Podcast appearances and mentions of Mark Green

Dan is joined by Lee Reeves, who is aiming to replace Mark Green in Congress. Dan then talks more about the failures of the left until Chris Hand shows up | aired on Tuesday, August 5th, 2025, on Nashville Morning News with Dan MandisSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The State Building Commission just granted a two-year lease to Elon Musk's The Boring Company to start their Tesla tunnel to BNA, and local leaders are starting to push back. Since we're also wondering what local rideshare drivers think about this project, we invited our friend Chris Williams to join host Marie Cecile Anderson and executive producer Whitney Pastorek for today's Friday News Roundup. Plus, a controversial execution is scheduled for next week, the election to replace Mark Green is set, we kinda want Booth Boots, and Marie saw the Dolly Musical. Vote for City Cast Nashville as Best Podcast in the Nashville Scene's 2025 Best of Nashville awards! You must vote in 20 categories for your vote to count. Learn more about the sponsors of this Aug. 1st episode: Framebridge Overlook Maps Get more from City Cast Nashville when you become a City Cast Nashville Neighbor. You'll enjoy perks like ad-free listening, invitations to members only events and more. Join now at membership.citycast.fm/nashville   Want some more City Cast Nashville news? Then make sure to sign up for our Hey Nashville newsletter.  Follow us @citycastnashville You can also text us or leave a voicemail at: 615-200-6392 Interested in advertising with City Cast? Find more info HERE.

