Podcasts about manhattan institute

Freddy Gray is joined by Heather Mac Donald, fellow at the Manhattan Institute. They discuss how race and crime grips America, and the epidemic of violence in inner-cities. Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts. Contact us: podcast@spectator.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After President Trump's federalization of DC law enforcement, attention is turning to the root causes of violent crime and the policies needed to restore safety in America's cities. Manhattan Institute's Charles Fain Lehman joins Rep. Crenshaw to break down the data, the myths, and the realities behind the crime waves in DC and other urban areas – from bail reform and policing shortages to homelessness, public disorder, and the social contagion of mass shootings. A hard look at what's working, what isn't, and what it will take to make our communities safe again.   Charles Fain Lehman is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and senior editor of City Journal. He focuses primarily on the public policy of antisocial behavior, including issues of crime, drugs, and public disorder. Find him on X at @CharlesFLehman and read his research at Manhattan Institute.

Bruce and Eb sit down with Ed Karnes from Sons of Confederate Veterans and Santiago Vidal Calvo from the Manhattan Institute to discuss the NYC mayoral election.

Heather Mac Donald, the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, joins Paul E. Peterson to discuss Mac Donald's recent article, which is critical of the changes the Trump Administration has made with the National Science Foundation. Mac Donald's article, "Trump Takes on Big Science," is available now from City Journal. https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-national-science-foundation-education-grant-funding

Vice week continues with Charles Fain Lehman, Manhattan Institute fellow and Dispatch contributing writer, joining Jonah Goldberg for a discussion on drug addiction, legalized gambling, and porn. Show Notes:—Charles for The Dispatch: “The Sports Gambling Backlash Is Here”—Charles for The Dispatch: “It's Time to Prosecute Pornhub” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this segment, Mark is joined by Leor Sapir, a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He discusses his latest piece which is headlined, "The Broken Chain of Trust in Pediatric Gender Medicine."

In hour 2, Mark shares a wild story about a yelling match he got in with a parent on a plane once upon a time. Sue then hosts, "Sue's News" where she discusses the latest trending entertainment news, this day in history, the random fact of the day, and much more. Mark is then joined by Leor Sapir, a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He discusses his latest piece which is headlined, "The Broken Chain of Trust in Pediatric Gender Medicine." He later discusses Tim Walz' comments on hoping for President Trump's death.

In hour 1 of The Mark Reardon Show, Mark and the crew react to lies from legacy media members like Jen Psaki regarding President Trump not making any public appearances over the weekend. Mark is then joined by Scott Faughn, the Host of This Week in Missouri Politics. He discusses Governor Kehoe's second Special Session beginning today in order to deal with Congressional Redistricting as well as addressing the Initiative Petition Reform. He's later joined by Scott Faughn, the Host of This Week in Missouri Politics. He discusses Governor Kehoe's second Special Session beginning today in order to deal with Congressional Redistricting as well as addressing the Initiative Petition Reform. In hour 2, Mark shares a wild story about a yelling match he got in with a parent on a plane once upon a time. Sue then hosts, "Sue's News" where she discusses the latest trending entertainment news, this day in history, the random fact of the day, and much more. Mark is then joined by Leor Sapir, a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He discusses his latest piece which is headlined, "The Broken Chain of Trust in Pediatric Gender Medicine." He later discusses Tim Walz' comments on hoping for President Trump's death. In hour 3, Mark is joined by Chris Clem, a Former Yuma Sector Border Patrol Chief. He reacts to the continued ICE protests, the new detention centers springing up across the country, and more. He's then joined by J. Peder Zane, an Editor at Real Clear Investigations and a Columnist for Real Clear Politics. He discussed his latest article which is titled, "Pray That We All Don't Become Monsters." They wrap up the show with the Audio Cut of the Day.

Daniel DiMartino of the Manhattan Institute lived through socialism in Venezuela. He explains the horrors that policies like those of Zhoran Mamdani can inflict on people. 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.

Daniel DiMartino of the Manhattan Institute lived through socialism in Venezuela. He explains the horrors that policies like those of Zhoran Mamdani can inflict on people. 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.

0:30 - BLM Brandon on Morning Joe: federal funding for more cops 14:10 - Civil rights attorney with history of suing CPD to serve as Mayor Johnson's strategy chief 23:17 - Cracker Barrel to go back to old logo after backlash 44:09 - CBS WH reporter Olivia Rinaldi "breaks" Taylor Swift engagement 57:27 - Andrew McCarthy is a Former Chief Asst. U.S. Attorney & Contributing Editor at National Review and author of Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. 01:21:32 - Stephen Moore is a Noted Economist and author of The Trump Economic Miracle: And the Plan to Unleash Prosperity Again – co authored with Art Laffer. He joined Dan Proft with reaction to President Trump’s plan for the government to take an ownership stake in American companies. 01:38:03 - High school girls' volleyball player speaks out about opponents forfeiting games over trans teammate 01:52:45 - Neetu Arnold is Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute and a Young Voices contributor. She joined Dan Proft to talk about her column: The High Costs of Classroom DisorderSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Rod and Greg Show Daily Rundown – Tuesday, August 26, 20254:20 pm: Senator John Johnson joins Rod and Greg for a conversation about how the Utah Constitution is very clear that the state's Legislature is responsible for dividing the state into congressional districts, not judges or commissions.4:38 pm: Forest Romm and Kevin Waldman, Researchers in Clinical and Applied Psychology at Northwestern University, join Rod and Greg for a conversation about the results of a study that shows a large percentage of college students have pretended to hold views they don't endorse to succeed academically.6:05 pm: Jennifer Harrison, Executive Director of The Victims Rights Reform Council, joins the show for a conversation about her piece for The Spectator World on the high cost of cashless bail.6:38 pm: Neetu Arnold, Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute, joins the show for a conversation about the fallout from schools that have failed to maintain and enforce fundamental behavioral standards.

