Podcast appearances and mentions of Michael Kruse

While new developments in the saga of Kilmar Abrego Garcia — the man wrongly deported from Maryland to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador — are certain to drive the day, there's a bigger meta-story going on. It's about Trump's war on institutions — from the court system (as in the Abrego Garcia case) to higher education to law firms to the independent media. With Washington's attention turning to next week's White House Correspondents' Dinner, we're joined by POLITICO Magazine's resident Trumpologist, Michael Kruse, to talk through Trump's relationship with the press — arguably the longest-lasting and most important relationship of his decades in public life — and why it has soured so dramatically. All that, and the rest of the news you need to know today.

Send us a textOn today's Beach Talk, Betsey Newehuyse and I break down the headlines as the President floods the zone with controversy, wielding Executive Orders like a wrecking ball to smash the federal government to pieces. In these gloomy, fear-filled times, we need a break—so we turn to baseball and college hoops. March Madness is here, and my LA Dodgers take on Betsey's Chicago Cubs in Tokyo, where fans are out in full force for their favorite Japanese superstars.  Meanwhile, I've been writing open letters to Senator John Thune, urging him to step up and put the brakes on the President's anti-democratic agenda. And now, Michael Kruse of Politico has taken notice, quoting my letters in his latest profile: "Does John Thune Have a Red Line When It Comes to Trump?"But the headlines only get darker—the administration is rounding up immigrants, with ICE Director Tom Homan invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to detain so-called “Venezuelan Terrorists” without due process. They've been shipped off to El Salvadorian prisons—unnamed, unidentified, uncharged. And then there's what I'm calling "The Chainsaw Massacre", a brutal purge of funding and jobs, engineered by Elon Musk himself. We dive into the real, personal stories behind these losses.Join us for all this and more on Beach Talk—because the news never stops, and neither do we.SHOW NOTESSupport the showBecome a Patron - Click on the link to learn how you can become a Patron of the show. Thank you! Ken's Substack Page The Podcast Official Site: TheBeachedWhiteMale.com

"What I was fortunate enough to get exposed to very early in my career, and I really believe is now the way to go, which is the nature of editing as thinking," says Poynter Institute president Neil Brown.Neil has spent more than forty years as a reporter and editor, and he just wrapped up his tenure on the Pulitzer Prize Board. He's one of the more nimble minds in journalism and a champion of the editor/writer dynamic.In this conversation, Neil riffs on Editing as thinking The late writing coach Don Murray How the front end is everything Respecting reader detection And Interviewing as a skill, among lots more great stuff.Podcast Specific SubstackPre-order The Front RunnerPromotional Sponsor: The Power of Narrative Conference. Use CNF15 at checkout for a 15% discount.Newsletter: Rage Against the AlgorithmShow notes: brendanomeara.comSupport: Patreon.com/cnfpod