We've covered the US Agency for International Development, or USAID, pretty consistently on Statecraft, since our first interview on PEPFAR, the flagship anti-AIDS program, in 2023. When DOGE came to USAID, I was extremely critical of the cuts to lifesaving aid, and the abrupt, pointlessly harmful ways in which they were enacted. In March, I wrote, “The DOGE team has axed the most effective and efficient programs at USAID, and forced out the chief economist, who was brought in to oversee a more aggressive push toward efficiency.”Today, we're talking to that forced-out chief economist, Dean Karlan. Dean spent two and a half years at the helm of the first-ever Office of the Chief Economist at USAID. In that role, he tried to help USAID get better value from its foreign aid spending. His office shifted $1.7 billion of spending towards programs with stronger evidence of effectiveness. He explains how he achieved this, building a start-up within a massive bureaucracy. I should note that Dean is one of the titans of development economics, leading some of the most important initiatives in the field (I won't list them, but see here for details), and I think there's a plausible case he deserves a Nobel.Throughout this conversation, Dean makes a point much better than I could: the status quo at USAID needed a lot of improvement. The same political mechanisms that get foreign aid funded by Congress also created major vulnerabilities for foreign aid, vulnerabilities that DOGE seized on. Dean believes foreign aid is hugely valuable, a good thing for us to spend our time, money, and resources on. But there's a lot USAID could do differently to make its marginal dollar spent more efficient.DOGE could have made USAID much more accountable and efficient by listening to people like Dean, and reformers of foreign aid should think carefully about Dean's criticisms of USAID, and his points for how to make foreign aid not just resilient but politically popular in the long term.We discuss* What does the Chief Economist do?* Why does 170% percent of USAID funds come already earmarked by Congress?* Why is evaluating program effectiveness institutionally difficult?* Why don't we just do cash transfers for everything?* Why institutions like USAID have trouble prioritizing* Should USAID get rid of gender/environment/fairness in procurement rules?* Did it rely too much on a small group of contractors?* What's changed in development economics over the last 20 years?* Should USAID spend more on governance and less on other forms of aid? * How DOGE killed USAID — and how to bring it back better* Is depoliticizing foreign aid even possible?* Did USAID build “soft power” for the United States?This is a long conversation: you can jump to a specific section with the index above. If you just want to hear about Dean's experience with DOGE, you can click here or go to the 45-minute mark in the audio. And if you want my abbreviated summary of the conversation, see these two Twitter threads. But I think the full conversation is enlightening, especially if you want to understand the American foreign aid system. Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious edits.Our past coverage of USAIDDean, I'm curious about the limits of your authority. What can the Chief Economist of USAID do? What can they make people do?There had never been an Office of the Chief Economist before. In a sense, I was running a startup, within a 13,000-employee agency that had fairly baked-in, decentralized processes for doing things.Congress would say, "This is how much to spend on this sector and these countries." What you actually fund was decided by missions in the individual countries. It was exciting to have that purview across the world and across many areas, not just economic development, but also education, social protection, agriculture. But the reality is, we were running a consulting unit within USAID, trying to advise others on how to use evidence more effectively in order to maximize impact for every dollar spent.We were able to make some institutional changes, focused on basically a two-pronged strategy. One, what are the institutional enablers — the rules and the processes for how things get done — that are changeable? And two, let's get our hands dirty working with the budget holders who say, "I would love to use the evidence that's out there, please help guide us to be more effective with what we're doing."There were a lot of willing and eager people within USAID. We did not lack support to make that happen. We never would've achieved anything, had there not been an eager workforce who heard our mission and knocked on our door to say, "Please come help us do that."What do you mean when you say USAID has decentralized processes for doing things?Earmarks and directives come down from Congress. [Some are] about sector: $1 billion dollars to spend on primary school education to improve children's learning outcomes, for instance. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) [See our interview with former PEPFAR lead Mark Dybul] is one of the biggest earmarks to spend money specifically on specific diseases. Then there's directives that come down about how to allocate across countries.Those are two conversations I have very little engagement on, because some of that comes from Congress. It's a very complicated, intertwined set of constraints that are then adhered to and allocated to the different countries. Then what ends up happening is — this is the decentralized part — you might be a Foreign Service Officer (FSO) working in a country, your focus is education, and you're given a budget for that year from the earmark for education and told, "Go spend $80 million on a new award in education." You're working to figure out, “How should we spend that?” There might be some technical support from headquarters, but ultimately, you're responsible for making those decisions. Part of our role was to help guide those FSOs towards programs that had more evidence of effectiveness.Could you talk more about these earmarks? There's a popular perception that USAID decides what it wants to fund. But these big categories of humanitarian aid, or health, or governance, are all decided in Congress. Often it's specific congressmen or congresswomen who really want particular pet projects to be funded.That's right. And the number that I heard is that something in the ballpark of 150-170% of USAID funds were earmarked. That might sound horrible, but it's not.How is that possible?Congress double-dips, in a sense: we have two different demands. You must spend money on these two things. If the same dollar can satisfy both, that was completely legitimate. There was no hiding of that fact. It's all public record, and it all comes from congressional acts that create these earmarks. There's nothing hidden underneath the hood.Will you give me examples of double earmarking in practice? What kinds of goals could you satisfy with the same dollar?There's an earmark for Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) to do research, and an earmark for education. If DIV is going to fund an evaluation of something in the education space, there's a possibility that that can satisfy a dual earmark requirement. That's the kind of thing that would happen. One is an earmark for a process: “Do really careful, rigorous evaluations of interventions, so that we learn more about what works and what doesn't." And another is, "Here's money that has to be spent on education." That would be an example of a double dip on an earmark.And within those categories, the job of Chief Economist was to help USAID optimize the funding? If you're spending $2 billion on education, “Let's be as effective with that money as possible.”That's exactly right. We had two teams, Evidence Use and Evidence Generation. It was exactly what it sounds like. If there was an earmark for $1 billion dollars on education, the Evidence Use team worked to do systematic analysis: “What is the best evidence out there for what works for education for primary school learning outcomes?” Then, “How can we map that evidence to the kinds of things that USAID funds? What are the kinds of questions that need to be figured out?”It's not a cookie-cutter answer. A systematic review doesn't say, "Here's the intervention. Now just roll it out everywhere." We had to work with the missions — with people who know the local area — to understand, “What is the local context? How do you appropriately adapt this program in a procurement and contextualize it to that country, so that you can hire people to use that evidence?”Our Evidence Generation team was trying to identify knowledge gaps where the agency could lead in producing more knowledge about what works and what doesn't. If there was something innovative that USAID was funding, we were huge advocates of, "Great, let's contribute to the global public good of knowledge, so that we can learn more in the future about what to do, and so others can learn from us. So let's do good, careful evaluations."Being able to demonstrate what good came of an intervention also serves the purpose of accountability. But I've never been a fan of doing really rigorous evaluations just for the sake of accountability. It could discourage innovation and risk-taking, because if you fail, you'd be seen as a failure, rather than as a win for learning that an idea people thought was reasonable didn't turn out to work. It also probably leads to overspending on research, rather than doing programs. If you're doing something just for accountability purposes, you're better off with audits. "Did you actually deliver the program that you said you would deliver, or not?"Awards over $100 million dollars did go through the front office of USAID for approval. We added a process — it was actually a revamped old process — where they stopped off in my office. We were able to provide guidance on the cost-effectiveness of proposals that would then be factored into the decision on whether to proceed. When I was first trying to understand Project 2025, because we saw that as a blueprint for what changes to expect, one of the changes they proposed was actually that process. I remember thinking to myself, "We just did that. Hopefully this change that they had in mind when they wrote that was what we actually put in place." But I thought of it as a healthy process that had an impact, not just on that one award, but also in helping set an example for smaller awards of, “This is how to be more evidence-based in what you're doing.”[Further reading: Here's a position paper Karlan's office at USAID put out in 2024 on how USAID should evaluate cost-effectiveness.]You've also argued that USAID should take into account more research that has already been done on global development and humanitarian aid. Your ideal wouldn't be for USAID to do really rigorous research on every single thing it does. You can get a lot better just by incorporating things that other people have learned.That's absolutely right. I can say this as a researcher: to no one's surprise, it's more bureaucratic to work with the government as a research funder than it is to work with foundations and nimble NGOs. If I want to evaluate a particular program, and you give me a choice of who the funder should be, the only reason I would choose government is if it had a faster on-ramp to policy by being inside.The people who are setting policy should not be putting more weight on evidence that they paid for. In fact, one of the slogans that I often used at USAID is, "Evidence doesn't care who pays for it." We shouldn't be, as an agency, putting more weight on the things that we evaluated vs. things that others evaluated without us, and that we can learn from, mimic, replicate, and scale.We — and the we here is everyone, researchers and policymakers — put too much weight on individual studies, in a horrible way. The first to publish on something gets more accolades than the second, third and fourth. That's not healthy when it comes to policy. If we put too much weight on our own evidence, we end up putting too much weight on individual studies we happen to do. That's not healthy either.That was one of the big pieces of culture change that we tried to push internally at USAID. We had this one slide that we used repeatedly that showed the plethora of evidence out there in the world compared to 20 years ago. A lot more studies are now usable. You can aggregate that evidence and form much better policies.You had political support to innovate that not everybody going into government has. On the other hand, USAID is a big, bureaucratic entity. There are all kinds of cross-pressures against being super-effective per dollar spent. In doing culture change, what kinds of roadblocks did you run into internally?We had a lot of support and political cover, in the sense that the political appointees — I was not a political appointee — were huge fans. But political appointees under Republicans have also been huge fans of what we were doing. Disagreements are more about what to do and what causes to choose. But the basic idea of being effective with your dollars to push your policy agenda is something that cuts across both sides.In the days leading up to the inauguration, we were expecting to continue the work we were doing. Being more cost-effective was something some of the people who were coming in were huge advocates for. They did make progress under Trump I in pushing USAID in that direction. We saw ourselves as able to help further that goal. Obviously, that's not the way it played out, but there isn't really anything political about being more cost-effective.We'll come back to that, but I do want to talk about the 2.5 years you spent in the Biden administration. USAID is full of people with all kinds of incentives, including some folks who were fully on board and supportive. What kinds of challenges did you have in trying to change the culture to be more focused on evidence and effectiveness?There was a fairly large contingent of people who welcomed us, were eager, understood the space that we were coming from and the things that we wanted, and greeted us with open arms. There's no way we would've accomplished what we accomplished without that. We had a bean counter within the Office of the Chief Economist of moving about $1.7 billion towards programs that were more effective or had strong evaluations. That would've been $0 had there not been some individuals who were already eager and just didn't have the path for doing it.People can see economists as people who are going to come in negative and a bit dismal — the dismal science, so to speak. I got into economics for a positive reason. We tried as often as possible to show that with an economic lens, we can help people achieve their goals better, period. We would say repeatedly to people, "We're not here to actually make the difficult choices: to say whether health, education, or food security is the better use of money. We're here to accept your goal and help you achieve more of it for your dollar spent.” We always send a very disarming message: we're there simply to help people achieve their goals and to illuminate the trade-offs that naturally exist.Within USAID, you have a consensus-type organization. When you have 10 people sitting around a room trying to decide how to spend money towards a common goal, if you don't crystallize the trade-offs between the various ideas being put forward, you end up seeing a consensus built: that everybody gets a piece of the pie. Our way of trying to shift the culture is to take those moments and say, "Wait a second. All 10 might be good ideas relative to doing nothing, but they can't all be good relative to each other. We all share a common goal, so let's be clear about the trade-offs between these different programs. Let's identify the ones that are actually getting you the most bang for your buck."Can you give me an example of what those trade-offs might be in a given sector?Sure. Let's take social protection, what we would call the Humanitarian Nexus development space. It might be working in a refugee area — not dealing with the immediate crisis, but one, two, five, or ten years later — trying to help bring the refugees into a more stable environment and into economic activities. Sometimes, you would see some cash or food provided to households. The programs would all have the common goal of helping to build a sustainable livelihood for households, so that they can be more integrated into the local economy. There might be programs providing water, financial instruments like savings vehicles, and supporting vocational education. It'd be a myriad of things, all on this focused goal of income-generating activity for the households to make them more stable in the long run.Often, those kinds of programs doing 10 different things did not actually lead to an observable impact over five years. But a more focused approach has gone through evaluations: cash transfers. That's a good example where “reducing” doesn't always mean reduce your programs just to one thing, but there is this default option of starting with a base case: “What does a cash transfer generate?"And to clarify for people who don't follow development economics, the cash transfer is just, “What if we gave people money?”Sometimes it is just that. Sometimes it's thinking strategically, “Maybe we should do it as a lump sum so that it goes into investments. Maybe we should do it with a planning exercise to make those investments.” Let's just call it “cash-plus,” or “cash-with-a-little-plus,” then variations of that nature. There's a different model, maybe call it, “cash-plus-plus,” called the graduation model. That has gone through about 30 randomized trials, showing pretty striking impacts on long-run income-generating activity for households. At its core is a cash transfer, usually along with some training about income-generating activity — ideally one that is producing and exporting in some way, even a local export to the capital — and access to some form of savings. In some cases, that's an informal savings group, with a community that comes and saves together. In some cases, it's mobile money that's the core. It's a much simpler program, and it's easier to do it at scale. It has generated considerable, measured, repeatedly positive impacts, but not always. There's a lot more that needs to be learned about how to do it more effectively.[Further reading: Here's another position paper from Karlan's team at USAID on benchmarking against cash transfers.]One of your recurring refrains is, “If we're not sure that these other ideas have an impact, let's benchmark: would a cash-transfer model likely give us more bang for our buck than this panoply of other programs that we're trying to run?”The idea of having a benchmark is a great approach in general. You should always be able to beat X. X might be different in different contexts. In a lot of cases, cash is the right benchmark.Go back to education. What's your benchmark for improving learning outcomes for a primary school? Cash transfer is not the right benchmark. The evidence that cash transfers will single-handedly move the needle on learning outcomes is not that strong. On the other hand, a couple of different programs — one called Teaching at the Right Level, another called structured pedagogy — have proven repeatedly to generate very strong impacts at a fairly modest cost. In education, those should be the benchmark. If you want to innovate, great, innovate. But your goal is to beat those. If you can beat them consistently, you become the benchmark. That's a great process for the long run. It's very much part of our thinking about what the future of foreign aid should look like: to be structured around that benchmark.Let's go back to those roundtables you described, where you're trying to figure out what the intervention should be for a group of refugees in a foreign country. What were the responses when you'd say, “Look, if we're all pulling in the same direction, we have to toss out the three worst ideas”?One of the challenges is the psychology of ethics. There's probably a word for this, but one of the objections we would often get was about the scale of a program for an individual. Someone would argue, "But this won't work unless you do this one extra thing." That extra thing might be providing water to the household, along with a cash transfer for income-generating activity, financial support, and bank accounts. Another objection would be that, "You also have to provide consumption and food up to a certain level."These are things that individually might be good, relative to nothing, or maybe even relative to other water approaches or cash transfers. But if you're focused on whether to satisfy the household's food needs, or provide half of what's needed — if all you're thinking about is the trade-off between full and half — you immediately jump to this idea that, "No, we have to go full. That's what's needed to help this household." But if you go to half, you can help more people. There's an actual trade-off: 10,000 people will receive nothing because you're giving more to the people in your program.The same is true for nutritional supplements. Should you provide 2,000 calories a day, or 1,000 calories a day to more people? It's a very difficult conversation on the psychology of ethics. There's this idea that people in a program are sacrosanct, and you must do everything you can for them. But that ignores all the people who are not being reached at all.I would find myself in conversations where that's exactly the way I would try to put it. I would say, "Okay, wait, we have the 2,000,000 people that are eligible for this program in this context. Our program is only going to reach 250,000. That's the reality. Now, let's talk about how many people we're willing to leave untouched and unhelped whatsoever." That was, at least to me, the right way to frame this question. Do you go very intense for fewer people or broader support for more people?Did that help these roundtables reach consensus, or at least have a better sense of what things are trading off against each other?I definitely saw movement for some. I wouldn't say it was uniform, and these are difficult conversations. But there was a lot of appetite for this recognition that, as big as USAID was, it was still small, relative to the problems being approached. There were a lot of people in any given crisis who were being left unhelped. The minute you're able to help people focus more on those big numbers, as daunting as they are, I would see more openness to looking at the evidence to figure out how to do the most good with the resources we have?” We must recognize these inherent trade-offs, whether we like it or not.Back in 2023, you talked to Dylan Matthews at Vox — it's a great interview — about how it's hard to push people to measure cost-effectiveness, when it means adding another step to a big, complicated bureaucratic process of getting aid out the door. You said,"There are also bandwidth issues. There's a lot of competing demands. Some of these demands relate to important issues on gender environment, fairness in the procurement process. These add steps to the process that need to be adhered to. What you end up with is a lot of overworked people. And then you're saying, ‘Here's one more thing to do.'”Looking back, what do you think of those demands on, say, fairness in the procurement process?Given that we're going to be facing a new environment, there probably are some steps in the process that — hopefully, when things are put back in place in some form — someone can be thinking more carefully about. It's easier to put in a cleaner process that avoids some of these hiccups when you start with a blank slate.Having said that, it's also going to be fewer people to dole out less money. There's definitely a challenge that we're going to be facing as a country, to push out money in an effective way with many fewer people for oversight. I don't think it would be accurate to say we achieved this goal yet, but my goal was to make it so that adding cost-effectiveness was actually a negative-cost addition to the process. [We wanted] to do it in a way that successfully recognized that it wasn't a cookie-cutter solution from up top for every country. But [our goal was that] the work to contextualize in a country actually simplified the process for whoever's putting together the procurement docs and deciding what to put in them. I stand by that belief that if it's done well, we can make this a negative-cost process change.I just want to push a little bit. Would you be supportive of a USAID procurement and contracting process that stripped out a bunch of these requirements about gender, environment, or fairness in contracting? Would that make USAID a more effective institution?Some of those types of things did serve an important purpose for some areas and not others. The tricky thing is, how do you set up a process to decide when to do it, when not? There's definitely cases where you would see an environmental review of something that really had absolutely nothing to do with the environment. It was just a cog in the process, but you have to have a process for deciding the process. I don't know enough about the legislation that was put in place on each of these to say, “Was there a better way of deciding when to do them, when not to do them?” That is not something that I was involved in in a direct way. "Let's think about redoing how we introduce gender in our procurement process" was never put on the table.On gender, there's a fair amount of evidence in different contexts that says the way of dealing with a gender inequity is not to just take the same old program and say, "We're now going to do this for women." You need to understand something more about the local context. If all you do is take programs and say, "Add a gender component," you end up with a lot of false attribution, and you don't end up being effective at the very thing that the person [leading the program] cares to do.In that Vox interview, your host says, "USAID relies heavily on a small number of well-connected contractors to deliver most aid, while other groups are often deterred from even applying by the process's complexity." He goes on to say that the use of rigorous evaluation methods like randomized controlled trials is the exception, not the norm.On Statecraft, we talked to Kyle Newkirk, who ran USAID procurement in Afghanistan in the late 2000s, about the small set of well-connected contractors that took most of the contracts in Afghanistan. Often, there was very little oversight from USAID, either because it was hard to get out to those locations in a war-torn environment, or because the system of accountability wasn't built there. Did you talk to people about lessons learned from USAID operating in Afghanistan?No. I mean, only to the following extent: The lesson learned there, as I understand it, wasn't so much about the choice on what intervention to fund, it was procurement: the local politics and engagement with the governments or lack thereof. And dealing with the challenge of doing work in a context like that, where there's more risk of fraud and issues of that nature.Our emphasis was about the design of programs to say, “What are you actually going to try to fund?” Dealing with whether there's fraud in the execution would fall more under the Inspector General and other units. That's not an area that we engaged in when we would do evaluation.This actually gets to a key difference between impact evaluations and accountability. It's one of the areas where we see a lot of loosey-goosey language in the media reporting and Twitter. My office focused on impact evaluation. What changed in the world because of this intervention, that wouldn't otherwise have changed? By “change in the world,” we are making a causal statement. That's setting up things like randomized controlled trials to find out, “What was the impact of this program?” It does provide some accountability, but it really should be done to look forward, in order to know, “Does this help achieve the goals we have in mind?” If so, let's learn that, and replicate it, scale it, do it again.If you're going to deliver books to schools, medicine to health clinics, or cash to people, and you're concerned about fraud, then you need to audit that process and see, “Did the books get to the schools, the medicine to the people, the cash to the people?” You don't need to ask, "Did the medicine solve the disease?" There's been studies already. There's a reason that medicine was being prescribed. Once it's proven to be an effective drug, you don't run randomized trials for decades to learn what you already know. If it's the prescribed drug, you just prescribe the drug, and do accountability exercises to make sure that the drugs are getting into the right hands and there isn't theft or corruption along the way.I think it's a very intuitive thing. There's a confusion that often takes place in social science, in economic or education interventions. They somehow forget that once we know that a certain program generates a certain positive impact, we no longer need to track continuously to find out what happens. Instead, we just need to do accountability to make sure that the program is being delivered as it was designed, tested, and shown to work.There are all these criticisms — from the waste, fraud, and corruption perspective — of USAID working with a couple of big contractors. USAID works largely through these big development organizations like Chemonics. Would USAID dollars be more effective if it worked through a larger base of contractors?I don't think we know. There's probably a few different operating models that can deliver the same basic intervention. We need to focus on, ”What actually are we doing on the ground? What is it that we want the recipients of the program to receive, hear, or do?” and then think backwards from there: "Who's the right implementer for this?" If there's an implementer who is much more expensive for delivering the same product, let's find someone who's more cost-effective.It's helpful to break cost-effective programming into two things: the intervention itself and what benefits it accrues, and the cost for delivering that. Sometimes the improvement is not about the intervention, it's about the delivery model. Maybe that's what you're saying: “These players were too few, too large, and they had a grab on the market, so that they were able to charge too much money to deliver something that others were equally able to do at lower cost." If that's the case, that says, "We should reform our procurement process,” because the reason you would see that happen is they were really good at complying with requirements that came at USAID from Congress. You had an overworked workforce [within USAID] that had to comply with all these requirements. If you had a bid between two groups, one of which repeatedly delivered on the paperwork to get a good performance evaluation, and a new group that doesn't have that track record, who are you going to choose? That's how we ended up where we are.My understanding of the history is that it comes from a push from Republicans in the ‘80s, from [Senator] Jesse Helms, to outsource USAID efforts to contractors. So this is not a left-leaning thing. I wouldn't say it is right-leaning either. It was just a decision made decades ago. You combine that with the bureaucratic requirements of working with USAID, and you end up with a few firms and nonprofits skilled at dealing with it.It's definitely my impression that at various points in American history, different partisans are calling for insourcing or for outsourcing. But definitely, I think you're right that the NGO cluster around USAID does spring up out of a Republican push in the eighties.We talked to John Kamensky recently, who was on Al Gore's predecessor to DOGE in the ‘90s.I listened to this, yeah.I'm glad to hear it! I'm thinking of it because they also pushed to cut the workforce in the mid-90s and outsource federal functions.Earlier, you mentioned a slide that showed what we've learned in the field of development economics over the past 20 years. Will you narrate that slide for me?Let me do two slides for you. The slide that I was picturing was a count of randomized controlled trials in development that shows a fairly exponential growth. The movement started in the mid-to-late 1990s, but really took off in the 2000s. Even just in the past 10 years, it's seen a considerable increase. There's about 4-5,000 randomized controlled trials evaluating various programs of the kind USAID funds.That doesn't tell you the substance of what was learned. Here's an example of substance, which is cash transfers: probably the most studied intervention out there. We have a meta-analysis that counted 115 studies. That's where you start having a preponderance of evidence to be able to say something concrete. There's some variation: you get different results in different places; targeting and ways of doing it vary. A good systematic analysis can help tease out what we can say, not just about the effect of cash, but also how to do it and what to expect, depending on how it's done. Fifteen years ago, when we saw the first few come out, you just had, "Oh, that's interesting. But it's a couple of studies, how do you form policy around that?” With 115, we can say so much more.What else have we learned about development that USAID operators in the year 2000 would not have been able to act upon?Think about the development process in two steps. One is choosing good interventions; the other is implementing them well. The study of implementation is historically underdone. The challenge that we face — this is an area I was hoping USAID could make inroads on — was, studying a new intervention might be of high reward from an academic perspective. But it's a lot less interesting to an academic to do much more granular work to say, "That was an interesting program that created these groups [of aid recipients]; now let's do some further knock-on research to find out whether those groups should be made of four, six, or ten people.” It's going to have a lower reward for the researcher, but it's incredibly important.It's equivalent to the color of the envelope in direct marketing. You might run tests — if this were old-style direct marketing — as to whether the envelope should be blue or red. You might find that blue works better. Great, but that's not interesting to an academic. But if you run 50 of these, on a myriad of topics about how to implement better, you end up with a collection of knowledge that is moving the needle on how to achieve more impact per dollar.That collection is not just important for policy: it also helps us learn more about the development process and the bottlenecks for implementing good programs. As we're seeing more digital platforms and data being used, [refining implementation] is more possible compared to 20 years ago, where most of the research was at the intervention level: does this intervention work? That's an exciting transition. It's also a path to seeing how foreign aid can help in individual contexts, [as we] work with local governments to integrate evidence into their operations and be more efficient with their own resources.There's an argument I've seen a lot recently: we under-invest in governance relative to other foreign aid goals. If we care about economic growth and humanitarian outcomes, we should spend a lot more on supporting local governance. What do you make of that claim?I agree with it actually, but there's a big difference between recognizing the problem and seeing what the tool is to address it. It's one thing to say, “Politics matters, institutions matter.” There's lots of evidence to support that, including the recent Nobel Prize. It's another beast to say, “This particular intervention will improve institutions and governance.”The challenge is, “What do we do about this? What is working to improve this? What is resilient to the political process?” The minute you get into those kinds of questions, it's the other end of the spectrum from a cash transfer. A cash transfer has a kind of universality: Not to say you're going to get the same impact everywhere, but it's a bit easier to think about the design of a program. You have fewer parameters to decide. When you think about efforts to improve governance, you need bespoke thinking in every single place.As you point out, it's something of a meme to say “institutions matter” and to leave it at that, but the devil is in all of those details.In my younger years — I feel old saying that — I used to do a lot of work on financial inclusion, and financial literacy was always my go-to example. On a household level, it's really easy to show a correlation: people who are more financially literate make better financial decisions and have more wealth, etc. It's much harder to say, “How do you move the needle on financial literacy in a way that actually helps people make better decisions, absorb shocks better, build investment better, save better?” It's easy to show that the correlation is there. It's much harder to say this program, here, will actually move the needle. That same exact problem is much more complicated when thinking about governance and institutions.Let's talk about USAID as it stands today. You left USAID when it became clear to you that a lot of the work you were doing was not of interest to the people now running it. How did the agency end up so disconnected from a political base of support? There's still plenty of people who support USAID and would like it to be reinstated, but it was at least vulnerable enough to be tipped over by DOGE in a matter of weeks. How did that happen?I don't know that I would agree with the premise. I'm not sure that public support of foreign aid actually changed, I'd be curious to see that. I think aid has always been misunderstood. There are public opinion polls that show people thought 25% of the US budget was spent on foreign aid. One said, "What, do you think it should be?" People said 10%. The right answer is about 0.6%. You could say fine, people are bad at statistics, but those numbers are pretty dauntingly off. I don't know that that's changed. I heard numbers like that years ago.I think there was a vulnerability to an effort that doesn't create a visible impact to people's lives in America, the way that Social Security, Medicare, and roads do. Foreign aid just doesn't have that luxury. I think it's always been vulnerable. It has always had some bipartisan support, because of the understanding of the bigger picture and the soft power that's gained from it. And the recognition that we are a nation built on the idea of generosity and being good to others. That was always there, but it required Congress to step in and say, "Let's go spend this money on foreign aid." I don't think that changed. What changed was that you ended up with an administration that just did not share those values.There's this issue in foreign aid: Congress picks its priorities, but those priorities are not a ranked list of what Congress cares about. It's the combination of different interests and pressures in Congress that generates the list of things USAID is going to fund.You could say doing it that way is necessary to build buy-in from a bunch of different political interests for the work of foreign aid. On the other hand, maybe the emergent list from that process is not the things that are most important to fund. And clearly, that congressional buy-in wasn't enough to protect USAID from DOGE or from other political pressures.How should people who care about foreign aid reason about building a version of USAID that's more effective and less vulnerable at the same time?Fair question. Look, I have thoughts, but by no means do I think of myself as the most knowledgeable person to say, here's the answer in the way forward. One reality is, even if Congress did object, they didn't have a mechanism in place to actually object. They can control the power of the purse the next round, but we're probably going to be facing a constitutional crisis over the Impoundment Act, to see if the executive branch can impound money that Congress spent. We'll see how this plays out. Aside from taking that to court, all Congress could do was complain.I would like what comes back to have two things done that will help, but they don't make foreign aid immune. One is to be more evidence-based, because then attacks on being ineffective are less strong. But the reality is, some of the attacks on its “effectiveness,” and the examples used, had nothing to do with poorly-chosen interventions. There was a slipperiness of language, calling something that they don't like “fraud” and “waste” because they didn't like its purpose. That is very different than saying, “We actually agreed on the purpose of something, but then you implemented it in such a bad way that there was fraud and waste.” There were really no examples given of that second part. So I don't know that being more evidence-based will actually protect it, given that that wasn't the way it was really genuinely taken down.The second is some boundaries. There is a core set of activities that have bipartisan support. How do we structure a foreign aid that is just focused on that? We need to find a way to put the things that are more controversial — whether it's the left or right that wants it — in a separate bucket. Let the team that wins the election turn that off and on as they wish, without adulterating the core part that has bipartisan support. That's the key question: can we set up a process that partitions those, so that they don't have that vulnerability? [I wrote about this problem earlier this year.]My counter-example is PEPFAR, which had a broad base of bipartisan support. PEPFAR consistently got long-term reauthorizations from Congress, I think precisely because of the dynamic you're talking about: It was a focused, specific intervention that folks all over the political spectrum could get behind and save lives. But in government programs, if something has a big base of support, you have an incentive to stuff your pet partisan issues in there, for the same reason that “must-pass” bills get stuffed with everybody's little thing. [In 2024, before DOGE, PEPFAR's original Republican co-sponsor came out against a long-term reauthorization, on the grounds that the Biden administration was using the program to promote abortion. Congress reauthorized PEPFAR for only one year, and that reauthorization lapsed in 2025.]You want to carve out the things that are truly bipartisan. But does that idea have a timer attached? What if, on a long enough timeline, everything becomes politicized?There are economic theorems about the nature of a repeated game. You can get many different equilibria in the long run. I'd like to think there's a world in which that is the answer. But we have seen an erosion of other things, like the filibuster regarding judges. Each team makes a little move in some direction, and then you change the equilibrium. We always have that risk. The goal is, how can you establish something where that doesn't happen?It might be that what's happened is helpful, in an unintended way, to build equilibrium in the future that keeps things focused on the bipartisan aspect. Whether it's the left or the right that wants to do something that they know the other side will object to, they hold back and say, "Maybe we shouldn't do that. Because when we do, the whole thing gets blown up."Let's imagine you're back at USAID a couple of years from now, with a broader latitude to organize our foreign aid apparatus around impact and effectiveness. What other things might we want to do — beyond measuring programs and keeping trade-offs in mind — if we really wanted to focus on effectiveness? Would we do fewer interventions and do them at larger scale?I think we would do fewer things simpler and bigger, but I also think we need to recognize that even at our biggest, we were tiny compared to the budget of the local government. If we can do more to use our money to help them be more effective with their money, that's the biggest win to go for. That starts looking a lot like things Mark Green was putting in place [as administrator of USAID] under Trump I, under the Journey to Self-Reliance [a reorganization of USAID to help countries address development challenges themselves].Sometimes that's done in the context of, "Let's do that for five or ten years, and then we can stop giving aid to that country." That was the way the Millennium Challenge Corporation talked about their country selection initially. Eventually, they stopped doing that, because they realized that that was never happening. I think that's okay. As much as we might help make some changes, even if we succeed in helping the poorest country in the world use their resources better, they're still going to be poor. We're still going to be rich. There's still maybe going to be the poorest, because if we do that in the 10 poorest countries and they all move up, maybe the 11th becomes the poorest, and then we can work there. I don't think getting off of aid is necessarily the objective.But if that was clearly the right answer, that's a huge win if we've done that by helping to prove the institutions and governance of that country so that it is rolling out better policies, helping its people better, and collecting their own tax revenue. If we can have an eye on that, then that's a huge win for foreign aid in general.How are we supposed to be measuring the impact of soft power? I think that's a term that's not now much in vogue in DC.There's no one answer to how to measure soft power. It's described as the influence that we gain in the world in terms of geopolitics, everything from treaties and the United Nations to access to markets; trade policy, labor policy. The basic idea of soft power manifests itself in all those different ways.It's a more extreme version of the challenge of measuring the impact of cash transfers. You want to measure the impact of a pill that is intended to deal with disease: you measure the disease, and you have a direct measure. You want to measure the impact of cash: you have to measure a lot of different things, because you don't know how people are going to use the cash. Soft power is even further down the spectrum: you don't know exactly how aid is helping build our partnership with a country's people and leaders. How is that going to manifest itself in the future? That becomes that much harder to do.Having said that, there's academic studies that document everything from attitudes about America to votes at the United Nations that follow aid, and things of that nature. But it's not like there's one core set: that's part of what makes it a challenge.I will put my cards on the table here: I have been skeptical of the idea that USAID is a really valuable tool for American soft power, for maintaining American hegemony, etc. It seems much easier to defend USAID by simply saying that it does excellent humanitarian work, and that's valuable. The national security argument for USAID seems harder to substantiate.I think we agree on this. You have such a wide set of things to look at, it's not hard to imagine a bias from a researcher might lead to selection of outcomes, and of the context. It's not a well-defined enough concept to be able to say, "It worked 20% of the time, and it did not in these, and the net average…" Average over what? Even though there's good case studies that show various paths where it has mattered, there's case studies that show it doesn't.I also get nervous about an entire system that's built around [attempts to measure soft power]. It turns foreign aid into too much of a transactional process, instead of a relationship that is built on the Golden Rule, “There's people in this country that we can actually help.” Sure, there's this hope that it'll help further our national interests. But if they're suffering from drought and famine, and we can provide support and save some lives, or we can do longer term developments and save tomorrow's lives, we ought to do that. That is a good thing for our country to do.Yet the conversation does often come back to this question of soft power. The problem with transactional is you get exactly what you contract on: nothing more, nothing less. There's too many unknowns here, when we're dealing with country-level interactions, and engagements between countries. It needs to be about relationships, and that means supporting even if there isn't a contract that itemizes the exact quid pro quo we are getting for something.I want to talk about what you observed in the administration change and the DOGE-ing of USAID. I think plenty of observers looked at this in the beginning and thought, “It's high time that a lot of these institutions were cleaned up and that someone took a hard look at how we spend money there.”There was not really any looking at any of the impact of anything. That was never in the cards. There was a 90-day review that was supposed to be done, but there were no questions asked, there was no data being collected. There was nothing whatsoever being looked at that had anything to do with, “Was this award actually accomplishing what it set out to accomplish?” There was no process in which they made those kinds of evaluations on what's actually working.You can see this very clearly when you think about what their bean counter was at DOGE: the spending that they cut. It's like me saying, "I'm going to do something beneficial for my household by stopping all expenditures on food." But we were getting something for that. Maybe we could have bought more cheaply, switched grocery stores, made a change there that got us the same food for less money. That would be a positive change. But you can't cut all your food expenditures, call that a saving, and then not have anything to eat. That's just bad math, bad economics.But that's exactly what they were doing. Throughout the entire government, that bean counter never once said, “benefits foregone.” It was always just “lowered spending.” Some of that probably did actually have a net loss, maybe it was $100 million spent on something that only created $10 million of benefits to Americans. That's a $90 million gain. But it was recorded as $100 million. And the point is, they never once looked at what benefits were being generated from the spending. What was being asked, within USAID, had nothing to do with what was actually being accomplished by any of the money that was being spent. It was never even asked.How do you think about risky bets in a place like USAID? It would be nice for USAID to take lots of high-risk, high-reward bets, and to be willing to spend money that will be “wasted” in the pursuit of high-impact interventions. But that approach is hard for government programs, politically, because the misses are much more salient than the successes.This is a very real issue. I saw this the very first time I did any sort of briefing with Congress when I was Chief Economist. The question came at me, "Why doesn't USAID show us more failures?" I remember thinking to myself, "Are you willing to promise that when they show the failure, you won't punish them for the failure — that you'll reward them for documenting and learning from the failure and not doing it again?" That's a very difficult nut to crack.There's an important distinction to make. You can have a portfolio of evidence generation, some things work and some don't, that can collectively contribute towards knowledge and scaling of effective programs. USAID actually had something like this called Development Innovation Ventures (DIV), and was in an earmark from Congress. It was so good that they raised money from the effective altruist community to further augment their pot of money. This was strong because a lot of it was not evaluating USAID interventions. It was just funding a portfolio of evidence generation about what works, implemented by other parties. The failures aren't as devastating, because you're showing a failure of some other party: it wasn't USAID money paying for an intervention. That was a strong model for how USAID can take on some risks and do some evidence generation that is immune to the issue you just described.If you're going to do evaluations of USAID money, the issue is very real. My overly simplistic view is that a lot of what USAID does should not be getting a highly rigorous impact evaluation. USAID should be rolling out, simple and at scale, things that have already been shown elsewhere. Let the innovation take place pre-USAID, funded elsewhere, maybe by DIV. Let smaller and more nimble nonprofits be the innovators and the documenters of what works. Then, USAID can adopt the things that are more effective and be more immune to this issue.So yeah, there is a world that is not first-best where USAID does the things that have strong evidence already. When it comes to actual innovation, where we do need to take risks that things won't work, let that be done in a way that may be supported by USAID, but partitioned away.I'm looking at a chart of USAID program funding in Fiscal Year 2022: the three big buckets are humanitarian, health, and governance, all on the order of $10–12 billion. Way down at the bottom, there's $500 million for “economic growth.” What's in that bucket that USAID funds, and should that piece of the pie chart be larger?I do think that should be larger, but it depends on how you define it. I don't say that just because I'm an economist. It goes back to the comment earlier about things that we can do to help improve local governance, and how they're using their resources. The kinds of things that might be funded would be efforts to work with local government to improve their ability to collect taxes. Or to set up efficient regulations for the banking industry, so it can grow and provide access to credit and savings. These are things that can help move the needle on macroeconomic outcomes. With that, you have more resources. That helps health and education, you have these downstream impacts. As you pointed out, the earmark on that was tiny. It did not have quite the same heartstring tug. But the logical link is huge and strong: if you strengthen the local government's financial stability, the benefits very much accrue to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Social Protection, etc.Fighting your way out of poverty through growth is unambiguously good. You can look at many countries around the world that have grown economically, and through that, reduced poverty. But it's one thing to say that growth will alleviate poverty. It's another to say, "Here's aid money that will trigger growth." If we knew how to do that, we would've done it long ago, in a snap.Last question. Let's say it's a clean slate at USAID in a couple years, and you have wide latitude to do things your way. I want the Dean Karlan vision for the future of USAID.It needs to have, at the high level, a recognition that the Golden Rule is an important principle that guides our thinking on foreign aid and that we want to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Being generous as a people is something that we pride ourselves in, our nation represents us as people, so we shouldn't be in any way shy to use foreign aid to further that aspiration of being a generous nation.The actual way of delivering aid, I would say, three things. Simpler. Let's focus on the evidence of what works, but recognize the boundaries of that evidence and how to contextualize it. There is a strong need to understand what it means to be simpler, and how to identify what that means in specific countries and contexts.The second is about leveraging local government, and working more to recognize that, as big as we may be, we're still going to be tiny relative to local government. If we can do more to improve how local government is using its resources, we've won.The third is about finding common ground. There's a lot. That's one of the reasons why I've started working on a consortium with Republicans and Democrats. The things I care about are generally non-partisan. The goal is to take the aspirations that foreign aid has — about improving health, education, economic outcomes, food security, agricultural productivity, jobs, trade, whatever the case is — and how do we use the evidence that's out there to move the needle as much as we can towards those goals? A lot of topics have common ground. How do we set up a foreign aid system that stays true to the common ground? I'd like to think it's not that hard. That's what I think would be great to see happen. 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

For years, Cars Yeah has been a go-to destination for automotive enthusiasts, industry insiders, and anyone who finds inspiration in the world of cars. Hosted by the legendary Mark Greene, the show has featured in-depth conversations with some of the most fascinating people in the automotive space. But today, we're shifting gears and heading into an exciting new chapter as Cars Yeah transitions to its new host, Ginger Baker Rust. Ginger brings a fresh perspective, a deep love for cars, and a passion for storytelling that will keep the spirit of Cars Yeah alive while taking it to new heights. What does this transition mean for the podcast? How will the show evolve while staying true to its roots? Buckle up as we take a behind-the-scenes look at this exciting shift and hear from both Mark and Ginger about what's next for Cars Yeah! And joining us is returning co-host Don Weberg from Garage Style Magazine, one of the many personalities on the Motoring Podcast Network! ===== (Oo---x---oO) ===== 00:00:00 Break/Fix & Cars Yeah! Crossover Introduction 00:00:52 Behind the Scenes of the Transition to New Host: Ginger Baker Rust 00:02:49 Mark Green's Journey and Reflections 00:10:06 Ginger's Perspective and Challenges 00:23:32 Memorable Moments and Emotional Stories 00:35:34 The Future of Cars Yeah 00:39:10 Ginger's Southern Style: Overcoming Nervousness in Interviews 00:41:23 More Memorable Interviews and Truth Bombs 00:44:19 Revamping the Show and Engaging Youth (Through Racing) 00:52:33 Mark's Podcasting Advice and Legacy 01:12:39 Final Thoughts and Future Plans ==================== The Motoring Podcast Network : Years of racing, wrenching and Motorsports experience brings together a top notch collection of knowledge, stories and information. #everyonehasastory #gtmbreakfix - motoringpodcast.net More Information: https://www.motoringpodcast.net/ Become a VIP at: https://www.patreon.com/gtmotorsports Online Magazine: https://www.gtmotorsports.org/

Anna and Jake break down the latest developments in Washington as Congress heads toward its August recess. Will President Trump's push to keep the Senate in session to confirm his nominees succeed? They also explore the growing race to replace Rep. Mark Green as the next Republican chair of the Homeland Security Committee, and share all the latest updates on Texas redistricting. Punchbowl News is on YouTube! Subscribe to our channel today to see all the new ways we're investing in video. Want more in-depth daily coverage from Congress? Subscribe to our free Punchbowl News AM newsletter at punchbowl.news. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While the gossip and transfer rumours circulate, we offer an antidote to all of that, and possibly one for the kit nerds, as Tom Newton meets Mark Green (@nottmforestshirts on Instagram), an avid Reds fan and a collector of Forest shirts home and away over the last 40-something years. Tom and Mark discuss what makes a good home shirt - is it a bad thing to have black on there ? What is the classic away colour for Forest - white or yellow? How much does the sponsor make the shirt, and do we revise our opinions of a kit based upon the success or failures of that season? Finally, as a kit geek, we ask Mark to select the top three footy shirts of his lifetime. Thanks to Mark for joining us - still to come over the summer, we will bring you some more interviews with legendary Forest players, and will have roundups of the confirmed transfer activity, before we report back for pre-season in a few weeks' time! Subscribe to 1865: The ORIGINAL Nottingham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: ⁠Apple⁠ - ⁠Spotify⁠ - ⁠YouTube⁠. Join us on ⁠X⁠, ⁠Instagram⁠, ⁠Bluesky⁠, ⁠Threads⁠ or ⁠TikTok⁠. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the ⁠Sports Social Network⁠, and partnered with ⁠FanHub⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Tennessee Conservative's Adelia Kirchner interviews Tennessee State Representative Jody Barrett (R-Dickson-District 69) about his bid to replace Representative Mark Green (TN-D7) in U.S. Congress.

The Great Shuffle of 2026… Potential Candidates Line Up To Replace Congressman Mark Green Would Marsha Blackburn Make A Good Tennessee Governor?  What About John Rose? Should Property Tax Reform Be A Focal Point For Candidates?All This & More As The Tennessee Conservative's Brandon Lewis Fills In For Yaffee On Talk Radio 102.3FM!

Budget Reconciliation Update House Passes Funding Rescissions Request Secretary Kennedy Fires Entire Vaccine Advisory Panel Sens. Grassley, Wyden Release Report on OPO Oversight GOP Rep. Mark Green, Emergency Physician, to Retire from Congress Dept. of Health and Human Services No. 2 Sworn In MACPAC Releases June Report to Congress and more...

Elon Musk's Boring Co. is in talks with state leaders to build a tunnel from BNA to downtown, but he's not the only national name in our local news this week. Host Marie Cecile Anderson, producer Daniel Sumstine, and executive producer Whitney Pastorek have the deets on that as well as the surprise Middle TN indictment of wrongly deported immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia and the retirement of Rep. Mark Green (TN-07). Plus, we're remembering Dot Dobbins, who was tragically killed in a crosswalk during CMA Fest. Learn more about the sponsors of this June 13th episode: Nashville Zoo - The first 2,000 guests to visit the Zoo on June 20th for the ribbon cutting at 9:30 a.m get a free Leopard Forest bandana. Want some more City Cast Nashville news? Then make sure to sign up for our Hey Nashville newsletter.  Follow us @citycastnashville You can also text us or leave a voicemail at: 615-200-6392 Interested in advertising with City Cast? Find more info HERE.

Hackers attacks target Microsoft Entra ID accounts using pentesting tool Google Cloud and Cloudflare outages reported House Homeland Chairman Mark Green announces his departure Huge thanks to our sponsor, Vanta Is your manual GRC program slowing you down? There's something more efficient than spreadsheets, screenshots, and manual processes — Vanta. With Vanta, GRC can be so. much. easier—while also strengthening your security posture and driving revenue for your business. Vanta automates key areas of your GRC program—including compliance, risk, and customer trust—and streamlines the way you manage information. The impact is real: A recent IDC analysis found that compliance teams using Vanta are one hundred and twenty nine percent more productive. Get back time to focus on strengthening security and scaling your business. Get started at  Vanta.com/headlines. Find the stories behind the headlines at CISOseries.com.

Wednesday, June 11th, 2025Today, Trump is in court to try and move his 34 felony convictions appeal to federal court; Governor Newsom asks the court for an immediate restraining order against Hegseth's deployment of the military to California saying he has evidence troops will be used for law enforcement in violation of the law; Republican House Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green is leaving Congress as soon as the Billionaire Bailout Bill passes; a data broker owned by United, American Airlines and Delta sold passenger data to Customs and Border Patrol; five lawmakers in CA and NY were unlawfully denied access to ICE detention facilities; The Wall Street Journal confirms it was Stephen Miller that recommended ICE raids at Home Depots; Trump secretly sold his stake in a crypto company according to financial records; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, Fay NutritionYou can qualify to see a registered dietitian for as little as $0 by visiting FayNutrition.com/dailybeansThank You, Helix20% Off Sitewide, when you go to HelixSleep.com/dailybeansThank You, PacagenFor an extra 25% off your order and a special gift, head to Pacagen.com/DAILYBEANS.MSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueMarines Unleashed In LA! Trump's Authoritarian Crackdown Intensifies with Allison GillCheck out Dana's social media campaign highlighting LGBTQ+ heroes every day during Pride Month -  Dana Goldberg (@dgcomedy.bsky.social)Guest: Justin Gill, DNP, RN, ARNP @justin-gill Blue Sky, Justin Gill (@gill.justin) • Instagram, Washington State Nurses Association - Blue SkyNurses for America@nursesforamerica on BlueskyStoriesExclusive: DHS secretary sought military arrests and drones in Los Angeles in leaked letter | San Francisco ChronicleGAVIN NEWSOM v. DONALD TRUMP - Case 3:25-cv-04870-CRB Document 8 Filed 06/10/25 PDF | ca.govThe White House Marching Orders That Sparked the L.A. Migrant Crackdown | WSJ5 Lawmakers in California and New York Are Denied Access to Federal Detention Facilities | The New York TimesRepublican Rep. Mark Green plans to retire from Congress early | WBAL 11GOP House Homeland chairman Green to retire from Congress early | AP NewsTrump Secretly Sold Stake In Crypto Venture, Document Suggests | ForbesAirlines Don't Want You to Know They Sold Your Flight Data to DHS | 404 MediaGood Trouble: Let's Make Noise.  Stay involved and make your voice heard -  Contact your Representative | house.gov, Contact U.S. Senators, contact your professional associations. Tell your friends to push their professional associations. Let them know that having RFK Jr as Secretary of Health and Human Services is unacceptable. The harm he is doing to scientifically sound medicine is unacceptable. Demand his resignation. Demand Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Resignation ⭑ 5 CallsSTATEMENT RELEASE: Doctors for America Calls for the Resignation or Removal of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.Nurses For America - No Kings Day Page Sign the Open Letter in Support of NIH Public Servants - Action NetworkProton Mail: free email account with privacy and encryptionFind Upcoming Demonstrations And ActionsSat June 14 10am – 12pm PDT AG is hosting NO KINGS Waterfront Park, San DiegoDonation link - secure.actblue.com/donate/fuelthemovement250th Anniversary of the U.S. Army Grand Military Parade and Celebration50501 MovementJune 14th Nationwide Demonstrations - NoKings.orgIndivisible.orgFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyCheck out other MSW Media podcastsShows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 podSubscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on SubstackThe BreakdownFrom The Good NewsMartin Kerr | Share this for all the people getting 'disappeared' right now... | InstagramReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good Trouble Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Join Jim and Greg for the Wednesday edition of the 3 Martini Lunch where they bemoan the lack of 'serious people' in prominent positions. Those people include Terri Moran whose savage X post cost him his job at ABC, DNI director Tulsi Gabbard, who seems tired of being in the background, and Tennessee Rep. Mark Green who has the audacity to resign his position for an alleged business venture in Guyana. First, they laugh over Terry Moran's vitriolic X post, claiming Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and President Trump to be 'world class haters' and find nourishment by "eating their hate." Quite possibly the result of an evening of booze, this post could have been explained away with a simple apology, but Moran refuses to recant. Jim wonders if ABC is grateful for a reason to oust a boring reporter that costs them half a million dollars a year. Next, they dissect Tulsi Gabbard's dramatic YouTube warning about nuclear war. Gabbard insists we're closer than ever to nuclear annihilation, apparently forgetting the Cold War and Cuban Missile Crisis. Jim is skeptical, especially considering the recent war in Ukraine and Russia where nuclear weapons have not yet been used. He also says that Gabbard has a direct link to speak with the president about such concerns, so speaking out publicly suggests she is bored of working behind the scenes. Last, they are aghast at the resignation of Tennessee Rep. Mark Green for the sake of a private sector opportunity. Greg is enraged by any public official who would leave office for any reason other than health and family reasons or scandal. Green leaving for an elusive business venture in Guyana of all places has both Jim and Greg immensely irritated. Please visit our great sponsors:Talk it out with Betterhelp. Our listeners get 10% off their first month at https://BetterHelp.com/3MLRight now, with zero commitment, try OCI for free.  Go to https://Oracle.com/MARTINIIt's free, online, and easy to start—no strings attached. Enroll in Understanding Capitalism with Hillsdale College. Visit https://hillsdale.edu/Martini

Today's 20-min top headline news brief includes: -President Trump spoke about national security at Fort Bragg. [Newsmax Breaking] -L.A. Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Hatami talks about the riots. [Rob Schmitt Tonight] -Rep. Dan Meuser calls out Democrats for downplaying the violence. [Newsline] -Newsmax's Bob Brooks remembers when Democrat Governors used the National Guard to stop riots in 2020. [American Agenda] -Republican Rep. Mark Green will resign from Congress as soon as the House passes the big, beautiful bill. Listen to Newsmax LIVE and see our entire podcast lineup at http://Newsmax.com/Listen Make the switch to NEWSMAX today! Get your 15 day free trial of NEWSMAX+ at http://NewsmaxPlus.com Looking for NEWSMAX caps, tees, mugs & more? Check out the Newsmax merchandise shop at : http://nws.mx/shop Follow NEWSMAX on Social Media:  -Facebook: http://nws.mx/FB  -X/Twitter: http://nws.mx/twitter -Instagram: http://nws.mx/IG -YouTube: https://youtube.com/NewsmaxTV -Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsmaxTV -TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@NEWSMAX -GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/newsmax -Threads: http://threads.net/@NEWSMAX  -Telegram: http://t.me/newsmax  -BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/newsmax.com -Parler: http://app.parler.com/newsmax Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Chuck Todd reflects on his recent conversation with Steve Bannon and proposes his theory for what Donald Trump and his MAGA movement's populism is really tapping into not just in America, but as a global phenomenon. Chuck says that the Democrats have an opportunity to position themselves as an opposition party that taps into the American populace's skepticism of concentrated power, and that if the current Democratic leadership isn't equipped to navigate the moment, they could set themselves up to get steamrolled by Trumpism the same way that the George Bush and Mitt Romney wing of the Republican Party did. Chuck goes on to look at some of the races he's most excited for in 2026.Chuck Todd welcomes filmmakers Lindsay Utz and Michelle Walshe to discuss their documentary "Prime Minister," an intimate portrait of former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's extraordinary leadership during some of the most challenging moments in recent history. The film, built around Ardern's personal audio diaries that weren't meant to be released until after her death, chronicles her navigation through three defining crises: the Christchurch shooting, the COVID-19 pandemic, and giving birth while in office. The filmmakers had unprecedented access to Ardern, capturing her reflections on leading a nation through tragedy and global upheaval, while New Zealand became the first country to eradicate COVID-19 through decisive leadership and strong public health measures. The conversation explores the broader themes of the documentary, including the misogynistic backlash Ardern faced both for her COVID response and her decision to ban semi-automatic weapons after Christchurch. Utz and Walshe discuss the challenge of misinformation during the pandemic, the export of American political mistrust to other democracies, and how Ardern's millennial confidence shaped her leadership style. Despite her international popularity, the filmmakers reveal that Ardern has sworn off politics forever, making this documentary a crucial historical record of her tenure. The film serves as both a case study in crisis leadership and an inspiration for young women considering political careers, showcasing how Ardern became a global role model while navigating the unique pressures facing female leaders in the modern political landscape. Finally, he addresses listeners' questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment!00:00 Introduction03:50 Steve Bannon's theory about Trump & the global populist movement06:10 Why Trump's character is a distraction for Democrats08:10 Democrats' advantage as an outsider party10:45 New Jersey gubernatorial race14:30 Democratic Senate candidates popping up in Iowa18:30 Minnesota Senate Democratic primary20:45 New candidate alert in Georgia!23:00 Louisiana getting rid of runoffs?24:10 Mark Green stepping down in Tennesee29:30 Lindsay Utz and Michelle Walshe join the Chuck Toddcast!30:30 What was the origin story of their documentary “Prime Minister” 31:30 How often did they have access to Jacinda Ardern? 32:50 Ardern's audio diaries weren't supposed to be released until she died 34:00 Ardern showed extraordinary leadership after the Christchurch shooting 35:30 Adrern's story wasn't local and could resonate worldwide 37:30 Was Ardern surprised when reflecting on her diaries? 38:30 Ardern had to lead through 2 crises 39:30 The tentpoles of the documentary are Covid, Christchurch and giving birth in office 42:30 Great responsibility to get the story right due to historic nature 44:30 Was Arden's book coordinated with the release of the documentary? 45:30 What was the hardest thing to leave out? 47:30 New Zealand's great response to Covid relied on strong leadership 49:30 New Zealand was the first country to eradicate Covid 51:00 Citizens of every country blamed their leaders for Covid 52:30 Misinformation was a huge problem during Covid 53:30 Was there an anti-vax community in NZ prior to Covid? 54:45 Was the widespread mistrust in the American government exported to NZ? 55:45 Ardern received terrible misogynistic blowback from the public 56:30 Was the backlash worse for Covid or for banning semiautomic weapons? 59:40 Ardern swears she'll never go into politics again 1:02:30 Is Ardern more popular outside of New Zealand? 1:03:45 What do you hope a young female politician takes away from “Prime Minister”? 1:05:15 Was Ardern's confidence a byproduct of being a millennial? 1:07:45 Ardern was a great role model for young women 1:08:30 Do they have another project planned in the future? 1:11:40 Where can people see “Prime Minister”?1:14:00 Ask Chuck!

Riley Gaines reacts to Simone Biles personal attack.. Dan also speaks on riots intensifying in LA. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ryan Davis is a digital pioneer and award-winning strategist at the intersection of politics, technology, and culture. Born on Maryland's Eastern Shore in 1982, he's been online since the dial-up era—launching a teen e-zine, organizing gaming nights, and volunteering for John McCain—all before finishing high school.He moved to NYC in 2000 to study theatre and political communications, working in both off-Broadway theatre and grassroots politics. In 2003, he joined Howard Dean's groundbreaking digital team, producing for Blog for America and organizing in 36 states.Since then, Ryan has led digital strategy for campaigns (Mark Green, Norman Siegel), advocacy groups, and startups. At Blue State Digital, he helped shape strategy for Obama 2012, Microsoft, and the marriage equality movement, co-founding the award-winning campaign The Four 2012.He co-founded Bushwick Digital in 2014, partnering with Alicia Keys on criminal justice reform, and in 2019, launched People First, the first influencer marketing firm in Democratic politics. The agency has since won top Reed and Pollie Awards and led major campaigns in the 2020 election and COVID vaccine rollout.Outside of work, Ryan co-hosts Out of Office: A Travel Podcast and the Influencer Impact podcast. He publishes The Month in Digital newsletter and splits his time between Latin America and Europe. He serves as Board Chair of MJV and advises ag-tech startup Calyx, bringing his strategic mind and love of storytelling to every project.

Ryan Davis is a digital pioneer and award-winning strategist at the intersection of politics, technology, and culture. Born on Maryland's Eastern Shore in 1982, he's been online since the dial-up era—launching a teen e-zine, organizing gaming nights, and volunteering for John McCain—all before finishing high school.He moved to NYC in 2000 to study theatre and political communications, working in both off-Broadway theatre and grassroots politics. In 2003, he joined Howard Dean's groundbreaking digital team, producing for Blog for America and organizing in 36 states.Since then, Ryan has led digital strategy for campaigns (Mark Green, Norman Siegel), advocacy groups, and startups. At Blue State Digital, he helped shape strategy for Obama 2012, Microsoft, and the marriage equality movement, co-founding the award-winning campaign The Four 2012.He co-founded Bushwick Digital in 2014, partnering with Alicia Keys on criminal justice reform, and in 2019, launched People First, the first influencer marketing firm in Democratic politics. The agency has since won top Reed and Pollie Awards and led major campaigns in the 2020 election and COVID vaccine rollout.Outside of work, Ryan co-hosts Out of Office: A Travel Podcast and the Influencer Impact podcast. He publishes The Month in Digital newsletter and splits his time between Latin America and Europe. He serves as Board Chair of MJV and advises ag-tech startup Calyx, bringing his strategic mind and love of storytelling to every project.

First Baptist Decatur is a vibrant, progressive, welcoming and affirming community of faith located in the heart of Decatur, GA.To learn more about our community:Visit our websiteSubscribe to our email listTo help us keep resources like this available:Give a tax-deductible gift online

It's Monday, April 21st, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus New law criminalizes praying with someone about gender, sexuality identity On April 4, the Australian state of New South Wales began enforcing a new law criminalizing anti-conversion therapy, which now includes praying with someone about their gender or sexual identity and even encouraging abstinence for homosexual Christians, reports International Christian Concern. On the website “Anti-Discrimination New South Wales,” a government body that administers and investigates anti-discrimination, they note that “praying with or over a person with the intent to change or suppress their sexuality or gender identify is unlawful … even if that person has asked you to pray for them to be able to change or suppress their sexuality or gender identity.”  The law – known as the New South Wales's Conversion Practices Ban Act 2024 -- is part of a trend of laws that seek to outlaw so-called “conversion therapy,” the clinical practice of helping someone embrace their God-given sexuality and gender. What makes the law different is how broadly “conversion therapy” is defined beyond a traditional clinical setting.   In an interview with The Washington Stand, Arielle Del Turco, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, said, “This is a terrible new law in this Australian state, and they aren't even trying to hide it. According to the state government's own admission from their website, this law will prevent a pastor or any believer from praying with someone who is asking for prayer for freedom from gender identity issues.”  Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Italy's top court scraps ‘mother' and ‘father' on ID cards Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation has restored the use of “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” on Italian ID cards because it deemed that calling parents ‘father' and ‘mother' is discriminatory against homosexual couples, reports the European Conservative. To her credit, conservative Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had announced the return of the terms “father” and “mother” on identity documents back in 2023. Supreme Court blocks deportation of illegal Venezuelans On Saturday, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting an unspecified number of illegal Venezuelan men, currently in immigration custody, who are alleged to be members of a criminal gang, reports The Epoch Times. The order was issued after the American Civil Liberties Union filed an emergency request on behalf of its Venezuelan clients late on April 18 asking the Supreme Court to immediately block the Trump administration from deporting the clients. On March 14th, President Donald Trump signed Proclamation 10903, in which he officially declared that Tren de Aragua, a designated foreign terrorist organization, “is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.” The president invoked the Alien Enemies Act to authorize the “immediate apprehension, detention, and removal” of members of the group who are Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older and who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States. Democrats want to visit El Salvador's prison housing deported illegals Democrats in both chambers of Congress are working to organize delegations to El Salvador to see the prison where President Trump is sending these violent illegal immigrants. Initially, El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele built the prison in 2022 as part of a response to surging gang violence in El Salvador, according to National Public Radio. Each cell can fit 65 to 70 prisoners, and the prison has a capacity of 40,000 inmates.  Trump asked Bukele to build five identically-sized prisons to receive more violent illegal immigrants from America. The deported Venezuelan illegals are living in the same conditions as convicted gangsters. Democrat Representatives Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) as well as Democrat Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) are the politicians who want to fly to El Salvador. However, House Homeland Security Committee chair Mark Green, a Republican from Tennessee, said he wouldn't grant their request, reports Axios. CNN conservative commentator Scott Jennings explained that this kind of move by the Democrats is why they only have a 21% approval rating by the American public. JENNINGS: “First of all, I'm more than happy to hear the Congressman say they're all going to El Salvador. I think for Republicans, this just confirms what we have believed about the Democratic Party and why it currently has a 21% approval rating in Congress. “Look where the energy in the Democratic Party is. It's around retrieving illegal aliens from El Salvador. It's around fighting for these college campuses that have been rife with anti semitism. It's around biological males who want to play in girls' sports. “This is why they are losing to Donald Trump every day, because the energy that Democrats feel comes on all these issues that are fundamentally not where the American people are.” Rahm Emmanuel wants to run for President In the world of politics, Democrat Rahm Emanuel has done a lot. Not only did he serve as President Bill Clinton's Senior Advisor for policy and strategy and as U.S. Congressman from Illinois for three terms, but Emmauel was President Barack Obama's White House Chief of Staff, served as mayor of Chicago, and most recently was the United States ambassador to Japan. Now, Rahm Emmanuel wants to be president. In a recent speech, he said, “I am done with the discussion of locker rooms. I am done with the discussion of bathrooms. We better start having a conversation about the classroom,” drawing applause as he alluded to a new study showing more than two-thirds of eighth graders can't read at grade level. Texas House greenlights $210 million to support pregnant women To hear it from abortion activists, pro-life Americans don't care about women and children – especially after banning abortions. But in the state of Texas that notion is totally false, reports LifeNews. On April 11th, Texas lawmakers gave preliminary approval to $210 million in support for pregnant moms. Texas Right to Life explained, “The Texas House voted to fully fund life-saving nonprofits at $210 million in the Thriving Texas Families program. These providers help mothers choose Life by offering baby materials (like diapers and formula), counseling, and job skills training. This victory isn't about dollars. It's about the children and families rescued from abortion.” Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, April 21st, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe for free by Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

What separates the good from the truly great in self-storage management? In this episode, Melissa and Tommy are joined by Mark Green from The Jenkins Organization to explore what top-performing managers do differently—and how their daily habits, communication, and customer care lead to higher occupancy and better results. Together, they dive into key areas of successful management: First Impressions Matter – From Google Business Profile and curb appeal to phone etiquette and in-person greetings, learn how to wow customers before they ever sign a lease Converting More Leads – Proven techniques for identifying customer needs, recommending the right units, and closing the deal—both in person and over the phone Overcoming Objections – How to respond when you don't have the size a customer needs or when you're more expensive than a REIT down the road Standout Customer Service – Tips for smooth move-ins and move-outs, exceeding expectations, and turning great experiences into reviews and referrals Daily Excellence – Actionable habits and sales skills any manager can use every day to boost performance Plus more Mark-isms than we can count, like-    "Just be yourself, unless you're a jerk."    "Don't give them what they expect. Give them what they want."    "Know the difference, show the difference, be the difference." If you want to become the kind of manager that owners rave about and tenants never forget, this episode is full of ideas and inspiration you can put to work immediately. *There were a few audio issues with Mark's mic that clear up at the 19:20 spot in the podcast, so hang in there Guest: Mark Green, The Jenkins Organization Hosts: Tommy Nguyen & Melissa Huff Brought to you by the teams at StoragePug and Lighthouse Storage Solutions

Oligarch's money and voters' support elected Pres.Trump for a second term. Mark Green asks will people leave him when their parents can't rely on a social security check; when children's public schools sink; and a nephew can't marry the man of his choice.

A child dies after being swept away by floodwaters on his way to the bus stop in Franklin County, state leaders urge everyone to use caution as more rounds of rain are on the way, a state lawmaker criticizes the governor's latest veto relating to school safety officers, and Mark Green with The Lane Report talks about some of the economic trends in the state.

Congressman Mark Green | 04-06-25 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dan and the Congressman discuss Dems lack of fighting back, DOGE, and the Deportation of the Gang members out of our country.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tennessee's 7th District Congressman Dr. Mark Green was recently recognized once again as a Friend of Farm Bureau for his voting record during the 118th Congress.

Congressman Mark Green of Tennessee discusses the critical issues of border security and the growing threat from China, including the introduction of the China Technology Transfer Control Act. Green highlights the importance of tightening technology transfers to safeguard national security and shares insights from a recent report detailing China's espionage efforts. Later, Senator Marsha Blackburn talks about DOGE and their objective of cutting wasteful government spending. Senator Marsha Blackburn. She reveals shocking findings of misallocated funds and the implications for national security. Senator Blackburn shares insights on ongoing legislative efforts, the importance of cutting unnecessary expenditures, and the future of tax reforms. Finally, former ​CIA ​analyst and ​former ​chief ​of ​staff ​to ​the ​National ​Security ​Council, Fred Fleitz, delves into the recent developments in the Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations, as President Trump engages directly with Vladimir Putin. Fleitz discusses the release of American hostages, the implications of rare earth minerals, and the shifting dynamics of international relations under Trump's leadership. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Dallas Willard (to philosophy students in class)- “What is the purpose of business? ”Student response- “Profits!” Dallas Willard- “Is that what you will tell your customers?” One of the things that can get men (and women) really engaged with when you bring it up, is business and work. Starting a business is scary but also invigorating. Challenging but rewarding. But if we're running a business by God‘s economy and not the worlds, what does running a kingdom minded business look like? On this weeks show Kurt has on longtime friends and businessmen Mark Green and Glenn Bednarczyk. They talk about how they run their businesses and how they can help hold each other accountable and encourage one another through having a “board of directors” for one another's business with other businessmen. (This is a repeat episode - enjoy!)

Ryan Davis, co-founder of the digital political firm People First, has long been at the cutting edge of digital politics and the rise of digital influencers and has dubbed 2024 as "The Influencer Election". In this conversation, Ryan talks his roots in politics, a detour through the NYC theater community, being part of the influential 2004 Howard Dean campaign, and eventually starting the first firm focused on digital political influencers. And Ryan goes deep on the 2024 race...how the campaigns' strategies differed, the role of influencers and podcasts, which platforms are on the ascent versus descent, how he is thinking about the 2026 and 2028, and much more covering one of the most important and quickly evolving facets of modern political campaigns.IN THIS EPISODERyan's path from early work in Libertarian-minded GOP politics to migrating to the Democratic side of the fence...Ryan is inspired to work in politics by the anti-war sentiment of Howard Dean's 04 campaign...Ryan talks his time working in the NYC theatre and his views of "theatre kids" in politics...Ryan on how the '04 Dean digital operation changed the way campaigns are run...Ryan's path from working in campaigns to starting People First - the first political firm focused on digital influencers...Ryan's favorite case studies of how to smartly utilize digital influencers in politics...Ryan on why he dubs 2024 as "The Influencer Election"...The role of podcasts in the '24 presidential election...Why Democrats can't and shouldn't try to create their own Joe Rogan...The symbiotic nature of influencer content bridging into paid media content..."White Guys for Kamala" and other affinity groups...The relative value of political vs non-political influencers...How GenZ digests information differently than those who came before...How some big influencer accounts "rip off" clients...Ryan on the political utility of various platforms like TikTok, BlueSky, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, LinkedIn, NextDoor, and more...How Ryan would tackle digital organizing ahead of the 2026 and 2028 elections...Ryan on the right skill set to work with digital influencers...Ryan's life as an itinerant "digital nomad" and tips from extensive world travels...AND The Analyst Institute, Andy Beshear, Simón Bolívar, ChatGPT, conservative e-zines, dog influencers, Al Gore, Mark Green, Kamala Harris, Curtis Hougland, John McCain, Barack Obama, parasocial relationships, Ronald Reagan, RealPlayer, Joe Rospars, Sesame Street, Norman Siegel, Snoopy, Zephyr Teachout, Joe Trippi, Barron Trump, Tim Walz...& more!

Song List:1- Worthy of Worship2- The Majesty and Glory of Your Name3- Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty4- Come to Jesus - Bro Mark Green5- The Masters Strong Hand - Bro. Mark Green, Bro. Chris Green, Bro. Benny Green6- There's a Hand Guiding Me - Bro. Mark Green, Bro. Chris Green, Bro. Benny GreenMessage: Bro. Steve LeCroyScripture: Psalm 119:25-32Invitation- I Have Decided to Follow Jesus

Ralph welcomes historian Douglas Brinkley (author of "The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey Beyond the White House") as well as journalist and former Carter speechwriter James Fallows to reflect on the life and legacy of the late, great President Jimmy Carter.Douglas Brinkley is the Katherine Tsanoff Brown Chair in Humanities and Professor of History at Rice University, presidential historian for the New-York Historical Society, trustee of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library, and a contributing editor at Vanity Fair. He has authored, co-authored, and edited more than three dozen books on American history, including Silent Spring Revolution: John F. Kennedy, Rachel Carson, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and the Great Environmental Awakening, Rosa Parks: A Life, and The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey Beyond the White House.When [Jimmy Carter] came in in January of 1977, he said, “The Democratic Party is an albatross around my neck…” The Southern Democrats that voted for Carter in 1976 in the Senate because of, you know, “he's a fellow Southerner,” they abandoned him. They wanted nothing to do with him.Douglas BrinkleyRalph, I don't know if anyone's already told you this—there's a lot of Carter in yourself. You have a lot of similarities in my mind in the sense that you both work tirelessly, and are brilliant, and you learn the nuts and bolts of an issue and you lean into it, and both of you are known for your integrity and your honesty and your diligence and your duty. The question then becomes: Where did Carter fail? And it's about media and about power within the Democratic Party. Those two things Carter couldn't conquer.Douglas BrinkleyI've just written a column called “Jimmy Carter Was My Last President.” And by that I meant he was my last president—and I believe he was the last president for progressive civic groups as well—because he was the last president to actively open up the federal government to engagement and participation by long politically-excluded American activists. He did this actively. He took our calls. No president since has done that. He invited us to the White House to discuss issues. No president since has done that. And that's what I think has been missing in a lot of the coverage—he really believed in a democratic society.Ralph NaderJames Fallows is a contributing writer at the Atlantic and author of the newsletter Breaking the News. He began writing for the magazine in the mid-1970s, reporting from China, Japan, Southeast Asia, Europe, and across the United States and has written hundreds of articles for the publication since then. He's also worked as a public radio commentator, a news magazine editor, and for two years he was President Jimmy Carter's chief speechwriter. He is the author of twelve books, including Who Runs Congress (with Mark Green and David Zwick), The Water Lords, Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy, and Our Towns: A 100,000-Mile Journey Into the Heart of America (with Deborah Fallows).Jimmy Carter, for better and worse, had zero national politics experience. That was part of what made him seem refreshing…But Carter, I think one of his limitations in office was that he didn't know what he didn't know, in various realms. This happens to all of us. That's why many outsiders struggle in their first term as president. And so I think yes, he felt as if he could be in command of many things. And I think if he had a second term, he would have been more effective—as Barack Obama was, and others have been.James FallowsI'm really grateful for the chance to talk with you, Ralph, at this moment. As we reflect on a president of the past and prepare for an administration of the future…There are people whose example lasts because they've been consistent over the decades. And I think you, Ralph, in the decades I've known you, that has been the case with you. I think it's the case of Jimmy Carter as well. For people who are consistent and true to themselves, there are times when fortune smiles in their favor and there's times when fortune works against them, but their lasting example endures and can inspire others.James FallowsNews 1/8/251. According to newly released CIA documents, the agency conducted extensive surveillance on Latino – specifically Mexican and Puerto Rican – political activity in the 1960s, ‘70s, and early ‘80s Axios reports. Among other revelations, these documents prove that the agency infiltrated student activist groups “making demands for Mexican American studies classes” – in direct contravention of the CIA's charter, which prohibits domestic activities. The push to disclose the reality of this spying campaign came from Congressmen Jimmy Gomez and Joaquin Castro, whose mother was monitored by the FBI for her Chicano-related activism. Unlike the CIA, the FBI has not released their records.2. Crusading independent journalists Ken Klippenstein and Daniel Boguslaw are out with a new Substack piece regarding Luigi Mangione. This piece, based on a leaked NYPD intelligence report “Warning of ‘a wide range of extremists' that ‘may view Mangione as a martyr,'” due to their “disdain for corporate greed.” These reporters go on to criticize the media for hiding this report from the public, as they have with other key documents in this case. “The report, produced by the NYPD's Intelligence & Counterterrorism Bureau …was blasted out to law enforcement and counterterror partners across the country. It was also leaked to select major media outlets which refused to permit the public to read the document…By withholding documents and unilaterally deciding which portions merit public disclosure, the media is playing god.”3. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has finalized its rule to remove medical bills from credit reports. The bureau reports this rule will wipe $49 billion in medical bills from the credit reports of approximately 15 million Americans. Further, embedded within this rule is a critical provision barring creditors from access to certain medical information; in the past this has allowed these firms to demand borrowers use medical devices up to and including prosthetic limbs as collateral for loans and as assets the creditors could repossess.4. President Biden has blocked a buyout of US Steel by the Japanese firm Nippon Steel, per the Washington Post. His reasons for doing so remain murky. Many in Biden's inner circle argued against this course of action, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. And despite Biden framing this decision as a move to protect the union employees of US Steel, Nippon had promised to honor the United Steelworkers contract and many workers backed the deal. In fact, the only person Biden seemed to be in complete agreement with on this issue is incoming President Donald Trump.5. In September 2023, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson issued a groundbreaking proposal: a publicly owned grocery store. While such institutions do exist on a very small scale, the Chicago pilot project would have been the largest in the United States by a wide margin. Yet, when the city had the opportunity to apply for Illinois state funds to begin the process of establishing the project, they “passed” according to the Chicago Tribune. Even still, this measure is far sounder than the previous M.O. of Chicago mayors, who lavished public funds on private corporations like Whole Foods to establish or maintain stores in underserved portions of the city, only for those corporations to turn around and shutter those stores once money spigot ran dry.6. On January 5th, the American Historical Association held their annual meeting. Among other proposals, the association voted on a measure to condemn the “scholasticide” being perpetrated by Israel in Gaza. Tim Barker, a PhD candidate at Harvard, reports the AHA passed this measure by a margin of 428 to 88. Along with the condemnation, this measure includes a provision to “form a committee to assist in rebuilding Gaza's educational infrastructure.” The AHA now joins the ever-growing list of organizations slowly coming to grips with the scale of the devastation in Gaza.7. According to Bloomberg, AI data centers are causing potentially massive disruptions to the American power grid. The key problem here is that the huge amounts of power these data centers are gobbling up is resulting in “bad harmonics,” which distort the power that ends up flowing through household appliances like refrigerators and dishwashers. As the piece explains, this harmonic distortion can cause substantial damage to those appliances and even increase the likelihood of electrical fires and blackouts. This issue is a perfect illustration of how tech industry greed is impacting consumers, even those who have nothing to do with their business.8. The Department of Housing and Urban Development reports homelessness increased by over 18% in 2024, per AP. HUD attributes this spike to a dearth of affordable housing, as well as the proliferation of natural disasters. In total, HUD estimates around 770,000 Americans are homeless, though that does not include “those staying with friends or family because they do not have a place of their own.” More granular data is even more appalling; family homelessness, for example, grew by 40%. Homelessness grew by 12% in 2023.9. On January 7th, Public Citizen announced that they have launched a new tracker to “watchdog federal investigations and cases against alleged corporate criminals…that are at risk of being abandoned, weakened, or scaled back under the Trump administration.” This tracker includes 237 investigations, nearly one third of which involve companies with known ties with the Trump administration. These companies include Amazon, Apple, AT&T, Bank of America, Coinbase, Ford, Tesla, Goldman Sachs, Meta, OpenAI, SpaceX, Pfizer, Black & Decker, and Uber among many others. As Corporate Crime expert Rick Claypool, who compiled this tracker, writes, “Corporate crime enforcement fell during Trump's first term, even as his administration pursued ‘tough' policies against immigrants, protestors, and low-level offenders…It's likely Trump's second term will see a similar or worse dropoff in enforcement.”10. Finally, Senate Republicans are pushing for swift confirmation hearings to install Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, per POLITICO. Yet, the renewed spotlight on Gabbard has brought to light her association with the Science of Identity Foundation, an alleged cult led by “guru” Chris Butler, per Newsweek. The New Yorker reports members of this cult are required to “lie face down when Butler enters a room and even sometimes eat his nail clippings or ‘spoonfuls' of the sand he walked on.”This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

[00:00:00] Ian Bremmer [00:18:24] Rep. Mark Green [00:36:47] Marc Thiessen [00:55:10] Josh Kraushaar [01:13:33] Holman Jenkins, Jr. [01:31:55] Adam Carolla Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this compelling episode of The Voice of Reason, host David engages Congressman Mark Green, Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and Christian Briggs, CEO of Hard Asset Management, in a thought-provoking discussion about the economic and geopolitical challenges shaping 2025. The conversation delves into the BRICS alliance's impact on the global financial system, the de-dollarization movement, and the looming risks of U.S. hyperinflation and unsustainable debt. With deep insights into energy policy, central bank digital currencies, and the complex interplay of global alliances, this episode offers a roadmap for understanding the economic tug-of-war and its profound implications for national security, individual freedoms, and the future of the U.S. dollar. Don't miss this timely and eye-opening exploration of today's most pressing issues.

Congressman Mark Green (R-TN) discusses division in America and the advantages of putting others before self. He's interviewed by Military Times deputy editor Leo Shane. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Congressman Mark Green (R-TN) discusses division in America and the advantages of putting others before self. He's interviewed by Military Times deputy editor Leo Shane. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Congressman Mark Green talks Speaker of the House VoteSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Maisie McCabe, editor of Campaign UK and David Droga, founder of Droga5 and chief executive of Accenture Song, sat together on stage at Ciclope last month to discuss creativity, the evolving landscape of advertising and how to build meaningful connections between brands and audiences in the digital age."Creative to the bone," said Droga describing himself and how he feels holding a CEO role. He explained how the job of an advertising creative is to "do more" with the briefs they are given, creating transformative work.In the 50-minute chat they discuss why Droga took the "stupid job" as chief executive being a creative, how adland should let AI be a part of what we do and who inspires him today.Further reading:'Creative people make the world worth living in': David Droga on advertising's futureExpanding in-house production won't rescue ad agencies' drowning business modelsDroga5 appoints Mark Green as global CEO and adds The Monkeys to network David Droga on moving from being a creative in business to building a business on creativity Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Title: Redefining Masculinity: Mark Grayson on Vulnerability and 'Getting Naked'In this episode of the Mankind Podcast, Boysen chats with Mark Grayson about his book "Getting Naked: A Field Guide for Men," exploring the evolving landscape of masculinity and vulnerability.Mark Grayson, once a corporate leader, found his true calling in redefining manhood. Through his ventures, he has always sought meaningful impact, but his journey into understanding masculinity led him to author a transformative book. A pivotal moment came at a workshop where Mark decided to pose nude, challenging traditional views and embracing vulnerability—an experience that led to personal liberation.Mark's exploration is enriched by insights from influencers like Mark Green and Niobe Way, who have shaped his understanding of "man box culture." These relationships highlight the importance of embracing diversity in redefining masculinity.The Seven-Part JourneyMark's book presents a seven-step journey for men to embrace all facets of their identity, from vulnerability to emotional expression and redefining success. This framework guides men toward a balanced and authentic self.The conversation also explores developing empathy and understanding in relationships, crucial for deepening connections and inspiring cultural change in gender dynamics.Mark is involved in projects that foster spiritual growth and civic engagement, reflecting his holistic approach. His work invites others on a courageous journey toward authentic self-discovery.In "Getting Naked," Mark Grayson challenges societal norms and offers a framework for understanding masculinity, encouraging personal and cultural transformation.Connect with Mark: The Naked Man Collective Get the Book: Getting Naked: A Field Guide for Text Us Your Feedback! (Likes, Dislikes, Guest/Conversation Recommendations). BetterHelp: Get 10% Off Your First Month Of Therapy The ManKind Podcast has partnered with Betterhelp to make it easier for listeners to access licensed mental health therapists who can aid them in their mental health journey. Brandon and Boysen stand by this service as they use BetterHelp for their therapy needs.#Sponsorship #AdSupport the showMagic Mind: Get 50% Off Your Subscription (Black Friday Special) Subscribe/Rate/Review on iTunes ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐: >>>HERE

12/11/24 Hour 3 Donald Trump reacts to Christopher Wray announcing his resignation as FBI Director. Attacks on Pete Hegseth continue as Pro Publica decides not to publish a report in which they determined West Point lied about Hegseth never applying aplying there. Vince speaks with Mark Green, Congressman representing Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District and Chair of the Homeland Security Committee about the drone situation in New Jersey which Congressman Jeff Van Drew claims originated from Iran. For more coverage on the issues that matter to you visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm. To join the conversation, check us out on social media: @WMAL @VinceCoglianese. Executive Producer: Corey Inganamort @TheBirdWords See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Vince speaks with Mark Green, Congressman representing Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District and Chair of the Homeland Security Committee about the drone situation in New Jersey which Congressman Jeff Van Drew claims originated from Iran. For more coverage on the issues that matter to you visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm. To join the conversation, check us out on social media: @WMAL @VinceCoglianese. Executive Producer: Corey Inganamort @TheBirdWords See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Newt talks with Congressman Mark Green about his new book, "We Before Me: The Advantage of Putting Others Before Self," which emphasizes the importance of selflessness in healing the divisions within America. Green shares personal stories from his childhood, influenced by his father's perseverance despite a severe handicap, and how these values shaped his career in the military, healthcare, business, and politics. He reflects on his time at West Point, his service in the Army, including his role in capturing Saddam Hussein, and his transition to Congress. Green also talks about founding the Reagan-O'Neill Club to foster bipartisan relationships in the House and his efforts to address border security and immigration issues. Their conversation highlights Green's belief in the power of unity and selflessness to overcome national challenges.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

First Baptist Decatur is a vibrant, progressive, welcoming and affirming community of faith located in the heart of Decatur, GA.To learn more about our community:Visit our websiteSubscribe to our email listTo help us keep resources like this available:Give a tax-deductible gift online

In 2022, Nashville was gerrymandered into three Congressional districts, in what the New York Times called “an especially egregious twist of the political knife.” We reached out to interview all six candidates this cycle, but only the Democrats responded: Megan Barry, running to unseat Rep. Mark Green in TN-07; Lore Bergman, running to unseat Rep. John Rose in TN-06; and Maryam Abolfazli, running to unseat Rep. Andy Ogles in TN-05. They sat down with executive producer Whitney Pastorek to discuss their platforms, what they're learning from our rural neighbors, and share what their campaign theme song would be — if they had one. Thanks to Tecovas, our Western wear faves, for being our exclusive launch sponsor! Early voting is open now! Here is a link to times and locations, as well as a sample ballot. Want some more City Cast Nashville news? Then make sure to sign up for our Hey Nashville newsletter.  Follow us @citycastnashville You can also text us or leave a voicemail at: 615-200-6392⁩ Interested in advertising with City Cast? Find more info HERE.

Former President Trump has been briefed about “specific threats” from Iran to assassinate him and “sow chaos in the United States.” With less than 6 weeks remaining until the 2024 election, both campaigns find themselves on high alert for threats, after former President Trump has already seen two attempts on his life since July. Early reports from the Congressional task force handling the first assassination investigation showed that the Secret Service made several errors when protecting the former President in Butler, Pennsylvania. House Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Mark Green, joins the Rundown to discuss the early findings from the bipartisan task force, what is being done to ensure another attempt is thwarted, and the credibility of threats coming from Iran. NFL Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Farve announced that he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease while testifying before Congress earlier this week. With frequent concussions occurring in professional football, doctors are concerned that they cause severe brain injuries. A new Harvard University survey finds that one-third of retired NFL players are concerned they have Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). Doctor of neuroscience and retired professional wrestler Dr. Chris Nowinski joins to break down the new discoveries on the threat of CTE. Plus, commentary by the founder and senior pastor of New Beginnings Church of Chicago and the CEO of Project H.O.O.D., Corey Brooks. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Laura Loomer slithered into the Trumpy headlines making Marajorie Talyor Greene bigly jealous. GOP cougar Lindsay Graham didn't approve of Shitler's alleged affair with 911 truther Laura Loomer. When questioned about the affair, Diaper-Don nearly swallowed his teeth. Republican family-values legislator Mark Green left his wife of 35 years for a younger woman. Florida's school board was ordered to cough up $100,000 in legal fees for a lawsuit which struck down a ban on a book about same-sex penguins.  A Trump appointed judge in Alaska was busted for sexual misconduct and will probably be impeached. Conservative toolbox Lance Wallnau blamed the evils of witchcraft for the success of the Kamala Harris campaign. Republican never-Trumper Tim Miller blasted blowhard Piers Morgan for his soft treatment of Trumpsters such has bottom feeder Corey Lewandowski.     LOL check out the Drudge headlines on Trump and loony Laura Loomer  

*New Book Warns Voters of Fascist Threat Posed by Trump in 2024 Election; Mark Green, former New York City public advocate and author; Producer: Scott Harris. *Portland, Maine City Council Votes for Israel Divestment Resolution Over Gaza War; Abigail Fuller, Co-Chair of Maine Voices for Palestinian Rights; Producer: Scott Harris. *Retired Journalist Bikes to Washington Building Opposition to Israel's Gaza War; Bob Sanders a retired Jewish journalist from New Hampshire; Producer: Melinda Tuhus.

Join Kosta and his guest: Dr. Mark Green, educator, community organizer and actor. Currently Dr. Green is a professor of biology at Tennessee Tech University and Vol State Community College where he facilitates a campus community garden and non-credit based outdoor series open to all adventurers of the Upper Cumberland. In this episode: The first thing you told us when we started working on this episode was that you were the Forrest Gump of the academic world and there couldn't be a truer statement. From dropping out of school to join the military to later getting your PhD, to being a stand-in for Tom Hanks on Sully, to starting a public outdoor adventure series in the Upper Cumberland, you've left no stone unturned. What did you want to be when you grew up? Did you ever think you'd meet the actual Forrest Gump? You currently work as a professor at both Vol State and TTU. At Vol State you've not only started a non-credit based outdoor adventure series, but you've also started a community garden for faculty and students. Will you tell us about the outdoor series and how the campus garden works?Find out more about UC Outdoor Adventure Series and VSCC:https://www.facebook.com/volstateuppercumberlandhttps://www.volstate.edu/campuses/cookevilleBetter Together with Kosta Yepifantsev is a product of Morgan Franklin Media and recorded in Cookeville, TN.This episode of Better Together with Kosta Yepifantsev is made possible by our partners at Aspire Barber and Beauty Academy.Find out more about Aspire Barber and Beauty Academy:https://aspirebarberandbeauty.com

Ambassador Mark Green serves as President, Director, and CEO of the Wilson Center — a nonpartisan organization that provides research, analysis, and independent scholarship on global affairs.Before leading the Wilson Center, his distinguished career in public policy included key roles at USAID, the International Republican Institute, the McCain Institute, and four terms as a U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 8th District. He also served on the Board of Directors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation during both the Obama and Trump Administrations.Ambassador Green joined host Andrew Kaufmann and the Bush Center's Bill McKenzie at the Forum on Leadership to discuss the mission of the Wilson Center, the positive impact of U.S. foreign aid both at home and abroad, and the importance of healthy disagreement.Hear more from Ambassador Green on this episode of The Strategerist, presented by the George W. Bush Presidential Center.Related content:Wilson Center2024 Forum on Leadership

Subscribe for $5.99 a month to get full access to this episode, bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 500-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/ Brad discusses with author Mark Green about his new book, 'The Inflection Election: Democracy or Fascism in 2024'. They explore the critical choice facing the U.S. in the upcoming election, with paths leading either towards continued democratic freedom or increased authoritarianism under Donald Trump's influence. The conversation highlights Representative Jamie Raskin's forward in Green's book, emphasizing the stark differences between defending democratic principles and the potential rise of a fascist regime. They also touch on issues of violence and corruption within the political landscape, the role of Trump's rhetoric, and the impact of fascist ideologies in certain American communities. Buy the Inflection Election: https://www.powells.com/book/the-inflection-election-9781510780835 00:00 Introduction: The Crossroads of Democracy 00:58 Guest Introduction: Mark Green 03:24 Historical Context: Inflection Elections 04:09 Trump's Authoritarian Threat 06:53 Hypothetical Future Under Trump 16:56 Violence and Corruption in Politics 30:41 Hope and Action: The Path Forward Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices