Podcasts about manhattan institute

In the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex.In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They alleged that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.On June 18th, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

City Journal contributors Charles Fain Lehman, Tal Fortgang, Rafael Mangual, and Carolyn Gorman break down results from a new Manhattan Institute poll on New York City's mayoral race. They also unpack the Israel–Iran conflict and the strange state of modern wedding culture.

Reading Mark's recent piece We'll Never Have an Energy Transition in Manhattan Institute's City Journal prompted me to write my recent post, When they say “transition fuel,” they mean “more polluting and depleting,” not less pollution or depletion.Read them both and you'll see he inspired what I wrote and he wrote a lot more, with more research and editing. I recommend reading it and listening to his podcast episode there, but I'd start with this one. In our conversation, you'll hear more details and back story.The core idea of his piece: Every fuel we've ever used, we still use, and more than ever. If you think that by ramping up solar and wind that in any way that new energy availability will decrease our use of old energy, you're dreaming. More likely you're lying to yourself.That idea is hard for people to swallow if they think humanity's best hope for survival is what they call "clean," "green," or "renewable" energy and learn that those sources aren't clean, green, or renewable. It matters to do the numbers. Mark does.For the record, I come to different strategies than Mark, but I agree with his starting point in the article. I don't think we should start from denying the numbers.Mark's home pageHis recent article in City Journal that prompted me to invite him back: We'll Never Have an Energy TransitionHis appearance on the City Journal podcast on that piece: Green Energy Fallacies Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Rafael Mangual discusses his journey into the world of crime and justice, influenced by his upbringing in New York City and his father's role as an NYPD detective. He reflects on the themes of his book, 'Criminal Injustice,' which critiques the progressive policies surrounding crime and policing, particularly in the wake of the Ferguson protests. Mangual shares insights on the reception of his work, the importance of addressing public misconceptions about crime, and his personal concerns as a parent. The Karol Markowicz Show is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Wednesday & Friday. For more about Rafael check out his SiteSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scot Bertram is joined by two guests with different viewpoints about zoning laws and America's housing supply. First on the show is Tobias Peter, a senior fellow at AEI and the codirector of the American Enterprise Institute's Housing Center. Later, we hear from Judge Glock, director of research and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor at City Journal. You can find Tobias on X @TobiasPeterAEI and Judge at @JudgeGlock.

Neetu Arnold, of the Manhattan Institute, joins Josh to discuss how the heavy handed, authoritarian approach that the Trump administration is currently taking when addressing problems in universities needs to change.  Instead, it should be approached in a more principled manner, by relying on reforming education within the law in order to protect our students from the intolerance of the past several years.   Neetu's article in Politico:   Opinion | Trump Is Right to Target Colleges. He's Doing It the Completely Wrong Way. - POLITICO   Follow Neetu on X and at the Manhattan Institute:   https://x.com/neetu_arnold?s=21&t=S8JoQpY3m4n6bFrTo8tLrg Manhattan Institute | Creative. Bold. Independent.   Links:   https://gml.bio.link/   YOUTUBE:   https://bit.ly/3UwsRiv   RUMBLE:   https://rumble.com/c/GML   Check out Martens Minute!   https://martensminute.podbean.com/   Follow Josh Martens on X:   https://twitter.com/joshmartens13   CB Distillery 25% off with promo code GML   cbdistillery.com   Join the private discord & chat during the show!   joingml.com  

The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, ended its relationship with noted Brown University economist Glenn Loury after he was critical of Israel's actions in Gaza. The cancelation followed an appearance from fellow Brown professor and Israeli historian Omar Bartov on his podcast, during which Bartov offered an analysis of the Gaza genocide that reflected international consensus on Israeli violations of international law. Professor Loury joins Briahna Joy Gray for a must-watch two hour discussion in which Loury reflects on his career as a Black conservative, Ta-Nehesi Coates' book The Message, and the fact that his own Blackness informs his sympathetic attitude toward the Palestinian people. Does identity matter after all? As conservatives attempt to strip funding from the National African American History Museum and obstruct educators from teaching diverse histories, does Loury have any regrets about supporting attacks on "woke" pedagogy? Also, Loury debriefs on his viral interview with Tucker Carlson, and how his lefty wife has helped him to become more establishment in recent years. Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod).

Celebrity activists, while usually well intentioned, rarely have a systemic understanding of the causes they tout - and thus leave a lot of damage in their wake. Paris Hilton is no exception. Over the past couple of years, she has used her celebrity to shut down teen rehab facilities - and the consequences are dark. Christina Buttons, an investigative reporter for the Manhattan Institute and a former troubled teen herself, spent time in the same facilities as Hilton and is exposing the holes in her work. Follow Christina: https://x.com/buttonslives   Sources: https://nypost.com/2025/05/31/opinion/dont-by-paris-hiltons-bull-about-the-troubled-teen-industry/ https://manhattan.institute/article/the-radical-movement-to-divest-from-youth-residential-treatment   Check out my sponsor, GoodBru! https://goodbru.com/?sca_ref=8459318.907ZkSD4qOXckl8 Discount code: Hannah   Join my community: https://hannahcox.substack.com/   Follow me! YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HannahCox/featured  Twitter: https://twitter.com/HannahDCox TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hannahdcox Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hannahdanielle_cox6/reels/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hannahdaniellecox7/   Work with me: https://athens-media.com/  

Celebrity activists, while usually well intentioned, rarely have a systemic understanding of the causes they tout - and thus leave a lot of damage in their wake. Paris Hilton is no exception. Over the past couple of years, she has used her celebrity to shut down teen rehab facilities - and the consequences are dark. Christina Buttons, an investigative reporter for the Manhattan Institute and a former troubled teen herself, spent time in the same facilities as Hilton and is exposing the holes in her work. Follow Christina: https://x.com/buttonslives   Sources: https://nypost.com/2025/05/31/opinion/dont-by-paris-hiltons-bull-about-the-troubled-teen-industry/ https://manhattan.institute/article/the-radical-movement-to-divest-from-youth-residential-treatment   Check out my sponsor, GoodBru! https://goodbru.com/?sca_ref=8459318.907ZkSD4qOXckl8 Discount code: Hannah   Join my community: https://hannahcox.substack.com/   Follow me! YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HannahCox/featured  Twitter: https://twitter.com/HannahDCox TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hannahdcox Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hannahdanielle_cox6/reels/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hannahdaniellecox7/   Work with me: https://athens-media.com/  

