me, if I made the argument, well, why, why do we have minimum ages of drinking. It's parents' job to make sure their kids don't drink. How would that possibly play out? Look, it's hard enough as a parent anyway, because kids do get around these laws. But we still have them and it's a lot easier as a parent. I think most parents would agree their life's made easier by minimum age restrictions on certain things. We have seatbelt laws. I mean, why do we have seatbelt laws? Why don't we just tell its parents' job to make sure their kids buckle up? The truth is its society and parents working hand in hand to try and keep children safe. And I think it also helps parents to be able to say that there are laws around this, and I expect you to follow the laws. So, I don't think it's an either or. Okay, well, I think that's a very good way to frame it. There are many, many precedents where we protect children. And why not do it here too? So let me end with a question I'd like to ask both of you. So, in this sea of concerns that we've discussed, is there a reason for optimism? And Kris, let me start, start with you. What do you think? Absolutely. I think the young people I've met that are leading among their peers are incredibly impressive and are armed with the research and their energy and their own lived experience in ways that are very compelling. At the same time, I think the vast amount of research that has now been compiled and translated and acted upon, whether in courtrooms or in state houses, it's becoming more, and we're all getting more steeped and aware of more nuanced information. And finally, I would just say, there is a tipping point. We are reaching as a society, adults and kids alike, we are reaching a tipping point where we can't withstand the pressure of technology in every aspect, every corner of our day, our life. And we want relief. We deserve relief. And I think that's what's going to take us over the finish line. Good. Well, I'm glad to hear those optimistic notes. Dimitri, what about you? I can find reasons to be optimistic. I mean, look, the reality is that technologies have enriched our lives in many ways. And I think if we put guardrails in place, we can make sure that future ones do even better. I have a piece coming out in JAMA Pediatrics around the use of AI, which people are very concerned about, I think rightly. But specifically, about the use of AI and people with intellectual developmental disabilities, making the use case, that there are ways in which it could be extremely beneficial to that population. A population I care deeply about in my role as the Chief Health Officer at Special Olympics International. And in particular, let's say in terms of the doctor patient interaction where it could facilitate their communication with their provider, and it could also help the provider better communicate with them. Look, that use case isn't going to be a priority for the purveyors of artificial intelligence. It's a small, non-lucrative use of a technology. But it's a good one. And if we created the right incentives and put in the right guardrails, we could find many other ways that technology can serve the needs of all of us going forward. I think the problem is that we've tended to be reactive rather than proactive. And to not start with the do no harm first premise, particularly when it comes to children. AI is another example of that where I hope we don't make the same mistake we made with social media. Bios Kris Perry is the executive director of the Children and Screens Institute. Kris most recently served as Senior Advisor to Governor Gavin Newsom of California and Deputy Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency where she led the development of the California Master Plan for Early Learning and Care and the expansion of access to high-quality early childhood programs. She led systems change efforts at the local, state and national levels in her roles as executive director of First 5 San Mateo, First 5 California and of the First Five Years Fund. Through it all, Perry has fought to protect children, improve and expand early learning programs, and increase investments in low-income children. Perry was instrumental in returning marriage equality to California after the landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Hollingsworth v. Perry, which she wrote about in her book Love on Trial (Roaring Forties Press, 2017). Dimitri Christakis, MD, MPH is the Children and Screens Institute's inaugural Chief Science Officer. He is also the George Adkins Professor at the University of Washington, Editor in Chief of JAMA Pediatrics, and the Chief Health Officer at Special Olympics International. Christakis is a leading expert on how media affects child health and development. He has published over 270 peer reviewed articles (h-index 101) including dozens of media-related studies and co-authored a groundbreaking book, The Elephant in the Living Room: Make Television Work for Your Kids. His work has been featured on Anderson Cooper 360, the Today Show, ABC, NBC, and CBS news as well as all major national newspapers. Christakis received his undergraduate degree at Yale University and his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and completed his residency and Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar Fellowship at the University of Washington School of Medicine. 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Hearing to Consider the Nominations of Ms. Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and Mr. James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy This notice is to advise you of a hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 2, 2025 at 10:00 am in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of Ms. Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and Mr. James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. Committee Notice: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2025/4/hearing-to-consider-the-nominations-of-ms-katharine-macgregor-to-be-deputy-secretary-of-the-interior-and-mr-james-danly-to-be-deputy-secretary-of-energy

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Hearing to Consider the Nominations of Ms. Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and Mr. James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy This notice is to advise you of a hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 2, 2025 at 10:00 am in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of Ms. Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and Mr. James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. Committee Notice: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2025/4/hearing-to-consider-the-nominations-of-ms-katharine-macgregor-to-be-deputy-secretary-of-the-interior-and-mr-james-danly-to-be-deputy-secretary-of-energy