For the first time, a woman will serve as White House Chief of Staff – but who is Susie Wiles? As Trump's closest confidante, is Susie Wiles the most powerful woman in the world? Today in The Bunker, Jacob Jarvis speaks with Michael Kruse, senior staff writer at POLITICO, to explore Wiles' history, her influence over Trump, and whether she can keep Elon Musk under control. • We are sponsored by Indeed. Go to Indeed.com/bunker for £100 sponsored credit.   www.patreon.com/bunkercast  Written and presented by Jacob Jarvis. Producer: Liam Tait. Audio editors: Simon Williams. Managing editor: Jacob Jarvis. Music by Kenny Dickinson. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. THE BUNKER is a Podmasters Production. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A lot has been written about billionaire Elon Musk and his business empire. But his wealth and influence is now greater than ever as he entered the White House this week with President Donald Trump. POLITICO senior staff writer Michael Kruse set out to understand Musk through 199 of his own quotes, words that offer insight into his upbringing, his career and his outlook. On POLITICO Tech, Kruse joins host Steven Overly to lay out what he learned. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We were thrilled to have the opportunity to talk to PEN America's Jeremy Young about what a second Trump administration holds in store for higher education. It was an informative—and sobering—conversation. Over the next four years, we should be prepared for a tsunami of ideologically-driven threats to academic freedom, campus free expression and the basic integrity of higher education. If you would rather read than listen, there is a transcript attached below. Show NotesPEN America's *Educational Censorship* page is a terrific resourceOn Christopher Rufo, see Benjamin Wallace-Wells, “How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory,” New Yorker, June 18, 2021 and Michael Kruse, “DeSantis' Culture Warrior: ‘We Are Now Over the Walls,'” Politico, March 24, 2023. For Rufo's take on critical race theory, in his own words, see this YouTube video. Here is the full text of Executive Order 13950, which became the template for most of the anti-CRT (or “divisive concepts”) laws passed in red states. On the Stop WOKE Act, the marquee anti-CRT law signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022, check out these two Banished episodes:The Sunshine State Descends into Darkness (Again)Will Florida's "Stop WOKE Act" Hold Up in Court?Jeffrey Sachs and Jeremy Young predict the future: “For Federal Censorship of Higher Ed, Here's What Could Happen in 2025” (PEN America, January 2, 2025)For more on the phenomenon of “jawboning,” see this page from FIRE and this page from the Knight First Amendment Institute On “anticipatory obedience,” see this excerpt from Timothy Snyder's 2017 book, On Tyranny On legislative challenges to campus DEI, see the Chronicle of Higher Education DEI Legislation Tracker. (We are quite skeptical of many conventional DEI efforts but state bans are a cure that is far worse than the disease )For a deeper dive on accreditation, see Eric Kelderman, “Trump's Vision for College Accreditation Could Shake Up the Sector” (Chronicle of Higher Education, November 26, 2024)On Title VI investigations by the Office of Civil Rights, see Zach Montague, “Campus Protest Investigations Hang Over Schools as New Academic Year Begins” (New York Times, October 5, 2024)Here is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. Kenneth Stern, one of the definition's main authors, explains why he is concerned it is being used to promote campus censorshipOn the prospect of a much heftier endowment tax for the country's wealthiest institutions, see Phillip Levine, “How Trump Could Devastate Our Top Colleges' Finances” (Chronicle of Higher Education, January 13, 2025). Levine addresses the normative question—should college endowments be taxed?—here. TranscriptJeff: So, we're looking forward to a second Trump administration.Jeremy: Are we looking forward to a second Trump administration?Amna: No…towards.Jeff: We are anticipating…I personally am dreading a second Trump administration.Amna: This is Banished and I'm Amna Khalid, along with my colleague Jeff Snyder. Jeff and I were delighted to have the chance to catch up with PEN America's Jeremy Young at the recent American Historical Association conference in New York City. He's one of the most informed and astute analysts of government driven censorship in higher education today. We started by asking him to tell us a little about PEN America.Jeremy: PEN America is a 102 year old organization that exists at the intersection of literature and human rights. It is one of 140 PEN centers around the world which are in a loose network of PEN Centers governed by PEN International. PEN America's mission is to celebrate literature and defend the freedoms that make it possible, of which two of the foremost are academic freedom and freedom of expression.Amna: And what's your specific role?Jeremy: I am the Director of State and Higher Education Policy at PEN America, which means that I oversee our Freedom to Learn program, which leads actions and responses to educational censorship legislation, largely from the state governments, but also from the federal government. Things like DEI bans, critical race theory restrictions, and various other types of restrictions on faculty governance and university autonomy.Amna: We're eager to hear your predictions on what the higher ed sector should be bracing for with the second Trump administration. But first, Jeremy, could you please remind us of the nature of the attacks against higher education during Trump 1.0?Jeremy: In the summer and fall of 2020, this really happened late in the first Trump administration, there was a national panic around critical race theory, and this was created by Chris Rufo and some others really as a response, a backlash, if you will, against the George Floyd protests, the Black Lives Matter movement, the popularity of the 1619 Project, and so on, this sort of moment of racial reckoning. And so Rufo and others (Rufo is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute) decided to use this term critical race theory, which of course is an academic term with a particular set of meanings but to, as he put it, decodify and recodify it, essentially weaponize it to mean things that weren't all that connected to the actual theory of critical race theory and were really just a sort of catchall for criticisms of DEI and other race-based pedagogies and ideas. And so Rufo was able to convince president Trump to issue an executive order 13950 called Race and Sex Stereotyping that laid out a list of nine divisive concepts which bore some passing resemblance to critical race theory, but really were vague, and general, and banned all sorts of practices related to race, gender, and identity, and ideas related to race, gender, and identity that were unclear and difficult to interpret. Originally, this was a restriction aimed solely at trainings in government agencies…the executive order never went into effect. It was stayed by a court and repealed on the first day of the Biden administration. But that language of the divisive concepts then began to appear in state legislatures aimed now squarely at education. At first, at K-12 institutions primarily, and over time, higher education became more and more of the target.In 2023, we started to see a shift toward sort of broad spectrum attacks on higher education, moving away from some of the direct speech restrictions of the critical race theory bans, in part because of court cases that had gone adversely for those restrictions, and instead restricting broad swaths of university governance, including DEI offices, the ability of a university to manage diversity work on its own as a sort of shared governance function, tenure restrictions on faculty governance, restrictions on curriculum, which I think are going to be very prominent in 2025.Amna: You mentioned backlash to the 2020 racial reckoning as a key factor driving the anti-CRT movement. Can you say something more about where this opposition to CRT and now DEI is coming from?Jeremy: I think that there are several causes that are inseparable from one another. I think there are people who actually do want to restrict those particular ideas on campus, who want to advance a sort of triumphalist Western canon narrative of America as the victor, and they're just very opposed to any discussions that paint the United States in any way that is not hyper-patriotic and perfect. There's absolutely some racism, some sexism, some, some discrimination, discriminatory bias that's involved.I also think that there is a real desire to simply crush university power that I think comes out of the educational realignment that we have seen over the last 10 years. Kamala Harris won college educated Americans by 14 points, and four years ago, Joe Biden won them by four, and prior to the 2016 election, there was essentially no difference between the parties, really, at any time in American history on the axis of college education. There is now a sense I think among some conservative forces that instead of the long-time conservative project of reforming universities, having more viewpoint diversity, think of the Koch Centers in various institutions. Instead they're a place where liberals go to get educated, so we should just crush them, right? So I think that's part of it. It's just the goal of taking away universities' autonomy on everything is a key component.And the third component is political gain. And that is the one that has fluctuated the most over this period. Glenn Youngkin won a come from behind victory running on criticizing critical race theory in K-12 schools. And Steve Bannon said in 2021, I think about critical race theory and I see 50 new House seats in the midterm elections. Now, when that didn't happen, I think it began to become clear that these attacks are not as salient as they were thought to be. I think in 2023 and 2024, there was a real move away from that, especially with, also with the collapse of the DeSantis presidential campaign, which was built entirely around this idea of him being, fighting the war on woke. There was a sense that, maybe you still want to do these things, but now it's going to be quiet, it's going to be stealth mode, because there's no political gain to be gotten from having a big press release around this, around the Stop WOKE Act. But the other two motivations, the motivation of restricting certain ideas about race; and the motivation of smashing the power of higher education, those have remained constant.Jeff: Very succinct and helpful. Thank you. You and your colleague Jeffrey Sachs recently wrote an informative and sobering piece about Trump's plans for higher ed in 2025 and beyond. Maybe you could tell us a little about your key predictions. The first one you mention is jawboning. What is jawboning and why should we be worried about it?Jeremy: Jawboning, put simply, is when government officials, instead of passing a law requiring someone who isn't a government official to do something, they simply browbeat or bully or threaten them into doing it. In some ways you can look at the congressional hearings as a form of jawbonings or making threats against presidents at Columbia and Harvard and so on. But the classic example is actually what we're seeing at the state level where lawmakers are simply going to university presidents and say, saying, okay, we're not going to pass a DEI ban or a curriculum restriction. We're going to simply request that you make one on your own or we'll cut your funding. Or we'll pass one next year that's worse than anything you could imagine. It's a very intimate form of censorship, right? It takes restrictions out of the legislative process where they can be challenged at a hearing; out of the judicial process where they can be challenged on constitutional grounds; and every single one of these bills has at least some constitutional infirmities. And instead makes it just a threat, right? We're gonna cut your budget. What are you gonna do about that? It's a very difficult position for presidents to be in because they don't have a lot of leverage.Jeff: I think it was Yale historian Timothy Snyder who coined the term anticipatory obedience.  He said it was a dynamic that's often seen under conditions of rising authoritarianism. So you've got individuals and groups that start to make concessions they think will appease the powers that be. Is there a connection here to jawboning?Jeremy: Yes, so we talk about over compliance and pre-compliance. We're not going to comply with the letter of the law, we're going to comply with the spirit of the law. There is a law in Alabama that passed in 2024 that restricts some elements of DEI, but does not actually ban outright the DEI offices. And every university in Alabama has treated it as though it is an outright ban. And that's significant, in particular, because of the nature of these laws. You know, you go look at a set of statutes in a state legislature or the federal government, what you'll notice is that most laws are very precise. Think about traffic laws. What are you allowed to do on the road? It's very specific. You can drive this many miles an hour this particular way. There's no room for interpretation. There's no room for judgment because the goal is to make you comply with the law. These laws are intentionally vague. They ban broad swaths of ideas which are never defined in the laws.What does it mean to say, for instance, one of the divisive concepts, to say that you're not allowed to say that the United States is fundamentally racist. What does that mean? It doesn't say in the law what that means. It's left up to your interpretation, which means whoever is going to enforce that law gets to decide whether you violate it. That is actually a constitutional violation. It's against the 14th Amendment. And while the courts have found all sorts of infirmities with these laws, that's the one they've found the most consistency. Not freedom of speech, not racial discrimination but vagueness. So over-complying with a vague law is, it's difficult to avoid because these laws lend themselves to over-compliance because they're so vague. But it's also vitally important to avoid doing that.The other thing that we see is pre-compliance, which is just imagining that the legislature is going to pass a law but then whether or not they do it. We intervened with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, one of the seven accrediting bodies because they were basically enacting what a restriction in Project 2025 that would have forbidden them to have a DEI standard for universities they accredit. And just doing it preemptively.It's not clear whether the education department is able to pass that restriction without legislation. And it's not clear whether legislation or the regulation would survive a court challenge. And they're just saying we'll just take it out. That's pre-compliance. You don't want to do that. And what we argued successfully, is that, again, even if you don't think an accreditor should have a DEI standard, we don't take a position on that. The worst time to get rid of your DEI standard is one month before a new administration that's promised to ban it tells you to. That's the moment when you put up your back and say, no, we're not going to comply with this.Jeff: Jeremy, tell us a little bit more about the new Trump administration's plans to disrupt the conventional work of accreditors.Jeremy: So higher education institutions are accredited by one of seven accrediting bodies, six of which have historically served certain regions, but now under new federal regulations the university can work with any of the seven accreditors. But they still tend to be concentrated in regions.Accreditation is really the only thing that separates a real substantive university from a diploma mill; and the way that accreditation is enforced, is that the Department of Education will only provide federal student financial aid, which 55 percent of all students receive, to schools that it recognizes as legitimate accreditors, which currently is those seven institutional accreditors. They are private or nonprofit organizations. They're run by academics. They have their pluses and minuses, but they are pretty much the guarantor of institutional quality in higher education. And if you look at Project 2025, everything that they say they want to do to higher education is focused on accreditation. They have identified these accreditors as the soft underbelly of higher education. And the simplest thing that they want to do and that they probably will at least try to do is to ban accreditors from having DEI standards, of which six of the seven currently do.But they really want to go further. What they really want to do is to undermine the system of accreditation itself by allowing any jurisdiction, any state, to either charter its own accreditor or serve as its own accreditor. So Ron DeSantis could become the accreditor for all universities in Florida. And now instead of those universities having DEI offices, he can say you cannot be accredited in the state of Florida unless you've banned DEI and basically instituted a classical curriculum, a Hillsdale style classical curriculum. It's a little more complicated than project 2025 makes it sound. Our analysis is that while they may attempt to do it through regulatory action, the process of negotiated rulemaking in the Department of Education is sufficiently complex that it would probably stop them from doing it and so that probably means that they need legislation to change the Higher Education Act, which would be subject to a filibuster.So this is something that we will be watching to see if they try to do it administratively. It may not be possible. And we'll also be watching if they try to slip it into one of those reconciliation bills that are being proposed that would be able to go through without a filibuster.Jeff: So that's how the accreditation system might be weaponized. You and Sacks also identify Title VI enforcement by the Office of Civil Rights as a key area of concern. Maybe we can break this down into its component parts. What is the Office of Civil Rights and what's Title VI?Jeremy: Sure. So the Office of Civil Rights is an office within the Department of Education that ensures that educational institutions meet the requirements of the various civil rights laws. It covers Title VI funding, which is funding that is tied to financial aid for universities, and it makes sure that institutions that are receiving federal financial aid are following these civil rights protections. It is an office does good work and we have a good relationship with the office.We have some concerns about the way that the Biden administration has been investigating and enforcing agreements with universities around antisemitism. We expect things to get far worse in the new administration. We expect that any university that has any sort of protest or any faculty member who expresses pro-Palestinian views is going to be investigated and sanctioned by the Office of Civil Rights. We expect they're going to launch lawsuits. They're going to really go after universities. So it is an office that is going to be used in some really aggressive ways to restrict speech on campus.Jeff: In terms of restricting speech, you and Sachs are especially worried about the trend on the part of colleges and universities, not to mention states and the federal government, to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. Why is this so concerning to you both?Jeremy: So the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism is a very interesting document. It starts with a description that is quite thoughtful and then it gives a list of examples of things that could be forms of antisemitism or could accompany antisemitism, and that list includes things like singling out the state of Israel for special criticism that other states are not singled out for that do engage in the same actions or just you know criticizing Zionism, things like that. Which in the context of what that definition was designed for yes, sometimes when you see those statements, it's worth perking your ears up and asking, is this accompanying antisemitism or not?What the laws are doing, and this comes from a model bill that the Goldwater Institute wrote in 2016, and it's now being suffused into all these federal and state policies, is to take those examples of possible antisemitism and change it from possible to definite antisemitism. So anytime you criticize the state of Israel, it's antisemitism. And then writing that into law, saying that universities have to treat this as any instance of this broad definition of antisemitism as hate speech or as a form of harassment. The author of that definition, Kenneth Stern has repeatedly said that it is not designed to be used in that way. In fact, he said it's unconstitutional to use it in that way. And yet that's what we're seeing. So that's the concern. It's not that you shouldn't have a definition of anti Semitism, although I will say our statutes tend not to define particular types of hate speech because it's too subjective, right? This is the reason that we have definitions like severe, pervasive, and targeted for harassment. You're looking at a pattern of behavior because each individual case is protected by free expression.Jeff: I understand that the Office of Civil Rights is currently conducting dozens of Title VI investigations stemming from campus protests over the war in Gaza. There are widespread allegations of antisemitism, many of which are accompanied by competing charges of Islamophobia. How do you think we should make sense of this?Jeremy: These are complex situations. Lots of universities are getting them wrong. Some universities are being overly censorious, some not enforcing harassment protections. And it's right and proper for OCR to investigate these things. The problem is that they are not always coming up with the right findings. That they're not always protecting free expression, balancing free expression adequately with the need to protect students from harassment. We're seeing universities implement draconian time, place and manner restrictions on speech. So just the fact that OCR and the Congress are making all these threatening noises about restricting speech leads a lot of universities to do the censor's work for them.Amna: Jeremy mentioned one other thing the new Trump administration has made ramblings about, which is ramping up the endowment tax on the country's wealthiest institutions. Please see an informative Chronicle of Higher Education article by Philip Levine, linked in the show notes.What all these attacks or interventions, depending on your point of view, have in common, is that they seek to undermine the autonomy of colleges and universities. Here's Jeremy.Jeremy: University autonomy is not a principle that is very widely understood in the United States. It's much more common in Europe where there's an autonomy index and all sorts of things as a way of protecting academic freedom. But it's a vital component of academic freedom. We think about academic freedom in the U.S. primarily as being the freedom of an individual faculty member to speak their mind or to engage in their research or teaching. But, in reality, that freedom can only be protected so long as the people overseeing it, the university administration, are free from the ideological control of the government. The key here is ideological control. We aren't saying that the government doesn't have a budgetary responsibility to oversee the university, or that there isn't a role for the government in community relations, or student success, or access and completion, or any of these things. But when it comes to ideas, what ideas can be present on a campus, whether it's in the classroom, whether it's in a DEI office, anywhere on campus, that is not the government's business, and it cannot be the government's business, or ultimately everyone on campus is simply going to be currying favor with whatever political party is in charge.Amna: Jeremy, this has been wonderful and you've been so kind to give us so much time. Thank you.Jeff: Thank you. It's an absolute pleasure.Amna: That was our conversation with Jeremy Young of PEN America on what Trump 2.0 portends for higher education. As of yesterday, Trump's second term has officially begun. Keep your eyes peeled and ears tuned for what's to come next. If you liked what you heard today, be sure to help us spread the word about Banished, and don't forget to comment and rate this show.Once again, this is Banished, and I'm Amna Khalid, along with Jeff Snyder. Until next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

In 2024, people around the world focus on an American president who calls for the imprisonment of critics, spreads the culture of white supremacy, and upends the law to commit crimes with impunity. Is Trump the first authoritarian to threaten American constitution democracy? Corey Brettschneider's new book, The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It (W.W. Norton, 2024) argues that the United States has had previous authoritarian presidents who similarly threatened core democratic and rule of law values – and each was challenged by non-elected leaders Brettschneider terms “democratic constitutional constituencies.” John Adams waged war on the national press of the early republic, overseeing numerous prosecutions of his critics. In the lead-up to the Civil War, James Buchanan colluded with the Supreme Court to deny constitutional personhood to African Americans. A decade later, Andrew Johnson urged violence against his political opponents as he sought to guarantee a white supremacist republic after the Civil War. In the 1910s, Woodrow Wilson modernized, popularized, and nationalized Jim Crow laws. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon committed criminal acts that flowed from his corrupt ideas about presidential power. Using an impressive combination of primary documents, secondary sources, and new interviews, Brettschneider highlights how freedom to dissent, equal citizenship, and rule of law are central to democratic norms and the role that citizens play in pressuring subsequent reform-minded presidents to realize the promise of "We the People." He documents how Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Sadie Alexander, Daniel Ellsberg, and others we cannot easily name fought back against presidential abuses of power. Dr. Corey Brettschneider is professor of Political Science at Brown University. His researches and teaches at the intersection of constitutional law and politics. His scholarly works include The Oath of Office (W.W. Norton, 2018) and he writes for outlets like the New York Times, Politico, and the Washington Post. I'm delighted to welcome him to New Books in Political Science. Mentioned: Online access to the Nixon tapes from Nixon Library Princeton Library archive on Woodrow Wilson lectures Susan's NBN interview with Judge Richard Gergel on Unexampled Courage: The Blinding of Sgt. Isaac Woodard and the Awakening of President Harry S. Truman and Judge Corey's interview with Michael Kruse of Politico, “I'd Rather Have 10 Ken Starrs Than One Donald Trump”  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In 2024, people around the world focus on an American president who calls for the imprisonment of critics, spreads the culture of white supremacy, and upends the law to commit crimes with impunity. Is Trump the first authoritarian to threaten American constitution democracy? Corey Brettschneider's new book, The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It (W.W. Norton, 2024) argues that the United States has had previous authoritarian presidents who similarly threatened core democratic and rule of law values – and each was challenged by non-elected leaders Brettschneider terms “democratic constitutional constituencies.” John Adams waged war on the national press of the early republic, overseeing numerous prosecutions of his critics. In the lead-up to the Civil War, James Buchanan colluded with the Supreme Court to deny constitutional personhood to African Americans. A decade later, Andrew Johnson urged violence against his political opponents as he sought to guarantee a white supremacist republic after the Civil War. In the 1910s, Woodrow Wilson modernized, popularized, and nationalized Jim Crow laws. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon committed criminal acts that flowed from his corrupt ideas about presidential power. Using an impressive combination of primary documents, secondary sources, and new interviews, Brettschneider highlights how freedom to dissent, equal citizenship, and rule of law are central to democratic norms and the role that citizens play in pressuring subsequent reform-minded presidents to realize the promise of "We the People." He documents how Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Sadie Alexander, Daniel Ellsberg, and others we cannot easily name fought back against presidential abuses of power. Dr. Corey Brettschneider is professor of Political Science at Brown University. His researches and teaches at the intersection of constitutional law and politics. His scholarly works include The Oath of Office (W.W. Norton, 2018) and he writes for outlets like the New York Times, Politico, and the Washington Post. I'm delighted to welcome him to New Books in Political Science. Mentioned: Online access to the Nixon tapes from Nixon Library Princeton Library archive on Woodrow Wilson lectures Susan's NBN interview with Judge Richard Gergel on Unexampled Courage: The Blinding of Sgt. Isaac Woodard and the Awakening of President Harry S. Truman and Judge Corey's interview with Michael Kruse of Politico, “I'd Rather Have 10 Ken Starrs Than One Donald Trump”  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

In 2024, people around the world focus on an American president who calls for the imprisonment of critics, spreads the culture of white supremacy, and upends the law to commit crimes with impunity. Is Trump the first authoritarian to threaten American constitution democracy? Corey Brettschneider's new book, The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It (W.W. Norton, 2024) argues that the United States has had previous authoritarian presidents who similarly threatened core democratic and rule of law values – and each was challenged by non-elected leaders Brettschneider terms “democratic constitutional constituencies.” John Adams waged war on the national press of the early republic, overseeing numerous prosecutions of his critics. In the lead-up to the Civil War, James Buchanan colluded with the Supreme Court to deny constitutional personhood to African Americans. A decade later, Andrew Johnson urged violence against his political opponents as he sought to guarantee a white supremacist republic after the Civil War. In the 1910s, Woodrow Wilson modernized, popularized, and nationalized Jim Crow laws. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon committed criminal acts that flowed from his corrupt ideas about presidential power. Using an impressive combination of primary documents, secondary sources, and new interviews, Brettschneider highlights how freedom to dissent, equal citizenship, and rule of law are central to democratic norms and the role that citizens play in pressuring subsequent reform-minded presidents to realize the promise of "We the People." He documents how Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Sadie Alexander, Daniel Ellsberg, and others we cannot easily name fought back against presidential abuses of power. Dr. Corey Brettschneider is professor of Political Science at Brown University. His researches and teaches at the intersection of constitutional law and politics. His scholarly works include The Oath of Office (W.W. Norton, 2018) and he writes for outlets like the New York Times, Politico, and the Washington Post. I'm delighted to welcome him to New Books in Political Science. Mentioned: Online access to the Nixon tapes from Nixon Library Princeton Library archive on Woodrow Wilson lectures Susan's NBN interview with Judge Richard Gergel on Unexampled Courage: The Blinding of Sgt. Isaac Woodard and the Awakening of President Harry S. Truman and Judge Corey's interview with Michael Kruse of Politico, “I'd Rather Have 10 Ken Starrs Than One Donald Trump”  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In 2024, people around the world focus on an American president who calls for the imprisonment of critics, spreads the culture of white supremacy, and upends the law to commit crimes with impunity. Is Trump the first authoritarian to threaten American constitution democracy? Corey Brettschneider's new book, The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It (W.W. Norton, 2024) argues that the United States has had previous authoritarian presidents who similarly threatened core democratic and rule of law values – and each was challenged by non-elected leaders Brettschneider terms “democratic constitutional constituencies.” John Adams waged war on the national press of the early republic, overseeing numerous prosecutions of his critics. In the lead-up to the Civil War, James Buchanan colluded with the Supreme Court to deny constitutional personhood to African Americans. A decade later, Andrew Johnson urged violence against his political opponents as he sought to guarantee a white supremacist republic after the Civil War. In the 1910s, Woodrow Wilson modernized, popularized, and nationalized Jim Crow laws. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon committed criminal acts that flowed from his corrupt ideas about presidential power. Using an impressive combination of primary documents, secondary sources, and new interviews, Brettschneider highlights how freedom to dissent, equal citizenship, and rule of law are central to democratic norms and the role that citizens play in pressuring subsequent reform-minded presidents to realize the promise of "We the People." He documents how Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Sadie Alexander, Daniel Ellsberg, and others we cannot easily name fought back against presidential abuses of power. Dr. Corey Brettschneider is professor of Political Science at Brown University. His researches and teaches at the intersection of constitutional law and politics. His scholarly works include The Oath of Office (W.W. Norton, 2018) and he writes for outlets like the New York Times, Politico, and the Washington Post. I'm delighted to welcome him to New Books in Political Science. Mentioned: Online access to the Nixon tapes from Nixon Library Princeton Library archive on Woodrow Wilson lectures Susan's NBN interview with Judge Richard Gergel on Unexampled Courage: The Blinding of Sgt. Isaac Woodard and the Awakening of President Harry S. Truman and Judge Corey's interview with Michael Kruse of Politico, “I'd Rather Have 10 Ken Starrs Than One Donald Trump”  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In 2024, people around the world focus on an American president who calls for the imprisonment of critics, spreads the culture of white supremacy, and upends the law to commit crimes with impunity. Is Trump the first authoritarian to threaten American constitution democracy? Corey Brettschneider's new book, The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It (W.W. Norton, 2024) argues that the United States has had previous authoritarian presidents who similarly threatened core democratic and rule of law values – and each was challenged by non-elected leaders Brettschneider terms “democratic constitutional constituencies.” John Adams waged war on the national press of the early republic, overseeing numerous prosecutions of his critics. In the lead-up to the Civil War, James Buchanan colluded with the Supreme Court to deny constitutional personhood to African Americans. A decade later, Andrew Johnson urged violence against his political opponents as he sought to guarantee a white supremacist republic after the Civil War. In the 1910s, Woodrow Wilson modernized, popularized, and nationalized Jim Crow laws. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon committed criminal acts that flowed from his corrupt ideas about presidential power. Using an impressive combination of primary documents, secondary sources, and new interviews, Brettschneider highlights how freedom to dissent, equal citizenship, and rule of law are central to democratic norms and the role that citizens play in pressuring subsequent reform-minded presidents to realize the promise of "We the People." He documents how Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Sadie Alexander, Daniel Ellsberg, and others we cannot easily name fought back against presidential abuses of power. Dr. Corey Brettschneider is professor of Political Science at Brown University. His researches and teaches at the intersection of constitutional law and politics. His scholarly works include The Oath of Office (W.W. Norton, 2018) and he writes for outlets like the New York Times, Politico, and the Washington Post. I'm delighted to welcome him to New Books in Political Science. Mentioned: Online access to the Nixon tapes from Nixon Library Princeton Library archive on Woodrow Wilson lectures Susan's NBN interview with Judge Richard Gergel on Unexampled Courage: The Blinding of Sgt. Isaac Woodard and the Awakening of President Harry S. Truman and Judge Corey's interview with Michael Kruse of Politico, “I'd Rather Have 10 Ken Starrs Than One Donald Trump”  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

In 2024, people around the world focus on an American president who calls for the imprisonment of critics, spreads the culture of white supremacy, and upends the law to commit crimes with impunity. Is Trump the first authoritarian to threaten American constitution democracy? Corey Brettschneider's new book, The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It (W.W. Norton, 2024) argues that the United States has had previous authoritarian presidents who similarly threatened core democratic and rule of law values – and each was challenged by non-elected leaders Brettschneider terms “democratic constitutional constituencies.” John Adams waged war on the national press of the early republic, overseeing numerous prosecutions of his critics. In the lead-up to the Civil War, James Buchanan colluded with the Supreme Court to deny constitutional personhood to African Americans. A decade later, Andrew Johnson urged violence against his political opponents as he sought to guarantee a white supremacist republic after the Civil War. In the 1910s, Woodrow Wilson modernized, popularized, and nationalized Jim Crow laws. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon committed criminal acts that flowed from his corrupt ideas about presidential power. Using an impressive combination of primary documents, secondary sources, and new interviews, Brettschneider highlights how freedom to dissent, equal citizenship, and rule of law are central to democratic norms and the role that citizens play in pressuring subsequent reform-minded presidents to realize the promise of "We the People." He documents how Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Sadie Alexander, Daniel Ellsberg, and others we cannot easily name fought back against presidential abuses of power. Dr. Corey Brettschneider is professor of Political Science at Brown University. His researches and teaches at the intersection of constitutional law and politics. His scholarly works include The Oath of Office (W.W. Norton, 2018) and he writes for outlets like the New York Times, Politico, and the Washington Post. I'm delighted to welcome him to New Books in Political Science. Mentioned: Online access to the Nixon tapes from Nixon Library Princeton Library archive on Woodrow Wilson lectures Susan's NBN interview with Judge Richard Gergel on Unexampled Courage: The Blinding of Sgt. Isaac Woodard and the Awakening of President Harry S. Truman and Judge Corey's interview with Michael Kruse of Politico, “I'd Rather Have 10 Ken Starrs Than One Donald Trump”  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on SouthBound, host Tommy Tomlinson talks to Michael Kruse, staff writer for POLITICO and an expert on Donald Trump. Kruse offers a lesson in having difficult conversations about politics.

Michael Kruse, senior staff writer at Politico, talks about a recent article he wrote focusing on how politics severed a relationship between two brothers

POLITICO Senior Staff Writer Michael Kruse tells us what we need to know about Trump's new WH Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

CW: This episode discusses cinematic sexual violence. Sami Gold, undergraduate political science student at George Washington University and contributor to Liberal Currents, returns to the podcast for a two-part deep dive into the controversial new Donald Trump origin story The Apprentice, which was released weeks before the 2024 election despite half-hearted attempts from the Trump campaign to block the film.  Featuring Sebastian Stan as young Donald Trump and Jeremy Strong as his notorious mentor, the political fixer Roy Cohn, The Apprentice exceeded our low expectations. Part one of our discussion is about the film itself: the challenges of depicting Trump cinematically, an evaluation of how Toronto does standing in for Manhattan in the seventies and eighties, and the mixed reaction to the film from within Trump's inner circle.  Part two of our discussion, on Trumpism in general and the upcoming election, is available on the Patreon feed.  Over 30% of all Junk Filter episodes are only available to patrons of the podcast. To support this show directly and to receive access to the entire back catalogue, consider becoming a patron for only $5.00 a month (U.S.) at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/junkfilter Follow Sami Gold on Twitter and subscribe to his Substack, Shmulik's Takes “Don't Mess With Roy Cohn” by Ken Auletta, for Esquire, December 1978 “How Gotham Gave Us Trump”, by Michael Kruse, for Politico, July/August 2017 “The Apprentice at Cannes: Location Manager Richard Hughes on the Whirlwind Of 50 Locations In 30 Days”, from the Directors Guild of Ontario's “The Wider Lens”, May 21, 2024 International trailer for The Apprentice (Ali Abbasi, 2024)

Heute vor 30 Jahren wurde auf dem Münchner Flughafen ein Fall von Plutoniumschmuggel aufgedeckt, der eine Geheimdienstaffäre nach sich zog. Michael Kruse.

Michael Kruse is a senior staff writer at Politico. He joins Preet to discuss Roy Cohn, the disgraced and disbarred lawyer, who was one of Donald Trump's early attorneys, mentors, and friends.  Stay Tuned in Brief is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Please write to us with your thoughts and questions at letters@cafe.com, or leave a voicemail at 669-247-7338. For analysis of recent legal news, join the CAFE Insider community. Head to cafe.com/insider to join for just $1 for the first month.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thou Shalt Not Laugh. With predictable grimness, the Puritanical Left has decided President Trump's remarkably gifted sense of humor is actually a form of authoritarianism. Real Stalin kind of stuff, we are told. Or so sayeth Michael Kruse, in Politico. So naturally we have a field day with this one. Leftist fanatics do not like being mocked, nor do they apparently find humor appropriate in the Gulags of their political discourse. Which is really too bad — for them. Synthetic lives, disfigured minds. Meanwhile, talking the Lara Trump takeover of the RNC. Good tidings, key pieces falling into place for 2024. Legacy media not accustomed to losing battles over The Narrative. Plus, notes on how traditional patriotism has become problematic in the Biden Era. How to look at our flags nowadays? Corned Beef and Cabbage. Vignettes on Teddy Roosevelt, chopping wood for real wood fires. RIP tributes to patriot Eric Carmen, former frontman for The Raspberries. With Great Listener Calls.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As a longtime legal combatant, probably no one else on earth is more prepared to leverage four prosecutions than Donald Trump—he's made an art form of attacking the courts, our justice system, and the rule of law for 50-plus years. Politico's Michael Kruse joins Charlie Sykes. show notes: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/12/donald-trump-indictments-legal-system-00135151 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/22/new-hampshire-primary-voter-00136850 

0:00:00 Introduction Richard Saunders 0:04:42 The Book of Tim. With Tim Mendham Tim and Richard talk about the upcoming Skepticon in Melbourne and other skeptical issues.... and have some coffee and biscuits. https://skepticon.org.au 0:14:24 You Can Count on Adrienne. With Adrienne Hill. Adrienne Hill and Faith Newsome Rodriquez talk about the Hawthorne Effect, based on poor research done in the 1920s and 1930s, which infers that people will change their behavior simply because they are being studied. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-history/one-last-centurys-most-influential-social-science-studies-pretty-bad 0:34:10 The Medical Eye Emergency Physician Sue Ieraci is looking forward to her first visit to the festival of Mind Body Spirit (Wallet) in Sydney. How will she react to the outlandish medical claims being made? Will she convert and become a Reiki Master? 0:41:56 A Dive into a Trove A wander through the decades of digitised Australian newspapers on a search for references to the late Barry Williams, former editor of The Skeptic Magazine. http://www.trove.nla.gov.au Also https://www.skeptic.org.uk 10 Years Ago The Skeptic Zone #258 - 29.September.2013 Mr. George Hrab. What's it like to MC 'The Amazing Meeting'? How cool is it to lead a band? - A Week in Science - Dr Stefan Sojka "Mind Your Back" is the new hit single from 'Dr' Sojka. Download the song and support this important message - Bad Science Watch Canada. We chat to Michael Kruse from Bad Science Watch and learn about their battle against homeopathy and other quackery https://skepticzone.libsyn.com/the-skeptic-zone-258-29-sep-2013

Kommt es oder kommt es nicht? SPD und Grüne wollen, dass der Bundestag noch vor der Sommerpause über das Heizungsgesetz berät. Doch nach wie vor gibt es keine Einigung mit der FDP. Kerstin Hermes und Julia Menger fragen den energiepolitischen Sprecher der FDP-Bundestagsfraktion, Michael Kruse, woran es liegt. Außerdem schauen wir in die USA. Dort steht Ex-US-Präsident Donald Trump erneut vor Gericht. Und Ann-Kathrin Hipp vom "Tagesspiegel" kommentiert den 52-Punkte-Plan des Berliner Senats.

As the GOP primary field expands, its latest entries this week are marked by the candidacies of former Vice President Mike Pence and former Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) — the head of the Trump White House transition team and formerly thought of as a top VP candidate. Amy Walter, publisher and editor-in-chief of the Cook Political Report, and Michael Kruse, senior staff writer for Politico, join Chuck to size up the developing primary.

The battle for the 2024 US election is heating up – and the biggest challenger to former president Donald Trump seems to be Ron DeSantis. He's the current governor of Florida, a key battleground in nationwide elections. Time and time again, he has promised to bring the blueprint of what he's accomplished in Florida to a national scale. He gained notice when he lifted COVID-19 regulations earlier than most other US states. As governor, he's also made sweeping changes to education and immigration, as well as feuded with the Disney Corporation. With a formal campaign announcement expected this week, does he have a chance against former President Trump? In this episode:  Michael Kruse (@michaelkruse), senior staff writer at Politico  Mansoor Adayfi (@mansooradayfi), author and former Guantanamo prisoner  Episode credits: This episode was produced by Chloe K. Li with Amy Walters, and our host Natasha Del Toro, in for Malika Bilal. Miranda Lin fact-checked this episode. Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Tim St. Clair mixed this episode. Our lead of audience development and engagement is Aya Elmileik. Munera Al Dosari and Adam Abou-Gad are our engagement producers. Alexandra Locke is The Take's executive producer, and Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera's head of audio. Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook

Interview with Politico's Michael Kruse on Republican Presidential candidate Nikki Haley's first rally in South Carolina (6), CBO releases updated federal budget deficit numbers and an estimate of when the national debt limit will be reached, Senate confirmation hearing for IRS Commissioner nominee, Senate hearing on fentanyl trafficking. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Der energiepolitische Sprecher der FDP fordert eine weitere Laufzeitverlängerung der bestehenden Kernkraftwerke. Die Koalition müsse nun darüber diskutieren, in welcher Reihenfolge man aus Technologien aussteige. Bei den Grünen sieht Kruse einen Generationenkonflikt.

Die russische Rakete, die an der Grenze zu der Ukraine auf dem Gebiet Polens eingeschlagen ist, ist natürlich eines der Themen in dieser Folge des „Scholz-Update“ – auch, weil sich in so einer heiklen Situation eine der Stärken des Bundeskanzlers zeigt: „In so einer Lage ist es ganz wichtig, dass alle die Nerven behalten. Ich fand die Feststellung des Bundeskanzlers sehr klug, dass es diesen Raketeneinschlag ohne den russischen Angriff auf die Ukraine nicht gegeben hätte“, sagt Michael Kruse, energiepolitischer Sprecher der FDP-Fraktion im Deutschen Bundestag. In dieser Funktion freue er sich darüber, dass die Gasspeicher in Deutschland inzwischen zu mehr als 100 Prozent gefüllt seien, warnt aber davor, beim Einsparen von Energie nachlässig zu werden: „Wir werden im nächsten Jahr deutlich mehr russisches Gas ersetzen müssen als 2022, deshalb wäre es wichtig, wenn wir mit gut gefüllten Speichern aus dem Winter herauskommen.“ Kruse, der auch Landesvorsitzender der Hamburger FDP ist, äußerte sich zudem zu den Diskussionen in der Berliner Politik über die Beteiligung der chinesischen Staatsreederei Cosco am Hamburger Containerterminal Tollerort, die: „Ich habe das nicht als besserwisserisch, sondern als garnichtwisserisch empfunden. Die Debatte ist in großen Teilen frei von sachlichen Fakten geführt worden.“ Es sei typisch für Berlin, dass „immer eine Sau durchs Dorf getrieben wird, und diejenigen, die das tun, die Sau gar nicht besonders gut kennen.“

Heckmann, Dirk-Oliverwww.deutschlandfunk.de, Informationen am MittagDirekter Link zur Audiodatei

Der Strompreis hat sich verfünffacht. Ein Grund dafür: Der Strompreis ist an den Gaspreis gekoppelt. Damit soll jetzt Schluss sein, fordert Finanzminister Lindner. Wir sprechen darüber mit Michael Kruse von der FDP.

In zwei kurzen Impuls-Vorträgen entwerfen Ricarda Lang und Michael Kruse ihre Vorstellung von einem besseren Sozialstaat. Bevor sie, moderiert von ZEIT-Redakteurin Anna Mayr, miteinander ins Gespräch kommen und dann noch die zahlreich gestellten Publikumsfragen beantworten. Der FDP-Politiker überrascht mit der Meinung, dass seine "Idealvorstellung von einem Sozialstaat eigentlich wäre, dass wir ihn möglichst gar nicht brauchen". Der Sozialstaat solle sich möglichst auf die Rolle des "Enablers" beschränken, in einer Gesellschaft, in der "jeder seines Glückes Schmied ist". Ricarda Lang hingegen meinte, man müsse über den als etwas "schmuddelig" geltenden Begriff "Armut" sprechen. Sie führt aus: "Warum reden wir nicht gerne über Armut? Weil wir Armut immer noch häufig als persönliches Problem verstehen, als ein persönliches Scheitern des Einzelnen. Und meine Utopie eines Sozialstaates ist, dass wir genau davon wegkommen. Denn aus meiner Sicht ist Armut kein Naturgesetz, es ist auch kein persönliches Scheitern, sondern es ist tatsächlich eine politische Entscheidung." Deshalb reiche es nicht, nur auf Chancengleichheit zu schauen. Der im ärmeren Hamburger Stadtteil Steilshoop aufgewachsene Michael Kruse betont die Freiheit jedes einzelnen, sich seine eigenen Ziele zu setzen und diese auch erreichen zu können. Beide sind sich einig, dass faire Löhne gezahlt werden sollten. Und wenn das so wäre, sagt Ricarda Lang, dann liefere, "niemand mehr in 15 Minuten dein Gorilla-Essen nach Hause". Wolle man diesen Luxus weiterhin haben, "dann muss es gut bezahlt sein und dann ist es vielleicht in dem Fall die paar Euro teurer". Das Gespräch mit Ricarda Lang und Michael Kruse, moderiert von Anna Mayr, fand im Rahmen der achten Langen Nacht der ZEIT am Samstagabend, 2. Juli 2022, in Hamburg statt.

As a society, we have been accustomed to energy and resources being available and uninterrupted 365 days a year. However, the war in Ukraine, the looming climate emergency, and conflicts in the last century, such as the oil crisis of the 1970s and the Gulf War in 1980, remind us how fragile the energy supply can be. The ongoing disruptions will have long-lasting global implications on geopolitics and the energy sector at large. Energy And Resources Sector Most companies in the energy and resources sector will need to go through a period of unprecedented change if they are to be fit for purpose in an increasingly decarbonized, decentralized, and digitalized world. This transition has a disruptive impact, be it carbon regulation, new technologies, emergence of new market players, or convergence of industry verticals. Such “convergence” is now one of the biggest drivers of marketplace change, creating not just new revenue streams, but also potential threats to established players. These changes are leading to the evolution of an ever-expanding ecosystem of players, something that is not just accelerating the speed of innovation, but also leading to development of increasingly integrated offerings that better meet the growing customer demand for more sustainable products and services. Decarbonization, Digitalization and Decentralization Three key trends are currently shaping the energy market. The first, decarbonization — net zero — is the most important overarching trend for all sectors and the world in general. It increasingly underpins the economic policies of many countries. Inevitably, decarbonization is having a fundamental impact on the strategic thinking and future investment decisions of companies in all sectors. The second is the need to digitize operations to meet the needs of marketplaces that are driven ever more by transparency, seamlessness, and speed of delivery. Digitalization is central to improving efficiency and enhancing the customer experience across every sector. It also has a major role to play in stimulating innovative ideas and ensuring they are turned as quickly as possible into real-life solutions for customers. The third trend is decentralization — movement to a far more localized solution to deliver a service rather than relying on much wider national or regional infrastructure. This is evidenced, for instance, by siting wind farms close to urban areas or using microgeneration, such as photovoltaic (PV) rooftop panels on new housing developments and encouraging users to take greater responsibility for how they consume energy. All these elements are feeding into new business models that are focused on much greater sustainability, a thread that is running through every component of society. In the energy sector, the introduction of carbon capture and other cleantech is now central to both day-to-day operations and strategic decision-making, given the growing significance of environmental, social, and governance standards on corporate thinking. It is with these measures in mind that companies must assess their day-to-day operations and longer-term strategic decisions. While the unique situation of each player means there is no one-size strategy that fits all, the direction of travel is now relatively well established for everyone. By Michael Kruse, Global Leader, Energy & Utilities Practice, Arthur D. Little.

Mit Julia Verlinden von den Grünen und Nina Scheer von der SPD hat sich David Wortmann in den letzten Wochen bereits mit zwei Energie-Protagonistinnen der Ampelregierung im deutschen Bundestag getroffen. Jetzt hat sich David mit Michael Kruse verabredet. Er ist der energiepolitische Sprecher der FDP im Bundestag und verhandelt mit Nina Scheer und Julia Verlinden sowie weiteren Abgeordneten der Ampel-Koalition die neuen Beschlüsse zum größten Energiewende-Gesetzgebungsverfahren der letzten 20 Jahre. Michael ist seit letztem Jahr auch Chef der FDP in Hamburg, wo er zuvor Vorsitzender der Hamburger Bürgerschaftsfraktion der FDP war. Mit Michael Kruse gestaltet nun eine neue Generation von FDP Politikern im Bundestag die Energiewende mit, für die nicht mehr die zentrale Frage ist ob, sondern vor allem wie der Hochlauf der erneuerbaren Energien so schnell wie möglich gelingen kann. Das nimmst Du mit: - Wie bewertet Michael Kruse die jüngsten Wahlergebnisse der FDP auf Länderebene, - wird es eine liberale Handschrift zum Energie-Osterpaket der Bundesregierung geben, - wo sieht die FDP noch Nachbesserungsbedarf - Wie sind Michael Kruse die ersten Schritte in den Bundestag und der Überblick über die komplexe energiepolitische Lage gelungen - Wodurch unterscheidet sich die Zusammenarbeit in der Ampel im Vergleich zu einer Koalition mit der CDU

Today, primary voters in North Carolina's 11th Congressional District will decide whether their representative has become more trouble than he's worth. Once a rising conservative star, Cawthorn is now mired in controversy, facing the very real possibility his electoral career might end as quickly as it began. Michael Kruse reports.

Heute in unserem (fast) täglichen Podcast: FDP-Politiker Michael Kruse über den Streit in seinem Hamburger Landesverband und notwendige Veränderungen in der deutschen Energiepolitik. Unser Werbepartner in dieser Woche ist Stilbruch. Foto: Leif Neugebohrn

Die Gräueltaten im Kiewer Vorort Butscha haben weltweit für Entsetzen gesorgt und den Druck auf Deutschland erhöht, die Energieimporte aus Russland zu stoppen. Die EU plant ein neues Sanktionspaket, das unter anderem ein Importverbot für russische Kohle beinhaltet. Ingrid Nestle und Michael Kruse, die energiepolitischen Sprachrohre der Grünen und der FDP, plädieren für ein besonnenes Vorgehen – und einen schrittweisen Ausstieg. Wie dieser aussehen kann, erfahren Sie in der neuen Folge von „Handelsblatt Today“. Außerdem geht es um die Hintergründe der spektakulären Machtübernahme der Bundesnetzagentur bei Gazprom Germania. *** Exklusives Angebot für Handelsblatt Today-Hörer: Testen Sie Handelsblatt Premium 6 Wochen für 1 € und bleiben Sie immer informiert, was die Finanzmärkte bewegt. Mehr Informationen: www.handelsblatt.com/mehrfinanzen

Heinemann, Christophwww.deutschlandfunk.de, InterviewDirekter Link zur Audiodatei

Der energiepolitische Sprecher der FDP-Bundestagsfraktion erklärt im Morgeninterview bei Politik mit Stil, dass bezüglich der steigenden Energiepreise „großer Handlungsbedarf“ bestehe. Um die Preise zu senken, sei es notwendig, die Anbieterstruktur zu diversifizieren, so Kruse. Mit Blick auf die EEG-Umlage plädiert der FDP-Politiker für eine Abschaffung zum 1. Juli 2022. Kruse, der auch Mitglied im Ausschuss für Klimaschutz ist, rät der CDU zu erkennen, dass die Klimapolitik längst schon ein Thema sei, gegen das man nicht ankämpfen sollte.

Allan Bevere and Michael Kruse discuss the matter of abundance and scarcity. Which world do we live in? How do we understand both ideas? What do the economists say? The theologians? Are we even asking the right questions? --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/allan-r-bevere/message

In North Carolina, the race for the Senate reveals the party's internal conflict over race and the best strategy to win a crucial seat. POLITICO's Michael Kruse reports.

If you know anything about economics, it has to be the concept of scarcity. This is the gap between a limited resource and unlimited wants. Scarcity means making decisions on how to best allocate these resources efficiently so that as many people benefit as possible. That's what scarcity means. It's econ 101. But when I got to seminary and afterwards, I head pastors say over and over again that scarcity was bad. God is a God of abundance, they would say. Scarcity was about greed and not sharing resources with others. I never understood where pastors were getting this. I knew about this basic fact of economics, why were they having problems figuring this out? Over time I realized this sort of thinking was pretty standard throughout mainline Protestantism. Today, Micahel and I talk about economics, business and the mainline Protestant church. We also talk about how evangelicals have such a hard time understanding structural racism. Economic Fallacies Christians Believe Be sure to rate us and leave a review. Share the podcast with others! What did you think of the podcast episode? Questions? Send an email: reverendpodcast@gmail.com . website: enroutepodcast.org Twitter Facebook Page YouTube

Heute ist in unserem (fast) täglichen Podcast der FDP-Bundestagsabgeordnete Michael Kruse zu Gast, der nicht nur darüber aufklärt, wie die Lage gerade bei den Sondierungsgesprächen ist, sondern auch darüber, was ihr beachten solltet, wenn ihr einem Straßenhund ein neues Zuhause geben wollt. Unser Partner in dieser Woche ist Stilbruch. Foto: Patrick Lux

Is race the central story of America? Does American history begin in 1619 or 1776? Is racism systemic or purely an individual prejudice? Is Critical Race Theory Marxist? Michael Kruse and Allan Bevere explore these questions and others. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/allan-r-bevere/message

In this episode Melissa tackles the complex moral, ethical and practical aspects of sentencing reform – in particular the parole of those who have committed heinous murders – and the answers aren't easy to come by.  The focus begins with the murder of three innocent workers in Northern Kentucky in January 1980, when then 24 year-old Paul Kordenbrock and his accomplice Michael Kruse entered a Western Auto store in the town of Florence, stole a cache of firearms, then Kordenbrock shot Stanley Allen and store owner William Thompson in their heads while they laid on the floor.  Allen died and Allen survived.  Just 15 hours prior, in neighboring Kenton County, Kordenbrock (who was also accompanied by Kruse) shot and killed two service station workers, Rick Allen Jones and Timothy Mains.  While the fate of Kruse is foggy, Kordenbrock - the trigger man in both crimes – was sentenced to death in the Western Auto murder – then later had that sentence reduced to life in prison after he admitted to the service station killings.  Today at age 66, Kordenbrock claims to be a changed man, having found religion and new meaning in his life – and is working as a “prison advocate” for death row inmates and the elimination of capital punishment.  Whether this “new persona” is really just a ploy to get released or not, no one can ever know…which brings Melissa to discuss the August 27, 2021 ruling of a California parole board to recommend parole for Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of New York Senator and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.  At age 77, after 53 years in a correctional facility, Sirhan convinced the board that he is fully repentant and that he will never again be the man he was in his youth.  What makes the Sirhan parole recommendation so interesting is that two of the late senator's nine surviving children, Robert, Jr. and Douglas, actively petitioned for the release of their father's killer, expressing not only forgiveness – but love – toward the assassin.  The murders committed by Kordenbrock and Sirhan, and the subsequent handling of their sentences, sparks some fascinating reflections from Melissa (and Producer Mark) in this week's compelling episode.

On this first installment of a new monthly series enetiled, "Calmly Considered," Allan Bevere and Michael Kruse discuss the economic context of the New Testament and how it does and does not inform our current economic world today. We also ask the questions, "Was Jesus a socialist? A Capitalist?" We utilize in our discussion a new book by Peter Oakes, Empire, Economics, and the New Testament. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/allan-r-bevere/message

This week we welcome POLITICO Magazine senior staff writer, Michael Kruse. We chat about his writing career and his approach to covering stories. Send thoughts and comments to podcast@summitcoffee.com.

Plus... Brian Stelter says Fox is facing competition like never before; Carl Bernstein says there is a 'civil war of untruth' in America; reporters want Biden to be more accessible; is Trump trying to turn his voters into subscribers? Julie Roginsky, Carl Bernstein, Sam Donaldson, Dr. Seema Yasmin, Molly Ball and Michael Kruse join Brian Stelter. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Jonah Keri prepares his stump speech with Politico writer Michael Kruse on the perilous state of American health care and how to fix it; the value of retail politics and why national candidates should try to kiss some babies too; the impossible task of winning bipartisan support and how Senator Joe Manchin finds a way to do it, and much more! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"We're all a product of our path to the current moment, and my path is a little bit different," Michael says. He has worked his way up from covering exurban news to writing about the President for POLITICO. And he says that journey, which included stories about a dead sheep and a woman who disappeared inside her own home, helps him today. "My path was through small areas and rural areas in New York state and in Florida ... it can't hurt when I go out to quote-unquote Trump country—which is to say, most of the country—and talk to people." Michael also talked about his first lucky break in the business, how a lack of access can sometimes be liberating, and why he considers his audience to be just about every single person on planet Earth.

Michael Kruse joins the Legion of Reason this week. Michael is executive director of Bad Science Watch. The mission of Bad Science Watch is to “provide analysis of dubious scientific claims to Canadians, our government, and the media, promote objective critical thinking, and advocate for the enforcement and strengthening of consumer protection regulation.” They've been […]

Michael Kruse, from Huff Po and Bad Science Watch, gives us a round up on the Wifi Freak Out that's happening in Canada. Is a Canadian University professor right that wifi is a plan to make white suburban people infertile? Have Canadians all gone mad at once?