Charles Fain Lehman, fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a contributing editor of City Journal, on the ongoing anti-ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) riots in Los Angeles and other cities across America and the various responses from conservatives and liberals to these nationwide mass protests.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,America is embarking upon a New Space Age, with companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin ready to partner with NASA to take Americans to a new frontier — possibly as far as Mars. Lately, however, the world is witnessing uncertainty surrounding NASA leadership and even an odd feud between SpaceX boss Elon Musk and the White House. At a critical time for US space competition, let's hope key players can stick the landing.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I chat with James Meigs about the SLS rocket, NASA reforms, and the evolving private sector landscape.Meigs is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is a contributing editor of City Journal and writer of the Tech Commentary column at Commentary magazine. He is also the former editor of Popular Mechanics.Meigs is the author of a recent report from the Manhattan Institute, U.S. Space Policy: The Next Frontier.In This Episode* So long, Jared Isaacman (1:29)* Public sector priorities (5:36)* Supporting the space ecosystem (11:52)* A new role for NASA (17:27)* American space leadership (21:17)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. So long, Jared Isaacman (1:29)The withdrawal of Jared Isaacman . . . has really been met with total dismay in the space community. Everyone felt like he was the right kind of change agent for the agency that desperately needs reform, but not destruction.Pethokoukis: We're going to talk a lot about your great space policy report, which you wrote before the withdrawal of President Trump's NASA nominee, Jared Isaacman.What do you think of that? Does that change your conclusions? Good move, bad move? Just sort of your general thoughts apart from the surprising nature of it.Meigs: I worked sort of on and off for about a year on this report for the Manhattan Institute about recommendations for space policy, and it just came out a couple of months ago and already it's a different world. So much has happened. The withdrawal of Jared Isaacman — or the yanking of his nomination — has really been met with total dismay in the space community. Everyone felt like he was the right kind of change agent for the agency that desperately needs reform, but not destruction.Now, it remains to be seen what happens in terms of his replacement, but it certainly pulled the rug out from under the idea that NASA could be reformed and yet stay on track for some ambitious goals. I'm trying to be cautiously optimistic that some of these things will happen, but my sense is that the White House is not particularly interested in space.Interestingly, Musk wasn't really that involved in his role of DOGE and stuff. He didn't spend that much time on NASA. He wasn't micromanaging NASA policy, and I don't think Isaacman would've been just a mouthpiece for Musk either. He showed a sense of independence. So it remains to be seen, but my recommendations . . . and I share this with a lot of people advocating reform, is that NASA more or less needs to get out of the rocket-building business, and the Space Launch System, this big overpriced rocket they've been working on for years — we may need to fly it two more times to get us back to the moon, but after that, that thing should be retired. If there's a way to retire it sooner, that would be great. At more than $4 billion a launch, it's simply not affordable, and NASA will not be an agency that can routinely send people into space if we're relying on that white elephant.To me what was exciting about Isaacman was his genuine enthusiasm about space. It seemed like he understood that NASA needed reform and changes to the budget, but that the result would be an agency that still does big things. Is there a fear that his replacement won't be interested in NASA creative destruction, just destruction?We don't know for sure, but the budget that's been proposed is pretty draconian, cutting NASA's funding by about a quarter and recommending particularly heavy cuts in the science missions, which would require cutting short some existing missions that are underway and not moving ahead with other planned missions.There is room for saving in some of these things. I advocate a more nimble approach to NASA's big science missions. Instead of sending one $4 billion rover to Mars every 20 years, once launch costs come down, how about we send ten little ones and if a couple of them don't make it, we could still be getting much more science done for the same price or less. So that's the kind of thing Isaacman was talking about, and that's the kind of thing that will be made possible as launch costs continue to fall, as you've written about, Jim. So it requires a new way of thinking at NASA. It requires a more entrepreneurial spirit and it remains to be seen whether another administrator can bring that along the way. We were hoping that Isaacman would.Public sector priorities (5:36)Congress has never deviated from focusing more on keeping these projects alive than on whether these projects achieve their goals.It seems to me that there are only two reasons, at this point, to be in favor of the SLS rocket. One: There's a political pork jobs aspect. And the other is that it's important to beat China to the moon, which the Artemis program is meant to do. Does that seem accurate?Pretty much, yeah. You can be for beating China the moon and still be against the SLS rocket, you kind of just grit your teeth and say, okay, we've got to fly it two more times because it would be hard to cobble together, in the timeframe available, a different approach — but not impossible. There are other heavy lift rockets. Once you can refuel in orbit and do other things, there's a lot of ways to get a heavy payload into orbit. When I started my report, it looked like SLS was the only game in town, but that's really not the case. There are other options.The Starship has to quit blowing up.I would've loved to have seen the last couple of Starship missions be a little more successful. That's unfortunate. The pork part of SLS just can't be underestimated. From the get go, going way back to when the Space Shuttle was retired in 2011, and even before to when after the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster — that's the second disaster — there was a really big effort to figure out how to replace the space shuttle, what would come next. There was a strong movement in Congress at that time to say, “Well, whatever you build, whatever you do, all the factories that are involved in working on the Space Shuttle, all of the huge workforces in NASA that work on the space shuttle, all of this manpower has to be retained.” And Congress talked a lot about keeping the experience, the expertise, the talent going.I can see some legitimacy to that argument, but if you looked at the world that way, then you would always focus on keeping the jobs of the past viable instead of the jobs of the future: What are we going to do with the blacksmiths who shoe horses? If we lose all this technological capability of shoeing horses . . . we'd better not bring in all these cars! That's an exaggeration, but as a result, first they aim to replace the Space Shuttle with a rocket called Constellation that would recycle some of the Shuttle components. And then eventually they realized that that was just too bloated, too expensive. That got canceled during the Obama administration replaced with the Space Launch System, which is supposed to be cheaper, more efficient, able to be built in a reasonable amount of time.It wound up being just as bloated and also technologically backward. They're still keeping technology from the Shuttle era. The solid fuel engines, which, as we recall from the first Shuttle disaster, were problematic, and the Shuttle main engine design as well. So when SLS flies with humans on board for the first time, supposedly next year, it'll be using technology that was designed before any of the astronauts were even born.In this day and age, that's kind of mind-blowing, and it will retain these enormous workforces in these plants that happen to be located in states with powerful lawmakers. So there's an incredible incentive to just keep it all going, not to let things change, not to let anything be retired, and to keep that money flowing to contractors, to workers and to individual states. Congress has never deviated from focusing more on keeping these projects alive than on whether these projects achieve their goals.I've seen a video of congressional hearings from 15 years ago, and the hostility toward the idea of there being a private-sector alternative to NASA, now it seems almost inexplicable seeing that even some of these people were Republicans from Texas.Seeing where we are now, it's just amazing because now that we have the private sector, we're seeing innovation, we're seeing the drop in launch costs, the reusability — just a completely different world than what existed 15, 16, 17 years ago.I don't think people really realize how revolutionary NASA's commercial programs were. They really sort of snuck them in quietly at first, starting as far back as 2005, a small program to help companies develop their own space transportation systems that could deliver cargo to the International Space Station.SpaceX was initially not necessarily considered a leader in that. It was a little startup company nobody took very seriously, but they wound up doing the best job. Then later they also led the race to be the first to deliver astronauts to the International Space Station, saved NASA billions of dollars, and helped launch this private-industry revolution in space that we're seeing today that's really exciting.It's easy to say, “Oh, NASA's just this old sclerotic bureaucracy,” and there's some truth to that, but NASA has always had a lot of innovative people, and a lot of the pressure of the push to move to this commercial approach where NASA essentially charters a rocket the way you would charter a fishing boat rather than trying to build and own its own equipment. That's the key distinction. You've got to give them credit for that and you also have to give SpaceX enormous credit for endless technological innovation that has brought down these prices.So I totally agree, it's inconceivable to think of trying to run NASA today without their commercial partners. Of course, we'd like to see more than just SpaceX in there. That's been a surprise to people. In a weird way, SpaceX's success is a problem because you want an ecosystem of competitors that NASA can choose from, not just one dominant supplier.Supporting the space ecosystem (11:52)There's a reason that the private space industry is booming in the US much more than elsewhere in the world. But I think they could do better and I'd like to see reform there.Other than the technical difficulty of the task, is there something government could be doing or not doing, perhaps on the regulatory side, to encourage a more sort of a bigger, more vibrant space ecosystem.In my Manhattan Institute report, I recommend some changes, particularly, the FAA needs to continue reforming its launch regulations. They're more restrictive and take longer than they should. I think they're making some progress. They recently authorized more launches of the experimental SpaceX Starship, but it shouldn't take months to go through the paperwork to authorize the launch of a new spacecraft.I think the US, we're currently better than most countries in terms of allowing private space. There's a reason that the private space industry is booming in the US much more than elsewhere in the world. But I think they could do better and I'd like to see reform there.I also think NASA needs to continue its efforts to work with a wide range of vendors in this commercial paradigm and accept that a lot of them might not pan out. We've seen a really neat NASA program to help a lot of different companies, but a lot of startups have been involved in trying to build and land small rovers on the moon. Well, a lot of them have crashed.Not an easy task apparently.No. When I used to be editor of Popular Mechanics magazine, one of the great things I got to do was hang out with Buzz Aldrin, and Buzz Aldrin talking about landing on the moon — now, looking back, you realize just how insanely risky that was. You see all these rovers designed today with all the modern technology failing to land a much smaller, lighter object safely on the moon, and you just think, “Wow, that was an incredible accomplishment.” And you have so much admiration for the guts of the guys who did it.As they always say, space is hard, and I think NASA working with commercial vendors to help them, give them some seed money, help them get started, pay them a set fee for the mission that you're asking for, but also build into your planning — just the way an entrepreneur would — that some product launches aren't going to work, some ideas are going to fail, sometimes you're going to have to start over. That's just part of the process, and if you're not spending ridiculous amounts of money, that's okay.When we talk about vendors, who are we talking about? When we talk about this ecosystem as it currently exists, what do these companies do besides SpaceX?The big one that everybody always mentions first, of course, is Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos's startup that's been around as long as SpaceX, but just moved much more slowly. Partly because when it first started up, it was almost as much of a think tank to explore different ideas about space and less of a scrappy startup trying to just make money by launching satellites for paying customers as soon as possible. That was Musk's model. But they've finally launched. They've launched a bunch of suborbital flights, you've seen where they carry various celebrities and stuff up to the edge of space for a few minutes and they come right back down. That's been a chance for them to test out their engines, which have seemed solid and reliable, but they've finally done one mission with their New Glenn rocket. Like SpaceX, it's a reusable rocket which can launch pretty heavy payloads. Once that gets proven and they've had a few more launches under their belt, should be an important part of this ecosystem.But you've got other companies, you've got Stoke Aerospace, you've got Firefly . . . You've got a few companies that are in the launch business, so they want to compete with SpaceX to launch mostly satellites for paying customers, also cargo for payloads for governments. And then you have a lot of other companies that are