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Hearing to Consider the Nominations of Ms. Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and Mr. James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy This notice is to advise you of a hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 2, 2025 at 10:00 am in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of Ms. Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and Mr. James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. Committee Notice: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2025/4/hearing-to-consider-the-nominations-of-ms-katharine-macgregor-to-be-deputy-secretary-of-the-interior-and-mr-james-danly-to-be-deputy-secretary-of-energy

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Hearing to Consider the Nominations of Ms. Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and Mr. James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy This notice is to advise you of a hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 2, 2025 at 10:00 am in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of Ms. Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and Mr. James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. Committee Notice: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2025/4/hearing-to-consider-the-nominations-of-ms-katharine-macgregor-to-be-deputy-secretary-of-the-interior-and-mr-james-danly-to-be-deputy-secretary-of-energy

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Hearing to Consider the Nominations of Ms. Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and Mr. James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy This notice is to advise you of a hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 2, 2025 at 10:00 am in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of Ms. Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and Mr. James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. Committee Notice: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2025/4/hearing-to-consider-the-nominations-of-ms-katharine-macgregor-to-be-deputy-secretary-of-the-interior-and-mr-james-danly-to-be-deputy-secretary-of-energy

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Hearing to Consider the Nominations of Ms. Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and Mr. James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy This notice is to advise you of a hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 2, 2025 at 10:00 am in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of Ms. Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and Mr. James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. Committee Notice: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2025/4/hearing-to-consider-the-nominations-of-ms-katharine-macgregor-to-be-deputy-secretary-of-the-interior-and-mr-james-danly-to-be-deputy-secretary-of-energy

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Hearing to Consider the Nominations of Ms. Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and Mr. James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy This notice is to advise you of a hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 2, 2025 at 10:00 am in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of Ms. Katharine MacGregor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior and Mr. James Danly to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. Committee Notice: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2025/4/hearing-to-consider-the-nominations-of-ms-katharine-macgregor-to-be-deputy-secretary-of-the-interior-and-mr-james-danly-to-be-deputy-secretary-of-energy

Ambassador Wendy Sherman, the 21st U.S. Deputy Secretary of State and the first woman in that position, has been a diplomat, businesswoman, professor, political strategist, author, and social worker. She served under three presidents and five secretaries of state, becoming known as a diplomat for hard conversations in hard places. As Deputy Secretary, she was the point person on China. While serving as Undersecretary for Political Affairs, Sherman led the U.S. negotiating team that reached an agreement on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between the P5+1, the European Union and Iran.  And, as Counselor at the State Department, she led on North Korea and was engaged on Middle East negotiations. For her diplomatic accomplishments she was awarded the National Security Medal by President Barack Obama. At Harvard Kennedy School, she was a professor of the practice of public leadership, director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School (where she is now a Hauser Leadership Fellow), and a current and former Senior Fellow at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. In 2002, along with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Sherman built a global consulting business, The Albright Group. Sherman previously served on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, chaired Oxfam America's Board of Directors, served on the U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Policy Board, and was Director of Child Welfare for the State of Maryland. She is the author of the book: “Not for the Faint of Heart: Lessons in Courage, Power and Persistence.” Sherman attended Smith College and received a B.A. cum laude from Boston University and a Master's degree in Social Work from the University of Maryland. Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an BA in political science from UCLA and a master's in journalism from Columbia University.Scheduling and logistical support for PolicyCast is provided by Lilian Wainaina. Design and graphics support is provided by Laura King and the OCPA Design Team. Web design and social media promotion support is provided by Catherine Santrock and Natalie Montaner of the OCPA Digital Team. Editorial support is provided by Nora Delaney and Robert O'Neill of the OCPA Editorial Team. 

In this week's episode of The Sportsmen's Voice Roundup, Fred is joined by CSF's Mid-Atlantic Assistant Manager, Kaleigh Leager to discuss Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin's VETO of antigun legislation in the state. Kaleigh and Fred break down the implications of age restrictions on firearm purchases, the ongoing debate surrounding assault weapon legislation, and the importance of retaining young sportsmen and women in the hunting community. Fred also covers a policy briefing on Capitol Hill, updates from South Dakota's legislative session, nominations for the Department of Interior, developments in Nevada's hunting laws, Connecticut's restrictions on Sunday hunting, and the potential for elk hunting in North Carolina. Get all the news fit to print about the great outdoors and the sports we all love right here!   Takeaways Unifying Priorities For Sportsmen And Women: The American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP) sponsored a policy briefing on Capitol Hill focused on unifying priorities for sportsmen and women. Two Anti-Sportsmen's Bills Defeated in South Dakota: CSF, working with partners and the South Dakota Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus, was able to defeat bills that could have led to a transfer of funds from the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks and a discharge distance bill that was introduced during the session. Department Of Interior Nominations: The following CSF-supported nominees are working through the confirmation process right now, Brian Nesvik is vying to be the next Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Catherine MacGregor will serve as the next Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior.    Get the FREE Sportsmen's Voice e-publication in your inbox every Monday: www.congressionalsportsmen.org/newsletter   Sign up for FREE legislative tracking through CSF's Tracking the Capitols tool: www.congressionalsportsmen.org/tracking-the-capitols/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Special Briefing is focused on the future of mass transportation under the new Administration and Congress. Our expert panel discusses the upsurge in construction funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law as well as solutions to hundreds of billions of dollars in budgetary shortfalls facing transit networks from coast to coast. Speakers include Leslie Richards, Professor of Practice at the University of Pennsylvania Stuart Weitzman School of Design and former General Manager & CEO of Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), the fifth-largest U.S. transit system; Kurt Forsgren, Managing Director and Sector Lead for Transportation, S&P Global; Randy Iwasaki, President and CEO of Iwasaki Consulting Services, Inc. and former Leader of State and Local Transportation for Amazon Web Services; Polly Trottenberg, who recently served as Deputy Secretary of Transportation under Pete Buttigieg; and David Greising, President and CEO, Better Government Association. Notable Quotes: "All new administrations when they come in, of course, set new policy priorities, but I think this is the first time an administration has tried to cancel or rescope projects in mass that have already been awarded funding through a competitive application process." - Polly Trottenberg "Septa's experienced a huge capital budget crunch as well. And obviously that comes into play with what Polly just described, with the discretionary funds and the uncertainty of what's getting paid out and will get paid out. And what's coming out through formula this year? Septa is facing over a 200 million dollars shortfall." - Leslie Richards "They're preparing for the Olympics. And Mayor Bass has said that the Olympic trips will be not by car. And so they're making a tremendous investment in transit and the airports in LA. I think we have about 85 billion dollars worth of projects ongoing in Region 9, which includes 4 States, and the the only large project that's outside of California is the heart project in Hawaii. So there's investments in California and transit." - Randy Iwasaki "The Democrats, at least on the Illinois Congressional delegation, wrote a letter to the office of management Budget a couple of weeks ago, just simply referencing the the suspension of spending on various programs already approved or anticipated. And they added it up and came up with about 1.9 billion dollars worth of programs." - David Greising "So this sort of strength in taxes and tax support by system operators and by their policymakers and legislators, you know, has been a real strength for credit quality across the sector. In fact, we raised the ratings on about 7 transit operators just in November of last year to reflect the strength and growth that we've seen in this tax support sector." - Kurt Forsgren Be sure to subscribe to Special Briefing to stay up to date on the world of public finance. Learn more about the Volcker Alliance at: volckeralliance.org Learn more about Penn IUR at: penniur.upenn.edu Connect with us @VolckerAlliance and @PennIUR on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn Special Briefing is published by the Volcker Alliance, as part of its Public Finance initiatives, and Penn IUR. The views expressed on this podcast are those of the panelists and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Volcker Alliance or Penn IUR.

In this week's episode, host Kristin Hayes talks with Daniel Poneman, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former Deputy Secretary of the US Department of Energy, about the role of nuclear energy in meeting increasing demands for electricity. As the use of artificial intelligence grows, so does demand for electricity, raising questions about which energy sources can provide reliable, clean, consistent power. Poneman discusses whether nuclear energy is a viable option, how the safety and performance of nuclear technology have evolved, and why some retired nuclear power plants are being revived—including the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, where a reactor meltdown caused by equipment malfunctions occurred 46 years ago as of last Friday. Poneman also describes what challenges the nuclear energy industry is facing, barriers to wider adoption of nuclear energy, and how public perception of nuclear energy has shifted over time. References and recommendations: “Double Jeopardy: Combating Nuclear Terror and Climate Change” by Daniel Poneman; https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262546669/double-jeopardy/ “Washington: A Life” by Ron Chernow; https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/ron-chernow “Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin; https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Team-of-Rivals/Doris-Kearns-Goodwin/9780743270755 “Speed of Heat” album by Jeff “Skunk” Baxter; https://open.spotify.com/album/6t5FAhdwvsYFRejUTRAzVZ Henry M. Paulson Jr.'s writings about biodiversity; https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/opinion/animal-extinction.html

John speaks with Mike Pezzullo, former Secretary of Australia's Home Affairs Department (2017-2023), about the nation's historical resilience and current security challenges. They explore how Australia's early naval power deterred threats like German warships in WWI, yet today, the country faces a "real and present danger" from China's naval deployments, such as the recent task group in the Tasman Sea. Pezzullo warns that Australia's strategic sensibility has declined, leaving it vulnerable despite warnings from leaders like former Prime Minister Rudd in 2009. The conversation shifts to actionable solutions, emphasising the need for leadership to prioritise defence over social spending. Pezzullo suggests doubling maritime surveillance, investing in autonomous underwater drones, and fostering regional alliances to counter coercion without forcing nations to choose between the U.S. and China. He stresses that with political will, Australia can secure its freedom, drawing on past successes like economic reforms and border protection under leaders like former Prime Ministers Howard and Abbott. Michael Pezzullo is a former Australian public servant who served as Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs from 2017 until 2023. He was previously Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, and Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defence. Michael has a BA (Hons) in History from Sydney University.