This week, I welcome back Rob Henderson, the social psychologist, author, and commentator who coined the concept of luxury beliefs: ideas that confer status on the upper class while inflicting real costs on lower-income communities. Rob was last here in early 2024 discussing his memoir, Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class, which chronicles his journey through California's foster system to the Air Force, and onward to Yale and Cambridge. In this conversation, we explore what he's been thinking about since the book's release—particularly the so-called “mating crisis,” why many young people delay or avoid partnerships and family, and what that means for the future. We also dissect the emergence of Zohran Mamdani, the New York City mayoral hopeful who, according to Rob (and I would concur), embodies luxury beliefs in action. Finally, Rob answers questions from Substack readers. Rob will be a speaker at our Unspeakeasy Small Gathering for Big Ideas weekend, October 11-12 in New York City. Programming and ticketing info here. GUEST BIO Rob Henderson is the author of Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class. He grew up in foster homes in Los Angeles and in the rural town of Red Bluff, California. After enlisting in the U.S. Air Force at the age of seventeen, he subsequently attended Yale on the GI Bill and was then awarded the Gates Cambridge Scholarship to study at the University of Cambridge, where he obtained a PhD in psychology in 2022. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and his Substack newsletter is sent each week to more than 70 thousand subscribers. HOUSEKEEPING

In this segment, Mark is joined by Ilya Shapiro, a Senior Fellow and the Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. He discusses his take on the constitutionality of President Trump's flag burning executive order.

In hour 3, Mark is joined by Ilya Shapiro, a Senior Fellow and the Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. He discusses his take on the constitutionality of President Trump's flag burning executive order. He's later joined by George Rosenthal, a Co-Owner of Throttlenet. He shares what people need to know about BlueSky as well as the U.S. government's Intel deal. They wrap the show with the Audio Cut of the Day.

In hour 1, Mark opens up about some of his mental health struggles that he shared with Monica Adams this morning. Mark is then joined by Missouri Congresswoman Ann Wagner. Wagner discusses her congressional trip to Japan, the impact the Big Beautiful Bill is having, and much more. He is later joined by Timothy Minella, a Senior Fellow with the Goldwater Institute. The Goldwater Institute is putting the University of Kentucky on notice for not complying with the DEI ban. What happens next? In hour 2, Sue hosts, "Sue's News" where she discusses the latest trending entertainment news, this day in history, the random fact of the day, and much more. Mark is later joined by Cassie Smedile, the Vice President of COIGN and a Former RNC Press Secretary. She shares her take on this week's DNC Meeting in Minnesota as well as Democrats continuing to end up on the wrong side of 80/20 issues. In hour 3, Mark is joined by Ilya Shapiro, a Senior Fellow and the Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. He discusses his take on the constitutionality of President Trump's flag burning executive order. He's later joined by George Rosenthal, a Co-Owner of Throttlenet. He shares what people need to know about BlueSky as well as the U.S. government's Intel deal. They wrap the show with the Audio Cut of the Day.

Tucker Carlson has remained a prominent force in conservative media, most notably stirring up fresh controversy this week through a series of sharp critiques directed at neoconservative commentators and foreign policy hawks. Responsible Statecraft reports that Carlson has escalated a highly public feud with conservative talk host Mark Levin, urging Donald Trump to reject calls for U.S. military intervention in Iran. This exchange played out both on Carlson's social media accounts and in interviews, where he openly mocked Levin's rhetoric and criticized the push for war as out of touch with broader Republican voters. Carlson's posts on X garnered millions of views, highlighting his ongoing ability to shape right-wing discourse and mobilize his follower base around anti-interventionist themes.In addition to social media sparring, Carlson recently hosted an episode of his podcast featuring Staind frontman Aaron Lewis, who discussed personal topics and friendships, reflecting Carlson's continued expansion into cultural commentary alongside political issues. The Tucker Carlson Podcast, growing steadily in popularity, has become a frequent platform for both celebrity interviews and deeper dives into libertarian and populist theories, adding to his influence beyond traditional cable news.Panel shows and podcasts have also responded to Carlson's latest critiques of mainstream news, with Spreaker noting that his predictions regarding the upcoming election and his blunt appraisal of legacy media practices have fueled debate within both right-leaning and centrist circles. Some political writers, like those at the Manhattan Institute, have highlighted Carlson's role in pushing controversial revisionist history narratives and connecting with figures in the “woke right,” sparking further scrutiny over the boundaries between free speech, viral content, and extremist rhetoric in the digital era.While no major legal or professional developments have been reported about Carlson in the last few days, ongoing discussions continue regarding the impact of his transition from Fox News to independent digital platforms and whether his rhetorical style is influencing the next generation of conservative media personalities. His growing alliance with antiwar and antiestablishment figures, coupled with confrontations with legacy neoconservatives, is viewed as a significant shift within right-wing media dynamics.On the reaction front, establishment figures like Mark Levin have fired back at Carlson's characterization of neoconservatives, with Levin taking particular offense at the suggestion that calls for military action are insincere or prejudiced, further fueling an online war of words. This has led to broader debates among pundits on topics ranging from foreign policy restraint to shifting allegiances within the Republican Party and the so-called MAGA movement.Listeners have also seen Carlson play a key role in amplifying conspiratorial narratives and historical revisionism, as discussed by policy analysts and media watchdogs concerned about the viral spread and mainstreaming of controversial—including occasionally debunked—claims. This ongoing trend shapes current debates about the responsibilities of influential figures in the digital media ecosystem and Carlson's comparative reach in influencing both voter perspectives and elite-level political agendas.Thank you for listening to the Tucker Carlson news Tracker podcast and don't forget to subscribe. This has been a quiet please production, for more check out quiet please dot ai.For more http://www.quietplease.aiGet the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta

When President Donald Trump's crime crackdown began earlier this month in Washington, D.C., local officials and critics pushed back, arguing that federalizing the city and bringing in the National Guard was unnecessary because crime was decreasing in the nation's capital. They said the crime statistics disputed the President's complaint that the city was "out of control." President Trump has since publicly questioned those crime statistics, and his Department of Justice has opened an investigation into whether the city's police department manipulated the crime numbers to make the city appear safer than it is. Before the DOJ investigation was announced, FOX News Rundown host Dave Anthony spoke with Rafael Mangual, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and member of the Council on Criminal Justice, about crime statistics, how they are gathered, why they're flawed, and how they can be manipulated. Mangual also weighed in on President Trump's actions and whether they will be effective in the long term. We often must cut interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear the full interview. Today on Fox News Rundown Extra, we will share our entire interview with the Manhattan Institute's Rafael Mangual, allowing you to learn even more about crime statistics and how they sometimes don't reflect reality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Rod and Greg Show Daily Rundown – Friday, August 22, 20254:20 pm: Cheryl Chumley, Online Opinion Editor for the Washington Times, joins Rod and Greg for a conversation about her recent piece on MSNBC's name change, and what's wrong with corporate media.4:38 pm: James Copland, Senior Fellow and Director of Legal Policy for the Manhattan Institute, joins the show to discuss his piece for the City Journal on how the ESG bubble is bursting.6:05 pm: Representative Carl Albrecht joins the program for a conversation about the importance of the coal industry to the state of Utah now and in the future.6:20 pm: Victor Joecks, a columnist with the Las Vegas Review Journal joins the program for a conversation about his recent piece for PJ Media on how the high number of self-deportations of illegal immigrants is President Trump's biggest immigration win yet.6:38 pm: We'll listen back to Rod and Greg's conversations this week with Representative Steve Eliason on new options to deal with mental health in schools, and (at 6:50 pm) with Liz Peek of Fox News about President Trump's war on the Smithsonian Museum.

When President Donald Trump's crime crackdown began earlier this month in Washington, D.C., local officials and critics pushed back, arguing that federalizing the city and bringing in the National Guard was unnecessary because crime was decreasing in the nation's capital. They said the crime statistics disputed the President's complaint that the city was "out of control." President Trump has since publicly questioned those crime statistics, and his Department of Justice has opened an investigation into whether the city's police department manipulated the crime numbers to make the city appear safer than it is. Before the DOJ investigation was announced, FOX News Rundown host Dave Anthony spoke with Rafael Mangual, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and member of the Council on Criminal Justice, about crime statistics, how they are gathered, why they're flawed, and how they can be manipulated. Mangual also weighed in on President Trump's actions and whether they will be effective in the long term. We often must cut interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear the full interview. Today on Fox News Rundown Extra, we will share our entire interview with the Manhattan Institute's Rafael Mangual, allowing you to learn even more about crime statistics and how they sometimes don't reflect reality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When President Donald Trump's crime crackdown began earlier this month in Washington, D.C., local officials and critics pushed back, arguing that federalizing the city and bringing in the National Guard was unnecessary because crime was decreasing in the nation's capital. They said the crime statistics disputed the President's complaint that the city was "out of control." President Trump has since publicly questioned those crime statistics, and his Department of Justice has opened an investigation into whether the city's police department manipulated the crime numbers to make the city appear safer than it is. Before the DOJ investigation was announced, FOX News Rundown host Dave Anthony spoke with Rafael Mangual, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and member of the Council on Criminal Justice, about crime statistics, how they are gathered, why they're flawed, and how they can be manipulated. Mangual also weighed in on President Trump's actions and whether they will be effective in the long term. We often must cut interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear the full interview. Today on Fox News Rundown Extra, we will share our entire interview with the Manhattan Institute's Rafael Mangual, allowing you to learn even more about crime statistics and how they sometimes don't reflect reality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Ilya Shapiro, Federalist senior contributor and a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, joins Federalist Executive Editor Joy Pullmann to break down how left-wing radicals infiltrated the nation's law schools and explain how to stop extremists from reshaping the judicial landscape to fit their political agendas.You can find Shapiro's book Lawless: The Miseducation of America's Elites here.If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.  

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Ilya Shapiro, Federalist senior contributor and a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, joins Federalist Executive Editor Joy Pullmann to break down how left-wing radicals infiltrated the nation's law schools and explain how to stop extremists from reshaping the judicial landscape to fit their political […]

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. 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

European leaders visited the White House on Monday, where President Trump had an Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Coming just days after Trump's Alaskan summit with Vladimir Putin, many questions still remain: what will it take to negotiate an end to the war? And what do “security guarantees” look like for Ukraine, for Europe, and even for Russia? Former NSC advisor to President George W. Bush and Beacon Global Strategies managing director Michael Allen about the territory demands from Russia, European leaders pushing for Ukraine's security guarantees, and the historic peace talks being shepherded by the Trump administration. One week into President Trump's crime crackdown in Washington, D.C., and Democrats continue to push back, arguing that crime data suggests the President's actions in the nation's capital are unnecessary and that violence is not "out of control." Mayor Muriel Bowser has called the administration's actions "unsettling and unprecedented." Rafael Mangual, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and member of the Council on Criminal Justice, joins to discuss President Trump's actions, what is next for the city, and why he says crime statistics don't always reflect reality. Plus, commentary from the host of “Tomi Lahren is Fearless" on Outkick, Tomi Lahren. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump paints the nation’s capital as a city beset by crime and called in National Guard troops. D.C. leaders contend there is no crisis, pointing to crime rates at 30-year lows. But Charles Lehman of the conservative Manhattan Institute argues neither side is telling the complete truth. Amna Nawaz spoke with Lehman about how both the locals and feds could pursue smarter solutions. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

European leaders visited the White House on Monday, where President Trump had an Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Coming just days after Trump's Alaskan summit with Vladimir Putin, many questions still remain: what will it take to negotiate an end to the war? And what do “security guarantees” look like for Ukraine, for Europe, and even for Russia? Former NSC advisor to President George W. Bush and Beacon Global Strategies managing director Michael Allen about the territory demands from Russia, European leaders pushing for Ukraine's security guarantees, and the historic peace talks being shepherded by the Trump administration. One week into President Trump's crime crackdown in Washington, D.C., and Democrats continue to push back, arguing that crime data suggests the President's actions in the nation's capital are unnecessary and that violence is not "out of control." Mayor Muriel Bowser has called the administration's actions "unsettling and unprecedented." Rafael Mangual, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and member of the Council on Criminal Justice, joins to discuss President Trump's actions, what is next for the city, and why he says crime statistics don't always reflect reality. Plus, commentary from the host of “Tomi Lahren is Fearless" on Outkick, Tomi Lahren. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump paints the nation’s capital as a city beset by crime and called in National Guard troops. D.C. leaders contend there is no crisis, pointing to crime rates at 30-year lows. But Charles Lehman of the conservative Manhattan Institute argues neither side is telling the complete truth. Amna Nawaz spoke with Lehman about how both the locals and feds could pursue smarter solutions. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

European leaders visited the White House on Monday, where President Trump had an Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Coming just days after Trump's Alaskan summit with Vladimir Putin, many questions still remain: what will it take to negotiate an end to the war? And what do “security guarantees” look like for Ukraine, for Europe, and even for Russia? Former NSC advisor to President George W. Bush and Beacon Global Strategies managing director Michael Allen about the territory demands from Russia, European leaders pushing for Ukraine's security guarantees, and the historic peace talks being shepherded by the Trump administration. One week into President Trump's crime crackdown in Washington, D.C., and Democrats continue to push back, arguing that crime data suggests the President's actions in the nation's capital are unnecessary and that violence is not "out of control." Mayor Muriel Bowser has called the administration's actions "unsettling and unprecedented." Rafael Mangual, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and member of the Council on Criminal Justice, joins to discuss President Trump's actions, what is next for the city, and why he says crime statistics don't always reflect reality. Plus, commentary from the host of “Tomi Lahren is Fearless" on Outkick, Tomi Lahren. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

0:30 - Trump on Air Force One before the Putin meeting: want a ceasefire, want to stop the killing 13:42 - Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Tapper...moving toward piece, admin lines on five regions 35:05 - Swalwell on MSNBC: Trump acts like Russian asset 51:30 - Catfight on CNN 56:44 - Jim Iuorio, host of “The Futures Edge Podcast” and special contributor to Wirepoints, maps out where tech and markets collide — and what September could bring. For podcast updates & more @jimiuorio 01:17:20 - Visiting fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Steven Bucci, on Trump’s progress with Putin, the left’s childish outrage over optics, and why today’s meeting with Zelensky matters 01:38:16 - Dan Proft Parenting Tips 01:53:48 - Senior writer for the Washington Examiner and author of The Rise of BlueAnon: How the Democrats Became a Party of Conspiracy Theorists, David Harsanyi: Democrats and their doomed search for ‘authenticity’ Follow David on X @davidharsanyi 02:11:00 - SPORTS & POLITICS 02:13:13 - Rafael Mangual, senior fellow and head of research for the Manhattan Institute’s Policing and Public Safety Initiative, calls out the hypocrisy of celebrating falling crime while pockets of lawlessness rage on.Check out Rafael’s most recent book Criminal (In)Justice: What the Push for Mass-Decarceration and Depolicing Gets Wrong, and Who It Hurts MostSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Andy Smarick, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, about a recent U.S. Supreme Court case that could reshape the debate over faith-based charter schools. They explore the constitutional questions at the heart of the case, including the tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and why a 4–4 split leaves the door open for future challenges. The conversation covers the potential role of religious organizations in public education, the importance of accountability in school choice programs, recent legal battles in Missouri and Wyoming, and how shifting public opinion may change the K–12 landscape in the years ahead. Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

In this segment, Mark is joined by John Sailer, the Director of Higher Education Policy and a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He discusses his latest article titled, "The Justice Department's Welcome Crackdown on Universities".

In hour 3, Mark is joined by Jennifer Sey, the Founder & CEO of XX-XY Athletics and Andrew James, the Co-Director of "Generation COVID". Sey and James join to preview their new film that is expected to release in the next few months. Mark is then joined by John Sailer, the Director of Higher Education Policy and a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He discusses his latest article titled, "The Justice Department's Welcome Crackdown on Universities". He wraps up the show with the Audio Cut of the Day.

In hour 1 of The Mark Reardon Show, Mark discusses President Trump meeting with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and other world leaders in the pursuit of peace between Russia and Ukraine. Mark is then joined by Batya Ungar-Sargon, a Columnist for The Free Press. She shares her thoughts on President Trumps summit with Vladimir Putin as well as his recent meeting with President Zelenskyy and other world leaders as sides try to find an end to the war. He is then joined by Mike Gonzalez, a Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He discusses his thoughts on the Smithsonian Museums changing out exhibits in order to get rid of the wokeness. In hour 2, Sue hosts, "Sue's News" where she discusses the latest trending entertainment news, this day in history, the random fact of the day, and much more. Mark is then joined by Shannon Robinson, the Director of the St. Louis County Supporting Kids and Community Facebook page. She discusses how students are returning to school in the Parkway District but are still encountering DEI in classes. He is later joined by KSDK Sports Director Frank Cusumano. Frank discusses Scottie Scheffler's dominant tournament over the weekend as well as the St. Louis Cardinals struggles over the weekend against the Yankees. In hour 3, Mark is joined by Jennifer Sey, the Founder & CEO of XX-XY Athletics and Andrew James, the Co-Director of "Generation COVID". Sey and James join to preview their new film that is expected to release in the next few months. Mark is then joined by John Sailer, the Director of Higher Education Policy and a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He discusses his latest article titled, "The Justice Department's Welcome Crackdown on Universities". He wraps up the show with the Audio Cut of the Day.

This week, I welcome back Rob Henderson, the social psychologist, author, and commentator who coined the concept of luxury beliefs: ideas that confer status on the upper class while inflicting real costs on lower-income communities. Rob was last here in early 2024 discussing his memoir, Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class, which chronicles his journey through California's foster system to the Air Force, and onward to Yale and Cambridge. In this conversation, we explore what he's been thinking about since the book's release—particularly the so-called “mating crisis,” why many young people delay or avoid partnerships and family, and what that means for the future. We also dissect the emergence of Zohran Mamdani, the New York City mayoral hopeful who, according to Rob (and I would concur), embodies luxury beliefs in action. Finally, Rob answers questions from Substack readers. Rob will be a speaker at our Unspeakeasy Small Gathering for Big Ideas weekend, October 11-12 in New York City. Programming and ticketing info here. GUEST BIO Rob Henderson is the author of Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class. He grew up in foster homes in Los Angeles and in the rural town of Red Bluff, California. After enlisting in the U.S. Air Force at the age of seventeen, he subsequently attended Yale on the GI Bill and was then awarded the Gates Cambridge Scholarship to study at the University of Cambridge, where he obtained a PhD in psychology in 2022. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and his Substack newsletter is sent each week to more than 70 thousand subscribers. Want to hear the whole conversation? Upgrade your subscription here. HOUSEKEEPING