doing various kinds of space services and they're not necessarily going to try to be in the launch business per se. We don't need 40 different companies doing launches with different engines, different designs, different fuels, and stuff like that. Eight or 10 might be great, six might be great. We'll see how the market sorts out.But then if you look at the development of the auto industry, it started with probably hundreds of little small shops, hand-building cars, but by the mid-century it had settled down to a few big companies through consolidation. And instead of hundreds of engine designs that were given 1950, there were probably in the US, I don't know, 12 engine designs or something like that. Stuff got standardized — we'll see the same thing happen in space — but you also saw an enormous ecosystem of companies building batteries, tires, transmissions, parts, wipers, all sorts of little things and servicing in an industry to service the automobile. Now, rockets are a lot more centralized and high-tech, but you're going to see something like that in the space economy, and it's already happening.A new role for NASA (17:27)I think NASA should get more ambitious in deep-space flight, both crewed and uncrewed.What do you see NASA should be doing? We don't want them designing rockets anymore, so what should they do? What does that portfolio look like?That's an excellent question. I think that we are in this pivotal time when, because of the success of SpaceX, and hopefully soon other vendors, they can relieve themselves of that responsibility to build their own rockets. That gets out of a lot of the problems of Congress meddling to maximize pork flowing to their states and all of that kind of stuff. So that's a positive in itself.Perhaps a bug rather than a feature for Congress.Right, but it also means that technology will move much, much faster as private companies are innovating and competing with each other. That gives NASA an opportunity. What should they do with it? I think NASA should get more ambitious in deep-space flight, both crewed and uncrewed. Because it'll get much cheaper to get cargo into orbit to get payload up there, as I said, they can launch more science missions, and then when it comes to human missions, I like the overall plan of Artemis. The details were really pulled together during the first Trump administration, which had a really good space policy overall, which is to return to the moon, set up a permanent or long-term habitation on the moon. The way NASA sketches it out, not all the burden is carried by NASA.They envision — or did envision — a kind of ecosystem on the moon where you might have private vendors there providing services. You might have a company that mines ice and makes oxygen, and fuel, and water for the residents of these space stations. You might have somebody else building habitation that could be used by visiting scientists who are not NASA astronauts, but also used by NASA.There's all this possibility to combine what NASA does with the private sector, and what NASA should always do is be focused on the stuff the private sector can't yet do. That would be the deep-space probes. That would be sending astronauts on the most daring non-routine missions. As the private sector develops the ability to do some of those things, then NASA can move on to the next thing. That's one set of goals.Another set of goals is to do the research into technologies, things that are hard for the private sector to undertake. In particular, things like new propulsion for deep-space travel. There's a couple of different designs for nuclear rocket engines that I think are really promising, super efficient. Sadly, under the current budget cuts that are proposed at NASA, that's one of the programs that's being cut, and if you really want to do deep space travel routinely, ultimately, chemical fuels, they're not impossible, but they're not as feasible because you've got to get all that heavy — whatever your fuel is, methane or whatever it is — up into either into orbit or you've got to manufacture it on the moon or somewhere. The energy density of plutonium or uranium is just so much higher and it just allows you to do so much more with lighter weight. So I'd like to see them research those kinds of things that no individual private company could really afford to do at this point, and then when the technology is more mature, hand it off to the private sector.American space leadership (21:17)Exploration's never been totally safe, and if people want to take risks on behalf of a spirit of adventure and on behalf of humanity at large, I say we let them.If things go well —reforms, funding, lower launch costs — what does America's role in space look like in 10 to 15 years, and what's your concern if things go a darker route, like cutting nuclear engine research you were just talking about?I'll sketch out the bright scenario. This is very up your alley, Jim.Yeah, I viewed this as a good thing, so you tell me what it is.In 15 years I would love to see a small permanent colony at the south pole of the moon where you can harvest ice from the craters and maybe you'd have some habitation there, maybe even a little bit of space tourism starting up. People turn up their nose at space tourism, but it's a great way to help fund really important research. Remember the Golden Age of Exploration, James Cook and Darwin, those expeditions were self-funded. They were funded by rich people. If rich people want to go to space, I say I'm all for it.So a little base on the moon, important research going on, we're learning how to have people live on a foreign body, NASA is gathering tons of information and training for the next goal, which I think is even more important: I do agree we should get people to Mars. I don't think we should bypass the moon to get to Mars, I don't think that's feasible, that's what Elon Musk keeps suggesting. I think it's too soon for that. We want to learn about how people handle living off-planet for a long period of time closer to home — and how to mine ice and how to do all these things — closer to home, three or four days away, not months and months away. If something goes wrong, they'll be a lot more accessible.But I'd like to see, by then, some Mars missions and maybe an attempt to start the first long-term habitation of Mars. I don't think we're going to see that in 10 years, but I think that's a great goal, and I don't think it's a goal that taxpayers should be expected to fund 100 percent. I think by then we should see even more partnerships where the private companies that really want to do this — and I'm looking at Elon Musk because he's been talking about it for 20 years — they should shoulder a lot of the costs of that. If they see a benefit in that, they should also bear some of the costs. So that's the bright scenario.Along with that, all kinds of stuff going on in low-earth orbit: manufacturing drugs, seeing if you can harness solar energy, private space stations, better communications, and a robust science program exploring deep space with unmanned spacecraft. I'd like to see all of that. I think that could be done for a reasonable amount of money with the proper planning.The darker scenario is that we've just had too much chaos and indecision in NASA for years. We think of NASA as being this agency of great exploration, but they've done very little for 20 years . . . I take that back — NASA's uncrewed space program has had a lot of successes. It's done some great stuff. But when it comes to manned space flight, it's pretty much just been the International Space Station, and I think we've gotten most of the benefit out of that. They're planning to retire that in 2030. So then what happens? After we retired the Space Shuttle, space practically went into a very low-growth period. We haven't had a human being outside of low-earth orbit since Apollo, and that's embarrassing, frankly. We should be much more ambitious.I'm afraid we're entering a period where, without strong leadership and without a strong focus on really grand goals, then Congress will reassert its desire to use NASA as a piggy bank for their states and districts and aerospace manufacturers will build the stuff they're asked to build, but nothing will move very quickly. That's the worst-case scenario. We'll see, but right now, with all of the kind of disorder in Washington, I think we are in a period where we should be concerned.Can America still call itself the world's space leader if its role is mainly launching things into Earth orbit, with private companies running space stations for activities like drug testing or movie production if, meanwhile, China is building space stations and establishing a presence on the Moon? In that scenario, doesn't it seem like China is the world's leader in space?That's a real issue. China has a coherent nationalistic plan for space, and they are pursuing it, they're pouring a lot of resources into it, and they're making a lot of headway. As always, when China rolls out its new, cutting-edge technology, it usually looks a lot like something originally built in the US, and they're certainly following SpaceX's model as closely as they can in terms of reusable rockets right now.China wants to get to the moon. They see this as a space race the way the Soviets saw a space race. It's a battle for national prestige. One thing that worries me, is under the Artemis plan during the first Trump administration, there was also something called the Artemis Accords — it still exists — which is an international agreement among countries to A) join in where they can if they want, with various American initiatives. So we've got partners that we're planning to build different parts of the Artemis program, including a space station around the moon called Gateway, which actually isn't the greatest idea, but the European Space Agency and others were involved in helping build it.But also, all these countries, more than 50 countries have signed on to these aspirational goals of the Artemis Accords, which are: freedom of navigation, shared use of space, going for purposes of peaceful exploration, being transparent about what you're doing in space so that other countries can see it, avoiding generating more space junk, space debris, which is a huge problem with all the stuff we've got up there now, including a lot of old decrepit satellites and rocket bodies. So committing to not just leaving your upper-stage rocket bodies drifting around in space. A lot of different good goals, and the fact that all these countries wanted to join in on this shows America's preeminence. But if we back away, or become chaotic, or start disrespecting those allies who've signed on, they're going to look for another partner in space and China is going to roll out the red carpet for them.You get a phone call from SpaceX. They've made some great leap forwards. That Starship, it's ready to go to Mars. They're going to create a human habitation out there. They need a journalist. By the way, it's a one-way trip. Do you go?I don't go to Mars. I've got family here. That comes first for me. But I know some people want to do that, and I think that we should celebrate that. The space journalist Rand Simberg wrote a book years ago called Safe Is Not An Option — that we should not be too hung up on trying to make space exploration totally safe. Exploration's never been totally safe, and if people want to take risks on behalf of a spirit of adventure and on behalf of humanity at large, I say we let them. So maybe that first trip to Mars is a one-way trip, or at least a one-way for a couple of years until more flights become feasible and more back-and-forth return flights become something that can be done routinely. It doesn't really appeal to me, but it'll appeal to somebody, and I'm glad we have those kinds of people in our society.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads▶ Economics* Trump economy shows surprising resilience despite tariff impacts - Wapo* Supply Chains Become New Battleground in the Global Trade War - WSJ* This A.I. Company Wants to Take Your Job - NYT* The Mirage of Geoeconomics - PS* Japan urged to use gloomier population forecasts after plunge in births - FT* Europe's nuclear fusion potential draws record investment round - FT▶ Business* How Disney's AI lawsuit could shift the future of entertainment - Wapo* Meta plans big bet on AI's secret ingredient: human brains - FT* Nvidia and Perplexity Team Up in European AI Push - WSJ* CRMArena-Pro: Holistic Assessment of LLM Agents Across Diverse Business Scenarios and Interactions - Arxiv* Fervo Snags $206 Million for Cape Station Geothermal - Heatmap* BYD launches cut-price EVs in Europe amid global price war - Semafor▶ Policy/Politics* The right refuses to take AI seriously - Vox* The Gig Economy Benefits Freelance Workers—Until Regulation Steps In - AEI* The war is on for Congress' AI law ban - The Verge* Disney and Universal Sue AI Company Midjourney for Copyright Infringement - Wired* Big Tech Is Finally Losing - NYT Opinion* American Science's Culture Has Contributed to the Grave Threat It Now Faces - Real Clear Science▶ AI/Digital* New Apple study challenges whether AI models truly “reason” through problems - Ars* The problem of AI chatbots telling people what they want to hear - FT* With the launch of o3-pro, let's talk about what AI “reasoning” actually does - Ars* ‘This is coming for everyone': A new kind of AI bot takes over the web - Wapo* Europe's AI computing shortage ‘will be resolved' soon, says Nvidia chief - FT* We're Not Ready for the AI Power Surge - Free Press▶ Biotech/Health* Pancreatic cancer vaccine eradicates trace of disease in early trials - New Atlas* World first: brain implant lets man speak with expression — and sing - Nature* The Alzheimer's drug pipeline is healthier than you might think - The Economist▶ Clean Energy/Climate* Big Tech Cares About Clean Energy Tax Credits — But Maybe Not Enough - Heatmap* Nvidia ‘Climate in a Bottle' Opens a View Into Earth's Future. What Will We Do With It? - WSJ* Oil's Lost Decade Is About to Be Repeated - Bberg Opinion* How the Pentagon Secretly Sparked America's Clean Energy Boom - The Debrief▶ Space/Transportation* Musk-Trump feud is a wake-up call on space - FT* Trump's 2026 budget cuts would force the world's most powerful solar telescope to close - Space▶ Up Wing/Down Wing* ‘Invasive Species'? Japan's Growing Pains on Immigration - Bberg Opinion* Incredible Testimonies - Aeon* How and When Was the Wheel Invented? - Real Clear Science▶ Substacks/Newsletters* Trump's "beautiful" bill wrecks our energy future - Slow Boring* DOGE Looked Broken Before the Trump-Musk Breakup - The Dispatch* Steve Teles on abundance: prehistory, present, and future - The Permanent Problem* Is Macroeconomics a Mature Science? - Conversable EconomistFaster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