0:00 - Trump announces "Liberation Day" in DC 9:06 - Trump on DC: It's embarrassing DC is such a disgusting pit 28:05 - Trump threatens to do the same in Chicago 53:41 - Senior writer for the Dispatch, David Drucker, on Trump's DC takeover announcement - "he takes an issue in which he might achieve broad support and he talks about it in a way that ensures that only his supporters are going to like it" Follow David on X @DavidMDrucker 01:09:01 - In-depth History with Frank from Arlington Heights 01:11:33 - Russiagate-Schiff 01:28:15 - Ted Dabrowski, President of Wirepoints, outlines bold steps the Trump administration should take if it turns its attention to Chicago like it has to DC. Get Ted’s latest at wirepoints.org 01:46:01 - Theodore Dalrymple, contributing editor of City Journal & a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, on Luigi Mangione and the Romance of Murder. Theodore is also the author of many books including Buried But Not Quite Dead: Forgotten Writers of Père Lachaise 02:00:19 - SPORTS & POLITICSSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Joe Piscopo's guest host this morning is Joe Borelli, Former New York City Councilman and Managing Director of Chartwell Strategy Group 51:33- Chris Swecker, attorney who served as assistant director of the FBI for the Criminal Investigative Division from 2004 to 2006 Topic: Trump seizing control over Washington police and deploying the national guard, Target shooting 1:00:17- Michelle Esquenazi, President of the National Association of Bail Agents (NABA) & CEO of Empire Bail Bonds in NY Topic: Trump vows federal bill to outlaw states’ cash bail bans 1:15:05- Hans von Spakovsky, Manager of the Heritage Foundation's Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies Topic: Jeanine Pirro's push to change laws in DC amid youth crime 1:27:03- Tom Del Beccaro, attorney, acclaimed author, speaker, and the former Chairman of the California Republican Party Topic: Trump and Newsom fight over National Guard 2:03:51- Rafael Mangual, senior fellow with and head of research for the Manhattan Institute’s Policing and Public Safety Initiative, and a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of "Criminal (In)Justice" Topic: Trump seizing control over Washington police 2:14:53- Jonathan Hoenig, portfolio manager at Capitalist Pig Hedge Fund LLC and a Fox News Contributor Topic: China tariff deadline extendedSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rob Henderson is the best-selling author of Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class. He grew up in foster homes in Los Angeles and in the rural town of Red Bluff, California. After enlisting in the U.S. Air Force at the age of seventeen, he subsequently attended Yale on the GI Bill and was then awarded the Gates Cambridge Scholarship to study at the University of Cambridge, where he obtained a PhD in psychology in 2022. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Rob's writing has appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe, among other outlets, and his Substack newsletter is sent each week to more than 70 thousand subscribers.FOLLOW: @robkhendersonhttps://substack.com/@robkhenderson?utm_source=global-searchIn this thought-provoking episode, Kelsi Sheren sits down with Rob Henderson to explore the concept of "luxury beliefs"—ideas and opinions that confer status on the affluent while imposing costs on the less fortunate. Delve into how these beliefs shape societal norms and policies, often leaving the most vulnerable to bear the consequences. Through engaging dialogue, Rob shares insights from his personal journey and research, challenging listeners to reconsider the impact of their own beliefs. Tune in for a compelling discussion on the intersection of privilege, policy, and social responsibility.Substack: https://substack.com/@kelsisheren - - - - - - - - - - - -SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS - - - - - - - - - - - -RHO Nutrition - Code: KELSI20 -  https://rhonutrition.com/KELSIKetone IQ- 30% off with code KELSI - https://ketone.com/KELSIGood Livin- 20% off with code KELSI - https://www.itsgoodlivin.com/?ref=KELSIBrass & Unity - 20% off with code UNITY - http://brassandunity.com - - - - - - - - - - - - -SHOPB&U Jewelry & Eyewear: https://brassandunity.com - - - - - - - - - - - - -Follow #thekelsisherenperspective- - - - - - - - - - - - -CHARITYHeroic Hearts Project - https://www.heroicheartsproject.orgAll Secure Foundation - http://allsecurefoundation.orgDefenders of Freedom -https://www.defendersoffreedom.usBoot Campaign - https://bootcampaign.org

Charles Fain-Lehman of the Manhattan Institute joins Matt Lewis to discuss the complex reality of crime in Washington, D.C. Despite recent declines, D.C.'s homicide rate remains alarmingly high compared to cities like New York. Explore the statistics, the persistent violence in areas like Wards 7 and 8, and whether federal intervention, including Trump's controversial takeover of the D.C. police, can address the city's deep-rooted issues. Support "Matt Lewis & The News" at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattlewisFollow Matt Lewis & Cut Through the Noise:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MattLewisDCTwitter: https://twitter.com/mattklewisInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattklewis/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVhSMpjOzydlnxm5TDcYn0A– Who is Matt Lewis? –Matt K. Lewis is a political commentator and the author of Filthy Rich Politicians.Buy Matt's book: https://www.amazon.com/Filthy-Rich-Politicians-Creatures-Ruling-Class/dp/1546004416Copyright © 2025, BBL & BWL, LLC

Douglas Murray is a journalist and bestselling 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: Gender, Race and Identity(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.  On this episode of The One Way Ticket Show, we begin the conversation with Mr. Murray sharing his one way ticket back in time to Elizabethan England which he describes as the greatest period of the flowering of the English language. There, he would meet Shakespeare, attend performances at the Globe Theatre, and marvel at the Court of Queen Elizabeth I.  We then delve into his latest book, On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization and cover topics and thoughts, including: Vasily Grossman's quote from his book, Life and Fate: “Tell me what you accuse the Jews of, I'll tell you what you're guilty of” How many in the West don't understand that for Hamas and people like Sinwar, their war against Israel is a religiously motivated jihad           It's a myth that all people – everywhere – want the same thing          The extent to which and the consequences of populations being misled in closed societies           Divorcing a performer's politics from their performance (and how it would be wonderful if actors just “shut up” about politics in the first place!)           The strange landscape that is the (news) media today           His break mechanism of: "Never forget how much damage can be done by willful optimism" Why he never talks about his next book project And much more . . . LINKS: https://douglasmurray.net/ Douglas Murray on: X: https://x.com/DouglasKMurray Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/douglaskmurray/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DouglasKMurrayOfficial Books: On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization The War on the West  The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam  

Joe is joined by Ethan, Sue & Fred for Sue's News, with one of the best runs of random facts we've ever heard in the segments and Joe is joined by Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist & Manhattan Institute fellow on his newest opinion piece on discrimination at Cornell University & Joe has some very crucial questions about the pizza scene in St. Louis.

Opening today's show Joe Beamer has a monologue on the Texas democrats & their literal flight to Illinois, Brianna Lyman joins to talk about the view from New York on the gerrymandering kinds of American politics, Corey Brewers joins Joe to talk about how parents can protects their kids from DEI & a look into just how much things have changed. Joe is joined by Ethan, Sue & Fred for Sue's News, with one of the best runs of random facts we've ever heard in the segments and Joe is joined by Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist & Manhattan Institute fellow on his newest opinion piece on discrimination at Cornell University In the final hour Joe is joined by Scott Fitzpatrick, a Missouri auditor who is working on the SLPS audit, he dives into the issues with the Democrats refusal to stay in Texas and play ball, Jane Dueker comes on to try to translate the Democratic view on things and the audio cut of the day.

How has the landscape of legal education shifted, and what ramifications has that already started having? How do politics factor into judicial appointments more than ever before, and how did we get to this point?Ilya L. Shapiro is a senior fellow and the director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. He's also the author of several books, including Lawless: The Miseducation of America's Elites and Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court Cato Supreme Court Review.Greg and Ilya explore issues related to Supreme Court nominations, cancel culture, and the impact of bias in legal education. Their conversation also addresses the longstanding politicization of judicial appointments, challenges within legal academia such as DEI and student activism, and the broader implications for law and society. Ilya also shares potential reforms for improving the legal profession and education system.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:When the law becomes just another form of activism35:49: Another failure of our systems of legal education or of the culture of the legal profession. Young lawyers seeing themselves as the law or their legal tools as just another part of activism, rather than as a profession. Or law schools not teaching lawyers the same way. The way to be a good lawyer is to be able to understand and see all sides of a given argument or issue or dispute. That is how you can best advocate your own sides, your own client's position. Well, if half of that 360 degrees is illegitimate, or you cannot even discuss beyond the pale, outside the Overton window, as they say, then you are going to be a much less effective lawyer. And yes, I think the legal profession has suffered, in general, its credibility, its reputation.What universities were meant to be43:19: It is the purpose of universities to develop, to have free inquiry, to have civil debate, to confront new ideas. And if universities have not been doing that for a whole host of reasons, then I think that is a level of criticism—something that they should be held to account for.On judges and legal objectivity04:36: You would hope that law and policy are different things, because there is a reason why we separate out the judicial power, and that reason is for it to be a counter-majoritarian check. You do not need judges to buttress popular opinions. You need judges to protect against abuses of power by elected officials. You need judges to protect individual rights against mob rule. And so, it cannot be the case that what is right on the law is always going to be what the majority of policy views. When fear shapes the future of the legal profession30:27: Most students just want to get their degree, get their credential, get a job, have some fun while they are at it, and that is about it. They are not politically motivated or philosophically motivated. They are just there because—especially when we are talking about law schools, rather, or some other professional school as opposed to college—they are there because this is the next step on their career trajectory, and they are just trying to keep their head down so as not to be caught in the cancellation crossfire. And it is fear, and this is how I counsel students, is that you do not have to be a martyr. You do not have to stand up and be an individual, objecting to every injustice you face.Show Links:Recommended Resources:Ketanji Brown JacksonBurwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.Robert BorkTheodore RooseveltJames MadisonAlexander HamiltonJohn JayMancur OlsonWilliam TreanorThe Paper ChaseLewis F. Powell Jr.John Paul StevensGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at The Manhattan InstituteProfile at the CATO InstituteProfile for Burke Law GroupLinkedIn ProfileSocial Profile on XGuest Work:Substack - Shapiro's GavelAmazon Author PageLawless: The Miseducation of America's ElitesSupreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest CourtCato Supreme Court ReviewReligious Liberties for Corporations?: Hobby Lobby, the Affordable Care Act, and the ConstitutionAmicus Brief -- Alvarez v. Smith

In this episode, Dinesh reveals why the American Eagle ad featuring model Sydney Sweeney is so offensive to the Left. Dinesh reveals that a new study refutes the conventional wisdom that chimpanzees share 99 percent of their DNA with humans. John Sailer of the Manhattan Institute joins Dinesh to talk about Trump’s scorched earth campaign against elite universities.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

27:30- Dr. Darrin Porcher, Retired NYPD Lieutenant, Criminal Justice Professor at Pace University and a former Army Officer Topic: Gunman kills four, including NYPD officer, in Midtown shooting 37:54- Jack Ciattarelli, Republican candidate for Governor of New Jersey Topic: Jack's Lt. Governor pick 52:04- Gen. Jack Keane, a retired 4-star general, the chairman of the Institute for the Study of War and Fox News Senior Strategic Analyst Topic: Trump's new 10-12 day deadline for Putin 1:07:29- Jonathan Hoenig, portfolio manager at Capitalist Pig Hedge Fund LLC and a Fox News Contributor Topic: Trump's EU trade deal 1:15:28- K.T. McFarland, Former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor and the author of "Revolution: Trump, Washington and 'We The People'” Topic: Trump's deadline for Putin 1:30:02- Danny Coulson, Former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI and Founding Commander of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team Topic: Shooting in Midtown 1:38:22- Andrew Pollack, the father of Parkland, FL school shooting victim Meadow Pollack and the author of "Why Meadow Died" Topic: Midtown shooting 1:51:07- Patrick J. Brosnan, Retired and Decorated NYPD Detective Topic: Midtown shooting 2:04:52- 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" and the new book "The Preventative State" Topic: Ghislaine Maxwell asking the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction 2:19:45- Rafael Mangual, senior fellow with and head of research for the Manhattan Institute’s Policing and Public Safety Initiative and a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of "Criminal (In)Justice" Topic: Shooting in Midtown ManhattanSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Cohosts Wilfred Reilly, Christy Kelly, and Brooks Crenshaw welcome guest Jason Riley of WSJ and The Manhattan Institute to discuss standards in the wake of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Ames v. Ohio, as well as his latest book, The Affirmative Action Myth.Support the show