We welcomed Jim Meigs from the Manhattan Institute to the program to discuss his paper, "U.S. Space Policy: The Next Frontier", space news including a changed in the proposed NASA Administrator plus the argument with President Trump and Elon Musk. The meeting considered the potential impact of the dispute and administrator change on space policy and projects, including NASA's future leadership and priorities. Jim, along with program participants on both Zoom and the live stream explored various challenges and uncertainties surrounding NASA's human space program, including budget concerns, mission timelines, and the need for private sector involvement. The group also discussed potential alternatives for U.S. space exploration, including more collaboration between different commercial space companies, while addressing the ongoing feud between Trump and Musk. Programs such as Artemis, Starship, timelines, even the need to restructure the FAA for both aviation and space plus NASA as a more entrepreneurial organization were both part of our discussion and Jim's paper. Please read the full summary of this program on The Space Show archives and our Substack page, doctorspace.substack.com.

1/2: #HARVARD: ANTISEMITISM IS NEITHER FREEDOM OF SPEECH NOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM. TAL FORTGANG, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, CIVITAS INSTITUTE 1910 HARVARD YALE

2/2: #HARVARD: ANTISEMITISM IS NEITHER FREEDOM OF SPEECH NOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM. TAL FORTGANG, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, CIVITAS INSTITUTE 1917 YALE

Greg Brady spoke with Stephen Eide, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute about Marijuana and the Mentally ill. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bestselling author and journalist Douglas Murray joins Dr. Phil for a fearless deep dive into the ideological battles defining today's geopolitical crises. From Hamas' invasion on October 7th to the rise of anti-Israel sentiment in Western institutions, Murray dismantles the narratives fueling the global debate. How does legacy media shape public perception? Why are Hollywood and Jewish leaders hesitant to speak out? And what does Gaza's military infrastructure reveal about Hamas' strategy? This conversation isn't just about the Middle East—it's about the crisis facing Western democracies, the erosion of resilience, and the fight for heroism in an age of indoctrination. This episode challenges the narratives shaping today's conflicts—will you rethink what you've been told?” More about Douglas Murray: Author of 8 books, including On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization (2025), The War on the West (2022), The Madness of Crowds (2019), and The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (2017). He has been a contributor to Spectator since 2000 and associate editor since 2012. He is a columnist at the New York Post and regularly writes for the Telegraph and the Sun. Mr. Murray is also a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor of City Journal. https://douglasmurray.net/  Thank you to our sponsors: Jase Medical: Get emergency antibiotics at https://Jase.com/  & use code PHIL for a discount Echo Water: Find your flow state. Visit https://echowater.com/PHIL/ & Use code PHIL for 10% off. Balance of Nature: Visit: https://balanceofnature.com/  or call 1.800.246.8751 and get this special offer by using Discount Code: “DRPHIL”. Get a FREE Fiber & Spice supplement, plus 35% OFF your first preferred set as a new Preferred Customer, with free shipping and our money-back guarantee. Start your journey with Balance of Nature. Preserve Gold: Visit: https://drphilgold.com/  Get a FREE precious metals guide that contains essential information on how to help protect your accounts. Text “DRPHIL” to 50505 to claim this exclusive offer from Preserve Gold today. Ready to give MASA a try? Go to https://MASAChips.com/MERIT/  and use code MERIT for 25% off your first order.

Preview: Colleague Tal Fortgang of the Manhattan Institute comments on Harvard University President Alan Garber asserting academic freedom to fend off Trump administration alarm at antisemitism tolerated on campus and in departments. More later. 1910

Nicole Gelinas, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, a columnist at the New York Post and the author of the new book, Movement: New York's Long War to Take Back Its Streets from the Car (Fordham Univ Press, 2024), and Dave Colon, reporter for Streetsblog NYC, talk about the mayoral candidates' proposals for making mass transit safe, affordable and reliable and for managing the "chaos" of use of streets by pedestrians, two-wheeled vehicles, and cars.

Join Aaron Renn as he sits down with Philip Howard, founder of Common Good, to discuss the crippling bureaucratic red tape stifling America's ability to build and innovate. In this eye-opening episode, Howard delves into his Manhattan Institute paper, Escape from Quicksand: A New Framework for Modernizing America, revealing how a compliance-driven system has paralyzed infrastructure projects—like the $42.5 billion broadband initiative with zero results after four years. From the New Deal's rapid achievements to today's endless legal labyrinths, Howard proposes a bold solution: a framework rooted in human responsibility and accountability to restore America's can-do spirit. Tune in to learn why we're stuck, how we got here, and what it'll take to break free.CHAPTERS(00:00 - Introduction)(01:00 - The Problem: America's Bureaucratic Quicksand)(04:13 - New Deal vs. Today: A Stark Contrast)(09:13 - Extortion by Law: How the System Enables Delays)(15:27 - Solutions: Rebuilding a Framework for Action)(23:02 - Political Challenges: Why Reform is Tough)(29:01 - The Role of the Judiciary in Blocking Progress)(37:43 - Conclusion: A Call to Replace the System)Escape from Quicksand A New Framework for Modernizing America - https://manhattan.institute/article/escape-from-quicksand-a-new-framework-for-modernizing-americaCommon Good - https://www.commongood.org/Subscribe to my newsletter: https://www.aaronrenn.com/

Originally Recorded April 22nd, 2025About Heather Mac Donald: https://manhattan.institute/person/heather-mac-donaldCheck out Heather's book When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives: https://www.amazon.com/When-Race-Trumps-Merit-Sacrifices/dp/1956007164 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit musicallyspeaking.substack.com

Host Scot Bertram talks with Bradley Birzer, professor of history and Russell Amos Kirk Chair in American Studies at Hillsdale College, about the writings and enduring legacy of Ray Bradbury. And Jason L. Riley, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, discusses the ramifications of affirmative action initiatives in the black community and his new book, The Affirmative Action […]

Guests: Bradley Birzer & Jason L. Riley Host Scot Bertram talks with Bradley Birzer, professor of history and Russell Amos Kirk Chair in American Studies at Hillsdale College, about the writings and enduring legacy of Ray Bradbury. And Jason L. Riley, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, discusses the ramifications of affirmative action initiatives in the black community and his new book, The Affirmative Action Myth: Why Blacks Don’t Need Racial Preferences to Succeed.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, Chuck and Sam are joined by Oren Cass, chief economist at American Compass and editor of a new book, The New Conservatives, to define conservatism and discuss how conservatism needs to return to its roots by focusing on the ends—human flourishing and national well-being—rather than just making sure people have more stuff than they did the year before. Later, Ashley Rindsberg, senior editor at Pirate Wires and author of The Gray Lady Winked, joins the show to expose how Wikipedia and Reddit have been manipulated by coordinated left-wing and pro-Hamas influence campaigns. He also brakes down NPR's media entitlement mindset and how tech platforms are being exploited for data poisoning. Then on Kiley's Corner, Kiley updates us on her ongoing turf war with a mockingbird and discusses the harrowing story of a mother who shot a man attempting to sexually assault her 12-year-old daughter. Tune in—you don't want to miss this one!www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegroundsTruth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@breakingbattlegroundsShow sponsors:Invest Yrefy - investyrefy.comOld Glory DepotSupport American jobs while standing up for your values. OldGloryDepot.com brings you conservative pride on premium, made-in-USA gear. Don't settle—wear your patriotism proudly.Learn more at: OldGloryDepot.comDot VoteWith a .VOTE website, you ensure your political campaign stands out among the competition while simplifying how you reach voters.Learn more at: dotvote.vote4Freedom MobileExperience true freedom with 4Freedom Mobile, the exclusive provider offering nationwide coverage on all three major US networks (Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile) with just one SIM card. Our service not only connects you but also shields you from data collection by network operators, social media platforms, government agencies, and more.Use code ‘Battleground' to get your first month for $9 and save $10 a month every month after.Learn more at: 4FreedomMobile.comAbout our guest:Oren Cass is the founder and chief economist of American Compass and editor of the forthcoming The New Conservatives: Restoring America's Commitment to Family, Community, and Industry (June 3, 2025). He is a contributing opinion writer for the Financial Times and the New York Times. His 2018 book, The Once and Future Worker: A Vision for the Renewal of Work in America has been called “absolutely brilliant” by New York Times columnist David Brooks and “A brilliant book. And among the most important I've ever read” by Vice President JD Vance.From 2005 to 2015, Oren worked as a management consultant in Bain & Company's Boston and Delhi offices. During this period, he also earned his J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was elected vice president and treasurer of the Harvard Law Review and oversaw the journal's budget and operations. While still in law school, Oren also became Domestic Policy Director for Governor Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, editing and producing the campaign's “jobs book” and developing its domestic policy strategy, proposals, and research. He joined the Manhattan Institute as a senior fellow in 2015 and became a prolific scholar, publishing more than 15 reports for MI and editing its popular “Issues 2016” and “Issues 2020” series, testifying before seven congressional committees and speaking on dozens of college campuses. He founded American Compass at the start of 2020. You can follow him on X @oren_cass. Purchase his book here. -Ashley Rindsberg is the Co-founder and CEO of Alitheum, a technology company dedicated to measuring media reliability. He is also a Senior Editor at Pirate Wires and the bestselling author of The Gray Lady Winked, which explores how misreporting by The New York Times has shaped history. An accomplished investigative journalist, Rindsberg has broken major stories on national security, COVID-19, China, and media influence. A former media executive, he has helped shape some of today's most influential media brands. You can follow him on X @AshleyRindsberg. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

Manhattan Institute's Ilya Shapiro, Newsbusters' Nick Fondacro, Senator Ron Johnson, Noble Gold's Collin Plume, Victim Annette Flynn, Rep. Glenn Grothman

Heather Mac Donald discusses the Trump administration's free speech record amidst its battles with higher ed, mainstream media, law firms, and more. Mac Donald is Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Her most recent book is “When race trumps merit: How the pursuit of equity sacrifices excellence, destroys beauty, and threatens lives.” Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 01:54 Mac Donald's personal experience with being shouted down 05:34 Amy Wax, Carole Hooven, and other cancelled professors 11:04 Mac Donald's support and concern on Trump's free speech approach 23:41 Rümeysa Öztürk situation 32:08 The problems of campus bureaucracy 36:40 Trump's executive orders on law firms 43:14 Trump's attacks on AP News, CBS, ABC, Paramount, and other media companies 59:54 Outro Read the transcript. Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org. Show notes: “The White House's clumsy attack on Harvard” (2025) Heather Mac Donald “Everyone knows that Harvard has “lost its way…” (2025) President Trump via Truth Social “Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Mike Benz” (2025) U.S. Department of State  “Tufts student returns to Massachusetts after 6 weeks in immigration detention” (2025) The New York Times “Headlines compared: Kamala Harris' multiple answers to ‘60 Minutes' question” (2024) Straight Arrow News

In this episode of Disunion, host David R. Osborne is joined by Will Sussman of the Manhattan Institute to discuss a disturbing development out of Massachusetts: the state's largest teachers union, the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA), has come under fire for promoting anti-Semitic classroom materials.Will and David break down the details of a shocking legislative hearing, where lawmakers confronted union leadership about educational resources linked to pro-Hamas propaganda and inflammatory imagery—including a Star of David made of dollar bills and posters glorifying political violence.The conversation explores how radical ideologies have gained influence in government unions, the limits of union democracy, and how exclusive representation leaves many educators stuck with a union that doesn't reflect their values. Will also shares insights from his own legal battles and raises a critical question: who really controls our public schools?

On this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scot Bertram is joined by two guests with different viewpoints about whether federal involvement safeguards or endangers free speech on college campuses. First on the show is Keith E. Whittington, is the David Boies Professor of Law at Yale Law School and founding chair of the Academic Freedom Alliance. Later, we hear from Charles Fain Lehman, fellow at the Manhattan Institute and senior editor of City Journal. You can find Keith on X @kewhittington and Charles at @CharlesFLehman. Both have written essays at The Dispatch on this topic. Whittington's can be found here while Lehman's can be found here.

Tal Takes Us Inside An Article He Wrote On The Defunding Of Harvard And Other Universities Practicing Anti Semitism

Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock this episode and our entire premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, ended its relationship with noted Brown University economist Glenn Loury after he was critical of Israel's actions in Gaza. The cancelation followed an appearance from fellow Brown professor and Israeli historian Omar Bartov on his podcast, during which Bartov offered an analysis of the Gaza genocide that reflected international consensus on Israeli violations of international law. Professor Loury joins Briahna Joy Gray for a must-watch two hour discussion in which Loury reflects on his career as a Black conservative, Ta-Nehesi Coates' book The Message, and the fact that his own Blackness informs his sympathetic attitude toward the Palestinian people. Does identity matter after all? As conservatives attempt to strip funding from the National African American History Museum and obstruct educators from teaching diverse histories, does Loury have any regrets about supporting attacks on "woke" pedagogy? Also, Loury debriefs on his viral interview with Tucker Carlson, and how his lefty wife has helped him to become more establishment in recent years. Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod).

Jason Riley, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, joins Paul E. Peterson to discuss Riley's new book, The Affirmative Action Myth: Why Blacks Don't Need Racial Preferences to Succeed.

This week, we present a special recording of a recent PRI webinar with Jason Riley, Manhattan Institute fellow and longtime Wall Street Journal columnist.  Lance Izumi, senior director of PRI's Center for Education, interviews Jason about his new book, The Affirmative Action Myth (Basic Books).

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: 6:05pm- On Friday, the House Budget Committee failed to advance a Republican tax and spending bill through the committee vote—with Republican Congressmen Chip Roy, Ralph Norman, Josh Brecheen, Andrew Clyde, and Lloyd Smucker voting no on the measure. The final tally was 16-21. The committee is expected to vote on the bill again late Sunday night. 6:30pm- Ilya Shapiro—Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute— joins The Rich Zeoli Show from The Republican National Lawyers Association's (RNLA) 2025 National Policy Conference in Washington D.C. Shapiro is author of the book, “Lawless: The Miseducation of America's Elites.” 6:40pm- Lee Goodman—former Federal Elections Commission Chairman—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from The Republican National Lawyers Association's (RNLA) 2025 National Policy Conference in Washington D.C.

Ann talks to John Tierney about how males' natural chivalry is being used against them, the bogus studies that plague the work of “Gender Studies,” and the “joy” of composting. John Tierney is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor to City Journal. Tierney has significant experience in print and media, […]

Ann talks to John Tierney about how males' natural chivalry is being used against them, the bogus studies that plague the work of "Gender Studies," and the "joy" of composting.John Tierney is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor to City Journal. Tierney has significant experience in print and media, including more than two decades as a reporter and columnist with the New York Times.

  On this episode of the podcast Razib talks to John Sailer. Sailer is currently the director of higher education policy and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He covers issues of academic freedom, free speech, and ideological capture in higher education. Sailer has written for the Wall Street Journal, the Free Press and Tablet Magazine. Sailer holds a master's degree in philosophy and education from Columbia University, and a bachelor's degree in politics, philosophy, and economics from The King's College. Prior to joining the Manhattan Institute, he was a senior fellow at the National Association of Scholars. Following on last week's podcast with Jacob Shell, Razib continues to discuss the rise and fall of woke politics in academia, and the current backlash exploding out of the Trump administration. Sailer discusses his previous work back to 2020 showing how blatant universities became in their discriminatory policies against white males in particular, and how easy it was to demonstrate this dynamic with even the most minimal level of due diligence like freedom of information requests. They also discuss the reality that universities are attempting to adjust to a new landscape with the administration pressuring them to revoke DEI policies, while many faculty are urging that they instead dig in their heels. Higher education is adapting, but Sailer argues that since fundamental values have not changed, some evasion is to be expected.

The first 100 days of President Trump's second term have come with a wide range of changes for the nation's economy and global supply chains. Could these changes lead to a more prosperous America, or hardship for individuals and businesses? In partnership with Bloomberg, five renowned economists look at President Trump's economic agenda during his first 100 days and discuss tariffs as a strategy, whether deregulation is good for growth, and whether the President's "medicine" means a recession.  Jason Furman, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government    Allison Schrager, Economist, Bloomberg Opinion Contributor & Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute    Stephen Moore, Former Senior Economic Advisor to President Trump; Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation; Co-founder of Unleash Prosperity    Mariana Mazzucato, Professor of Economics at University College London; Author of "Mission Economy"  Jeff Ferry, Chief Economist Emeritus at the Coalition for a Prosperous America; Previous Tech Executive  Mishal Husain, Editor-at-Large for Bloomberg Weekend, is the guest moderator.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Not everyone will like this argument. Jason Riley, the Wall Street Journal columnist and author of The Affirmative Action Myth, argues that affirmative action policies have been counterproductive for Black Americans. He contends that Black Americans were making faster economic and educational progress before affirmative action policies began in the late 1960s. Riley claims these policies primarily benefit upper-class Blacks while setting up many poorer students for failure by placing them in institutions where they struggle academically. He advocates for colorblind policies rather than racial preferences, arguing that historically Black colleges continue to effectively educate Black professionals, and that integration should not take precedence over educational outcomes. Five key takeaways* Riley argues that Black Americans were making faster economic and educational progress before affirmative action policies were implemented in the late 1960s, with gaps narrowing between Black and white Americans.* He claims affirmative action primarily benefits upper-class Black Americans rather than addressing poverty, with the wealthiest 20% seeing gains while the poorest 20% fell behind.* Riley contends that racial preferences in college admissions set up many Black students for failure by placing them in institutions where they're academically mismatched, leading to higher dropout rates.* He emphasizes that historically Black colleges continue to produce disproportionate numbers of Black professionals, suggesting racial integration of classrooms shouldn't take precedence over educational outcomes.* Riley advocates for colorblind policies rather than racial preferences, arguing that such an approach would better promote Black upward mobility and reduce racial divisiveness.Jason Riley is an opinion columnist at The Wall Street Journal, where his column, Upward Mobility, has run since 2016. He is also a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and provides television commentary for various news outlets. Mr. Riley, a 2018 Bradley Prize recipient, is the author of four books: “Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders” (2008); “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (2014); “False Black Power?” (2017); and “Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell” (2021). Mr. Riley joined the paper in 1994 as a copy reader on the national news desk in New York. He moved to the editorial page in 1995, was named a senior editorial page writer in 2000, and became a member of the Editorial Board in 2005. He joined the Manhattan Institute in 2015. Born in Buffalo, New York, Mr. Riley earned a bachelor's degree in English from the State University of New York at Buffalo. He has also worked for USA Today and the Buffalo News.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Charles Fain Lehman, Rafael Mangual, Renu Mukherjee, and Tal Fortgang discuss the latest Columbia University student protest, the Trump administration's fight with Harvard, and highlights from the Manhattan Institute's annual Alexander Hamilton Award Dinner.

We may be at an inflection point in higher education in America. When university presidents can’t acknowledge antisemitism on campus, that’s a problem. John D. Sailer of The Manhattan Institute joins Michele to discuss how colleges and universities might find a way to right the ship. Michele Tafoya is a four-time Emmy award-winning sportscaster turned political and cultural commentator. Record-setting, four-time Sports Emmy Award winner Michele Tafoya worked her final NBC Sunday Night Football game at Super Bowl LVI on February 13, 2022, her fifth Super Bowl. She retired from sportscasting the following day. In total, she covered 327 games — the most national primetime TV games (regular + postseason) for an NFL sideline reporter. Learn More about “The Michele Tafoya Podcast” here: https://linktr.ee/micheletafoya Subscribe to “The Michele Tafoya Podcast” here: https://apple.co/3nPW221 Follow Michele on twitter: https://twitter.com/Michele_Tafoya Follow Michele on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/realmicheletafoya/ Learn more about the Salem Podcast network: https://salempodcastnetwork.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We may be at an inflection point in higher education in America. When university presidents can’t acknowledge antisemitism on campus, that’s a problem. John D. Sailer of The Manhattan Institute joins Michele to discuss how colleges and universities might find a way to right the ship. Michele Tafoya is a four-time Emmy award-winning sportscaster turned political and cultural commentator. Record-setting, four-time Sports Emmy Award winner Michele Tafoya worked her final NBC Sunday Night Football game at Super Bowl LVI on February 13, 2022, her fifth Super Bowl. She retired from sportscasting the following day. In total, she covered 327 games — the most national primetime TV games (regular + postseason) for an NFL sideline reporter. Learn More about “The Michele Tafoya Podcast” here: https://linktr.ee/micheletafoya Subscribe to “The Michele Tafoya Podcast” here: https://apple.co/3nPW221 Follow Michele on twitter: https://twitter.com/Michele_Tafoya Follow Michele on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/realmicheletafoya/ Learn more about the Salem Podcast network: https://salempodcastnetwork.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An Interview with Christopher Rufo, Writer, Filmmaker and Commentator For more than half a century, many of America's most revered institutions have been infiltrated with ideas that run counter to the country's founding principles. This ideological capture has been acute within prestigious universities, to the point where the opportunity for viewpoint diversity continues to be under severe threat.  Yet, according to our guest on this episode of Voices of Freedom, all is not lost. In fact, he believes that there has been an ideological shift not only within higher education, but in society, politics, culture and in civic institutions. And, he says, it's only beginning.   Christ Rufo discusses how his unique background, which is rooted in both scholarship and filmmaking, has led him to believe that it's possible and vital to restore the principles of American exceptionalism.  Topics Discussed on this Episode Why Chris went into documentary filmmaking upon graduation from Georgetown University. What Chris learned directing documentaries and why he focused on urban areas How Chris' filmmaking experience turned him into an advocate for solutions to the problems he was seeing Reversing the ideological capture of higher universities and how to turn ideas rooted in scholarship into reality. Opportunities to change the culture in institutions that seem permanently captured, such as government, higher education, and entertainment Why the younger generation is gravitating towards values and ideals traditionally tied to free enterprise, liberty and free speech The rise of independent media and how it has contributed to the cultural shift What it means to receive a Bradley Prize About Christopher Rufo  Rufo is a bestselling author, filmmaker and commentator, whose work has significantly influenced contemporary American culture and policies. He's also a senior fellow and director of the initiative on critical race theory at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. Rufo is a 2025 Bradley Prize winner.

The Rod and Greg Show Daily Rundown – Tuesday, May 6, 20254:20 pm: Congressman Burgess Owens joins the show for a conversation about recent reports that sports apparel company Nike funded a transgender athlete study, possibly to justify allowing boys to play girls sports.4:38 pm: Christopher Ferguson, a Professor of Psychology at Stetson University, joins the show to discuss his recent piece for Real Clear Investigations about how recent stats do not support cell phone bans in our nation's schools.6:05 pm: Senator Kirk Cullimore joins the program for a conversation about Utah being ranked the top state in the nation for the third consecutive year by U.S. News & World Report, and what must happen to continue to improve.6:38 pm: Neetu Arnold, Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute, joins the show to discuss her article about a new merit pay program for teachers in Houston, Texas.6:50 pm: Utah First Lady Abby Cox joins Rod for a conversation about the Live On Suicide Prevention Program.

Free speech has become one of the most contentious issues in American politics, but what does it actually mean today? On the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro of the Manhattan Institute and New York Times free speech reporter Jeremy Peters. They discuss  how free expression is being defined—and challenged—on university campuses and by the Trump administration, particularly when it comes to national immigration policy. “The dynamic of ‘free speech for me but not for thee' is prevalent,” Shapiro warns, pointing to inconsistent enforcement of campus speech rules and a broader “illiberalism” taking hold in higher education.The conversation turns to the Trump administration's aggressive response to Israel/Gaza protests, including efforts to penalize non-citizen students for their political speech. Peters cautions that this approach may violate the very rights the administration claims to defend. “Rather than execute a clean policy to support free speech,” he says, “they're using blunt force to try to deport people who didn't do anything terribly wrong.” The potential legal battles ahead could determine how far the government can go in defining speech as a national security issue—especially for non-citizens.Both guests acknowledge that antisemitism on campus has become a flashpoint, but differ on how it's being addressed. Shapiro argues that while not all anti-Israel sentiment is antisemitic, many protesters are crossing that line: “It's possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic, but it's very rare in my experience.” Peters agrees the issue is complex and evolving, noting that universities “seem much more focused on preventing antisemitism than they were just a year ago.” Together, the guests raise urgent questions about the balance between expression, identity, and institutional responsibility in a sharply divided political landscape.Host: Ian BremmerGuest: Ilya Shapiro & Jeremy Peters Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.

The White House unveiled a budget proposal that would cut billions from non-defense programs across the government. President Trump's $163 billion in spending cuts would hit health, housing, education and climate programs. White House correspondent Laura Barrón-López discussed more with Jessica Reidl of the Manhattan Institute, who was also the chief economist for former GOP Sen. Rob Portman. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Today's disagreement is about college campus detentions, due process, and free speech.We focus on the two most high-profile cases: Mahmoud Khalil: a green card holder, legal resident, and graduate student at Columbia University who had a leadership role within CUAD, which stands for Columbia University Apartheid Divest; and Rümeysa Öztürk: a graduate student at Tufts University who is a student visa holder. She co-authored an op-ed in the campus newspaper supporting a resolution to divest from Israel. We also briefly touch on the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case and President Bukele's recent visit to the oval office.Is there a legal basis for these deportations and what are the implications for free speech and due process? What does it mean to be an American? What kind of country do we want to live in? Are these deportations “good for the Jews”?Graeme Wood is a staff writer for The Atlantic and a lecturer in political science at Yale University, where he has taught since 2014. Graeme has been a Press Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a visiting professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and a fellow at the United States Naval Academy.Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. He writes a Substack called Shapiro's Gavel and his new book is called Lawless: The Miseducation of America's Elites.One note: We had a few issues with audio quality - it's not up to our normal standards - but it should not significantly impact your listening experience. Alright, take a deep breath, open your mind as far as it's willing to go, and prepare for a different kind of conversation on campus deportations.Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

00:37- Trump Rally in Michigan 49:43- Hogan Gidley, Former National Press Secretary for the Trump campaign, former White House Deputy Press Secretary, and a Newsmax contributor Topic: Trump's first 100 days rally 59:16- Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and a New York Times bestselling author Topic: "Trump is restoring merit — by slaying rules that enforce reverse discrimination" (New York Post op ed) 1:10:38- Stephen Moore, "Joe Piscopo Show" Resident Scholar of Economics, Chairman of FreedomWorks Task Force on Economic Revival, former Trump economic adviser and the author of "The Trump Economic Miracle: And the Plan to Unleash Prosperity Again" Topic: Economy at the 100-day mark of Trump's administration 1:26:56- Liz Peek, Fox News contributor, columnist for Fox News and The Hill, and former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company Topic: "Ignore biased polls, Trump voters love his first 100 days" (Fox News op ed) 1:36:45- Chris Swecker, attorney who served as assistant director of the FBI for the Criminal Investigative Division from 2004 to 2006 Topic: Suspected ISIS terrorist arrested in New Orleans Bourbon Street attack 2:01:49- Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, host of "The DerShow," and the author of "The Ten Big Anti-Israel Lies: And How to Refute Them with Truth" Topic: Harvard reports on antisemitism, 220 lawsuits in 100 days 2:10:17- Michael Goodwin, Chief Political Columnist for the New York Post Topic: Trump’s first 100 days illustrate his strengths and mindset —decisive, bold, and in a hurry (New York Post op ed)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

0:00 - Axios' Alex Thompson, award recipient at WHCA dinner, spins the "errors" committed by press on Biden mental capacity 12:44 - Homan: if you impede, you will be prosecuted 30:24 - The Kiffness: Vote4Pets Tour 33:18 - SPORTS & POLITICS 50:04 - Gov Pritzker is trying to change Texas BLUE 01:08:51 - In-depth History with Frank from Arlington Heights 01:11:05 - Scott McKay, publisher of the Hayride & senior editor at the American Spectator, lauds Trump's first 100 days in office. Check out Scott’s novels King Of The Jungle & From Hellmarsh With Love 01:30:00 - President at Wirepoints, Ted Dabrowski: Not a single child tested proficient in math in 80 Illinois schools. Get Ted’s latest wirepoints.org 01:43:42 - Daniel B. Klein, professor of economics at George Mason University, explains why Trump should fight globalism, not globalisation. Check out Dan’s most recent book Misinformation Is a Word We Use to Shut You Up 02:02:27 - Rafael Mangual, senior fellow and head of research for the Manhattan Institute’s Policing and Public Safety Initiative: The Left Keeps Getting It Wrong on Crime. Get Raf’s most recent book Criminal (In)Justice: What the Push for Mass-Decarceration and Depolicing Gets Wrong, and Who It Hurts Most.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ten years ago this month we launched our first show at a time of new beginnings for podcasts. We were early to this game, and well before podcasting became part of mainstream media. In contrast to other shows about politics and current affairs we ran against the grain, avoiding snarky slogans and angry attacks. How Do We Fix It? focused instead on solutions journalism and what might be improved if we listen carefully to others who we don't agree with. We urge listeners to get out of their comfort zone.Right from the start, co-hosts Jim Meigs (leans red) and Richard Davies (leans blue) embraced nuance and celebrated the ideas of contrarians and compromisers alike. Their weekly podcast partnership lasted nine years. Together in this episode Richard and Jim consider a range of ideas that we have discussed.Our podcast was well ahead of many others in its stout defense of free speech for all sides and firm support of enlightenment ideals. We also share examples here of how we broke ground with episodes on the impact of smartphones on children and college students, the spread of COVID, and the need for carbon-free nuclear power to be part of the response to climate change.In this episode we include extracts from our rich catalog of episodes that date back to 2015. All of our shows can be found at howdowefixit.me.Recommendations: Jim and Richard are both avid podcast listeners. Two of their favorites are "Breaking History" and "Strangers on a Bench". Eli Lake interviews historians, academics and reporters for Breaking History, "mining the past of human experience to figure out the present. " British singer-songwriter Tom Rosenthal hosts Strangers on a Bench. He meets people for the first time while sitting on a park bench, usually somewhere in London.. How Do We Fix It? is a proud member of the Democracy Group podcast network. We recorded this episode at The Manhattan Institute in New York. Thanks for their help and support. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rob Henderson holds a PhD in psychology from the University of Cambridge and is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Who holds the power in modern dating? With growing gender divides and political polarization, it's no wonder dating feels harder than ever. So, how did we get here, and what's the way forward? Expect to learn why political division between the sexes has grown so wide, if this is a reaction to the growing sex ratio imbalance of socioeconomically successful women compared to men, why so many men are dealing with ED and if men are to blame for women not being able to orgasm, the traits that predicts relationship satisfaction, what psychology teach us about how to choose a good partner and much more… Sponsors: See discounts for all the products I use and recommend: https://chriswillx.com/deals Get a Free Sample Pack of all LMNT Flavours with your first purchase at https://drinklmnt.com/modernwisdom Get a 20% discount & free shipping on Manscaped's shavers at https://manscaped.com/modernwisdom (use code MODERNWISDOM20) Get a 20% discount on Nomatic's amazing luggage at https://nomatic.com/modernwisdom Extra Stuff: Get my free reading list of 100 books to read before you die: https://chriswillx.com/books Try my productivity energy drink Neutonic: https://neutonic.com/modernwisdom Episodes You Might Enjoy: #577 - David Goggins - This Is How To Master Your Life: https://tinyurl.com/43hv6y59 #712 - Dr Jordan Peterson - How To Destroy Your Negative Beliefs: https://tinyurl.com/2rtz7avf #700 - Dr Andrew Huberman - The Secret Tools To Hack Your Brain: https://tinyurl.com/3ccn5vkp - Get In Touch: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/modernwisdompodcast Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact - Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nearly everything that politicians say about taxes is at least half a lie. They are also dishonest when it comes to the national debt. Stephen Dubner finds one of the few people in Washington who is willing to tell the truth — and it's even worse than you think. SOURCES:Jessica Riedl, senior fellow in budget, tax, and economic policy at the Manhattan Institute. RESOURCES:"The House Wants to Pass Trump's Agenda in One Big Bill. Here's What's in It." by Margot Sanger-Katz and Alicia Parlapiano (New York Times, 2025)."Correcting the Top 10 Tax Myths," by Jessica Riedl (Manhattan Institute, 2024)."Spending, Taxes, and Deficits: A Book of Charts," by Jessica Riedl (Manhattan Institute, 2024)."Why Did Americans Stop Caring About the National Debt?" by Jessica Riedl (Reason, 2024)."A Comprehensive Federal Budget Plan to Avert a Debt Crisis," by Jessica Riedl (Manhattan Institute, 2024)."When Does Federal Debt Reach Unsustainable Levels?" by Jagadeesh Gokhale, Kent Smetters, and Mariko Paulson (The Wharton School of Business, 2023)."The Limits of Taxing the Rich," by Jessica Riedl (Manhattan Institute, 2023). EXTRAS:"Farewell to a Generational Talent," by Freakonomics Radio (2024).