Conservative economist Jessica Riedl joins Margaret Hoover to talk about tariffs, tax cuts, and the threat of the growing national debt. She explains why President Trump's tariffs have not yet upended the economy and why she believes American consumers will ultimately bear the costs of Trump's policies.Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, assesses the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and argues it is unlikely to produce the rapid economic growth the White House has predicted. She discusses a potential debt crisis and the reforms to Medicare and Social Security that could help avert it, as well as the political obstacles standing in the way.Riedl has spent more than 20 years in Republican economic policy circles–including advising Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio's presidential campaigns–and she reflects on how the party's embrace of populism under Trump has left traditional conservatives like her politically “homeless.”Riedl emphasizes the importance of the Federal Reserve's independence, envisions how GOP economic policy may evolve after Trump leaves office, and expresses some hope for the country's fiscal future.Support for Firing Line with Margaret Hoover is provided by Robert Granieri, The Tepper Foundation, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, and Pritzker Military Foundation.

Prager University Part 56. Six Video Clips Should You Homeschool? Girling the Boy Scouts The Government Doesn't Make Money—You Do Do Tax Cuts Work? What's Not to Love about Socialism? COVID Lockdowns: The Real Cost   Should You Homeschool? https://youtu.be/azBn-_XFh9I?si=VS-wWi9wsnXC7BNT Should You Homeschool? | 5-Minute Videos | PragerU PragerU 3.37M subscribers 541,259 views Premiered Apr 28, 2025 5-Minute Videos Should you homeschool your kids? Many parents worry about time, money, and socialization—but are those concerns valid? In this PragerU 5-Minute Video, author and education advocate Sam Sorbo shares her personal journey from skeptic to homeschooler. She explores the myths surrounding homeschooling, the benefits for families, and why more parents are choosing to take control of their children's education.

Happy Independence Day! We'll be back next week with a new episode, but today we're sharing the episode that started us on the path to “Interesting Times.” Ross Douthat talks to Reihan Salam, the president of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Together they wrote the book “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream.”They review their George W. Bush-era prescriptions for the Republican Party to reclaim the working-class vote and the ways they were right (and wrong) about building a new Republican majority.03:47 George W. Bush era12:06 Rise and fall of the Tea Party18:19 Trump's 2016 “blood and guts” message28:11 Trump's effect on the right and left35:48 Trump's first term economic agenda39:30 Elon Musk vs JD Vance46:50 Imagining an activist, conservative government(A full transcript of this episode is available on the Times website.)Thoughts? Email us at interestingtimes@nytimes.com. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Today, we're looking at New York Times columnist David French's apparent shift on "transgender" issues, as he's seemed to change his tune on preferred pronouns and how this relates to Christianity. We explore how this change undermines his claims of principled conservatism and examine the case of Brian Riedl, a Manhattan Institute fellow now identifying as Jessica, whose claims of having a "female brain" lack scientific backing. We also tackle the debate over birthright citizenship, unpacking the Supreme Court's recent ruling on Trump's executive order, and how birth tourism and chain migration are reasons we should consider doing away with birthright citizenship. Finally, we address a viral story about an ICE detainee allegedly losing her baby due to neglected medical care. The Department of Homeland Security claims this isn't true, so we look at counterclaims and urge caution against emotionally charged narratives. Share the Arrows 2025 is on October 11 in Dallas, Texas! Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠sharethearrows.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for tickets now! Sponsored by: ⁠Carly Jean Los Angeles⁠: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.carlyjeanlosangeles.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Good Ranchers⁠: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.goodranchers.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠EveryLife⁠: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.everylife.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Buy Allie's new book, "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion": ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://a.co/d/4COtBxy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ --- Timecodes: (02:00) New merch! (05:33) David French (30:16) Birthright citizenship (51:12) ICE detainee claims mistreatment (57:33) BBC reporter gets it right --- Today's Sponsors: A'del — Try A'del's hand-crafted, artisan, small-batch cosmetics and use promo code ALLIE 25% off your first time purchase at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://AdelNaturalCosmetics.com⁠⁠ Carly Jean Los Angeles — Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.carlyjeanlosangeles.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and use code ALLIEB to get 20% off your first CJLA order, site wide (one-time use only) and start filling your closet with timeless staple pieces. And see Allie's CJLA favorites at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠carlyjeanlosangeles.com/pages/allieb⁠⁠⁠⁠ Good Ranchers — Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠GoodRanchers.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and subscribe to any of their boxes (but preferably the Allie Beth Stuckey Box) to get free Waygu burgers, hot dogs, bacon, or chicken wings in every box for life. Plus, you'll get $40 off when you use code ALLIE at checkout. Seven Weeks Coffee — Experience the best coffee while supporting the pro-life movement with Seven Weeks Coffee; use code ALLIE at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.sevenweekscoffee.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to save up to 25% off your first order, plus your free gift! --- Episodes you might like: Ep 1128 | Trump's New Vaccine to Cure Cancer? | Guest Host: Ron Simmons https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1128-trumps-new-vaccine-to-cure-cancer-guest-host/id1359249098?i=1000685217524 Ep 1199 | The Georgia Mom on Life Support: What's Really Happening https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1199-the-georgia-mom-on-life-support-whats-really/id1359249098?i=1000711072292 --- Links: Birth tourism in the United States: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/2022.12.20-%20Final_Birth%20Tourism%20Report.pdf --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://alliebethstuckey.com/book⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices