Podcasts about Wickenden

How can I invest in AI? What's the difference between a technology ETF and the Nasdaq 100? Betashares' Tom Wickenden joins Owen Rask on The Australian Finance Podcast to talk Nasdaq 100 (ASX: NDQ), the Nasdaq Next Gen 100 ETF (ASX: JNDQ), technology sector ETFs and more. Disclosure: Betashares is a long-term sponsor of this podcast. Learn more on the Betashares website: Next Gen 100 ETF: https://www.betashares.com.au/fund/nasdaq-next-gen-100-etf/ NASDAQ 100 ETF: https://www.betashares.com.au/fund/nasdaq-100-etf/ Podcast resources: Access Show Notes: https://bit.ly/R-notes Kate's book, Buying Happiness: https://bit.ly/kate-amazon Invest with Owen: https://bit.ly/R-invest Mortgage Broking: https://bit.ly/broke-rask Financial Planning: https://bit.ly/R-plan Property Coaching: https://bit.ly/R-P-coach 100-point property checklist (PDF): https://bit.ly/prop-check Accounting with Grey Space: http://bit.ly/3DG5lWS Business Coaching: https://bit.ly/o-coach Ask a question: https://bit.ly/3QtiY00 Pearler, the broker for long-term investors. Sign up to Pearler using the code “RASK” for $15 of Pearler Credit: bit.ly/Pearler Betashares Capital Limited (ABN 78 139 566 868 AFSL 341181) is the issuer of the Betashares Funds. Read the relevant Product Disclosure Statement and Target Market Determination, available at www.betashares.com.au, and consider whether the product is right for you. Investments in Betashares Funds are subject to investment risk and the value of units may go up and down. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. DISCLAIMER: This podcast contains general financial information only. That means the information does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Because of that, you should consider if the information is appropriate to you and your needs, before acting on it. If you're confused about what that means or what your needs are, you should always consult a licensed and trusted financial planner. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information in this podcast, including any financial, taxation, and/or legal information. Remember, past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. The Rask Group is NOT a qualified tax accountant, financial (tax) adviser, or financial adviser. Access The Rask Group's Financial Services Guide (FSG): https://www.rask.com.au/fsg Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After returning from a week of reporting in Israel, David Remnick has two important conversations about the conflict between Israelis and Arabs both in and outside of Gaza. First, he speaks with Yonit Levi, a veteran news anchor on Israeli television, about how her country is both reeling from the October 7th terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas, and grappling with how to strike at Hamas as the country prepares for an invasion that would be catastrophic for Palestinians. Meanwhile, the Palestinian academic Sari Nusseibeh maintains that peace is possible, if the influence of Hamas and the Israeli far right can be curtailed. David Remnick's Letter from Israel appears in The New Yorker, along with extensive coverage of the conflict.

The Washington Roundtable: It's been a major week for the unfounded idea that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. First, House Republicans elevated Representative Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who was formerly almost unknown on the national level, to be Speaker of the House. Johnson is a creationist and a climate-change denier, and he was a key figure in the effort to keep Trump in power—which certainly helped in his bid for leadership this week. On the other hand, as some of the former President's most loyal associates have faced the threat of jail time in Georgia, they have renounced their false election theories. “You have to lie about the election to rise in power if you're a Republican in the House,” the staff writer Jane Mayer says, “but when you face potential sentencing in a court yourself, the truth finally comes out.” Mayer joins the New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser and Evan Osnos to look at the current dynamics of election denialism in Republican politics.

Jim Jordan may have failed to become the Republican Speaker of the House, but he still remains the Party's most influential insurgent. The former wrestling champion and current Ohio congressman first took office in 2007. Since then, he has not sponsored a single bill that has become law. Instead, he has made it his mission to expose what he calls “big-tech censorship” against conservatives, and to undermine the institutions that are investigating Donald Trump. Jonathan Blitzer, who wrote a piece on Jordan's conspiratorial quest for power for this week's New Yorker, joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss why this man is still key to understanding the contemporary Republican Party. 

The Washington Roundtable: President Biden embraced the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in Tel Aviv this week, reiterating America's support for Israel amid its war with Hamas. The President brokered a deal to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza and warned Israelis not to be “consumed” by rage as they respond to Hamas's October 7th massacre of civilians in the country. “It's not clear yet what really has been accomplished by this extraordinary amount of personal diplomacy,” the New Yorker staff writer Susan B. Glasser said. Senior Israeli officials are allegedly predicting several years or even a decade of war. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration is seeking more than a hundred billion dollars in federal funding, including assistance for Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. But, because the raucous battle to elect a Speaker of the House is ongoing, the question of when this package might pass remains open. As the staff writer Evan Osnos noted, the events of the past two weeks underscore the challenges that democracy is facing both at home and abroad. The staff writer Jane Mayer joins Glasser and Osnos in conversation about it all.

Earlier this week, The New Yorker published an interview with a senior Hamas political official, Mousa Abu Marzouk, about the group's rationale behind the October 7th massacre in Israel. How did Hamas militants determine that now was the time for violence? And, given that Netanyahu's deadly response was a sure thing, how did they weigh the cost of Palestinian lives? (This podcast episode was recorded on Monday afternoon, and since then civilian deaths in Gaza have continued to rise as Israeli airstrikes bombard the strip.) The New Yorker reporters David Kirkpatrick and Adam Rasgon join Tyler Foggatt to discuss what they learned from speaking with Abu Marzouk, and how this conflict differs from what they have each seen in their many years of reporting on the region. Share your thoughts on The Political Scene.

When Rodrigo Duterte ran for the presidency of the Philippines and won, in 2016, the Western press noted the similarities between this unconventional candidate and Donald Trump—who also liked to casually espouse violence on the campaign trail and beyond.  Duterte used provocative and obscene language to tap into the country's fears about a real, albeit overstated, drug problem. “Every drug addict was a schizophrenic, hallucinatory, will rape your mother and butcher your father,” as reporter Patricia Evangelista puts it, “and if he can't find a child to rape, he'll rape a goat.” But, unlike Donald Trump, Duterte made good on his promise of death. More than twenty thousand extrajudicial killings took place over the course of his six-year term in office, according to human-rights groups—and Duterte remained quite popular as bodies piled up in the streets. Reporting for the news site Rappler, Evangelista confronted the collateral damage when Durterte started to enact his “kill them all” policies. “I had to take accountability,” she tells David Remnick. Her book, “Some People Need Killing,” is published in the U.S. this week, and Evangelista has left the Philippines because of the danger it puts her in. “I own the guilt,” Evangelista says. “How can I sit in New York, when the people whose stories I told, who took the risk to tell me their stories, are sitting in shanties across the country and might be at risk because of things they told me.”

In this bonus episode, the hosts of Critics at Large dissect Walter Isaacson's new biography of Elon Musk, asking how it reflects ideas about power, money, and cults of personality—from “Batman” to “The Social Network.” The critics examine how, in recent years, the idea of the unimpeachable Silicon Valley founder has lost its sheen. Narratives, such as the 2022 series “WeCrashed,” tell the story of startup founders who make lofty promises, only to watch their empires crumble when those promises are shown to be empty. “It dovetails for me with the disillusionment of millennials,” Naomi Fry says, pointing to the dark mood that the 2007-08 financial crisis and the 2016 election brought to the country. “There's no longer this blind belief that the tech founder is a genius who should be wholly admired with no reservations.”  This is a preview of The New Yorker's new Critics at Large podcast. Episodes drop every Thursday.

On Saturday morning, Ruth Margalit, a contributor to The New Yorker who lives in Tel Aviv, awoke to air-raid sirens. It was a familiar sound, but as the day unfolded, it became apparent that Hamas's latest attack on Israel was more severe than she had realized. “I mean, I've certainly never seen anything like this. My entire generation hasn't,” Margalit says. Since then, she has been reporting on the incursion from Gaza—including a massacre of civilians at a music festival—and on its aftermath. She joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the political backdrop, both global and regional, to this catastrophe; the history of hostage negotiations in Israel; and the response that the Israeli public expects from Benjamin Netanyahu's government in the coming days and weeks.   Share your thoughts on The Political Scene to be eligible to enter a prize drawing of up to $1,000.

Despite months of discouraging news about extreme weather conditions, the former Vice-President Al Gore still believes that there is a solution to the climate crisis clearly in sight. “We have a switch we can flip,” he tells David Remnick. The problem, as Gore sees it, is that a powerful legacy network of political and financial spheres of influence are stubbornly standing in the way. “When ExxonMobil or Chevron put their ads on the air, the purpose is not for a husband and wife to say, ‘Oh, let's go down to the store and buy some motor oil.' The purpose is to condition the political space so that they have a continued license to keep producing and selling more and more fossil fuels,” Gore says. But it's also what he describes as our ongoing “democracy crisis” that's playing a factor as well. He believes lawmakers who know better are turning a blind eye to incontrovertible data for short-term political gain. “The average congressman spends an average of five hours a day on the telephone, and at cocktail parties and dinners begging lobbyists for money to finance their campaigns,” Gore says. Still, Gore says he is cautiously optimistic. “What Joe Biden did last year in passing the so-called Inflation Reduction Act . . . was the most extraordinary legislative achievement of any head of state of any country in history,” Gore says, adding that temperatures will stop going up “almost immediately” if we reach a true net zero in fossil-fuel emissions. “Half of all the human-caused greenhouse-gas pollution will have fallen out of the atmosphere in as little as twenty-five to thirty years.”

The Washington Roundtable: The removal of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was a first in the history of the United States Congress. His tenure was so brief and attenuated that the staff writer Jane Mayer refers to him as “kind of the Scaramucci of Speakers.” This week's chaos—and McCarthy's humiliation—was instigated by Representative Matt Gaetz, of Florida. Gaetz, who comes from a family of politicians, joined the House in 2017 with an anti-establishment mentality. “He is sort of a TV monger with a pompadour, but he also has real aspirations,” the staff writer Susan B. Glasser notes. But now Republicans in Congress are struggling to elect a new Speaker. Donald Trump has apparently been floated as a contender. Can the Party escape the “doom loop” of constantly toppling its leadership? The staff writer Evan Osnos joins Mayer and Glasser to weigh in.

Throughout the Russian invasion of Ukraine, David Remnick has talked with Stephen Kotkin, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution who is deeply informed on U.S.-Russia relations, and a biographer of Stalin. With the Ukrainian counter-offensive proceeding very slowly, Kotkin says that Ukraine is unlikely to “win the peace” on the battlefield; an armistice on Zelensky's terms—although they may be morally correct—would require the defeat of Russia itself. Realistically, he thinks, Ukraine must come to accept some loss of territory in exchange for security guarantees. And, without heavy political pressure from the U.S., Kotkin tells David Remnick, no amount of military aid would be sufficient. “We took regime change off the table,” Kotkin notes regretfully. “That's so much bigger than the F-16s or the tanks or the long-range missiles because that's the variable . . . . When he's scared that his regime could go down, he'll cut and run. And if he's not scared about his regime, he'll do the sanctions busting. He'll do everything he's doing because it's with impunity.”

The Washington Roundtable: Dianne Feinstein, who was the longest-serving female senator in U.S. history, died on Thursday, at the age of ninety. The New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos remember the Democrat from San Francisco, who leaves a legacy as an advocate for gun control and against the torture of detainees after 9/11. She fought to enable the release of the sixty-seven-hundred-page report of the C.I.A.'s interrogation program, though she worried about the effect on national security of criticizing the program, Jane Mayer recalls on this week's episode. “But she went with it on her own instincts,” says Mayer, “and then commissioned a study that laid out the guts of that program in a way that was incredible.”  Also this week, President Biden, speaking at Arizona State University, called MAGA Republicans “a threat to the brick and mortar of our democratic institutions” and to the “character of our nation.” “I don't think I've ever heard a President feel the need to say in the course of a speech, ‘I stand for the peaceful transfer of power,' ” Evan Osnos says. “But that's actually what's required at the moment.”

Last week, Benjamin Wallace-Wells, who writes about politics for The New Yorker, went to Dubuque, Iowa, to attend a Trump rally. Wallace-Wells is now covering his third Trump campaign for President. This time, what stood out to him most was how much the rhetoric of the G.O.P. has shifted in the course of those three cycles. The former President, once an insurgent and inflammatory voice, now just sounds like an ordinary Republican. Wallace-Wells joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss what he heard from voters in Iowa, what he has observed in the broader Republican field, and why Donald Trump's 2024 lead has been so significant.

The Washington Roundtable: Ukraine's President, Volodymyr Zelensky, travelled to New York City and Washington, D.C., this week to request more support for his country. Before the United Nations General Assembly, Zelensky called Russia's war an act of “genocide.” In Washington, the Ukrainian President met with senators, House members, President Biden, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy rejected Zelensky's request to address Congress, saying that there wasn't enough time, given the ongoing battle over funding the government. Meanwhile, some Republicans are arguing that attention should be turned away from Russia's invasion and toward the threat that China poses to the U.S. How will the country's foreign policy respond to these pressures? The New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos weigh in.

In the past year, more than a hundred thousand migrants have arrived in New York City. This particular chapter in the city's immigration history began last August, when Governor Greg Abbott of Texas sent buses of Venezuelan asylum seekers north. The city welcomed these new arrivals, who used social media to encourage more migrants to make New York their destination, even as the city's shelters—already overburdened by a growing homeless population—were at capacity. Eric Lach has recently published a piece in The New Yorker about the new influx of African migrants, and their difficulties navigating a social-services system that was built for Spanish speakers. He joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the political differences between calling oneself an undocumented immigrant and an asylum seeker, and the demands that Eric Adams is making for federal support.

About  1.4 million people in the United States end up in homeless shelters every year, with many thousands more living on the street. You could fill the city of San Diego with the unhoused. The problem seems gigantic, tragic, and intractable. But there are proven solutions. For the chronically homeless, a key strategy is supportive housing—providing not only a stable apartment but also services like psychiatric and medical care on-site. The New Yorker contributor Jennifer Egan spent the past year following several individuals who had been homeless for long periods of time as they transitioned into a new supportive-housing building in New York. “Is it easy to bring people with these kinds of difficult histories into one place in the span of eight months? No,” she tells David Remnick. “Does it work? From what I have seen, the answer is yes.” By one estimate, addressing the country's homeless problem would cost about ten billion dollars. But Egan argues that figure pales in comparison to what we're spending on the problem in the form of emergency medical care, emergency shelter, and other piecemeal solutions. “No one wants to see that line item in a budget, but we are already spending it in all of these diffuse ways,” she says. “We are hemorrhaging money at this problem.”

The Washington Roundtable: Congress has returned from summer recess to a hectic month of business. This week, as Kevin McCarthy sought to avoid a government shutdown, the House Speaker announced that he plans to initiate an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. McCarthy is feeling pressured by hard-right Republicans who forced fifteen rounds of voting to occur in order to elect him to his post in January. Now, just weeks before the end-of-September deadline to either fund the government or shut it down, this same faction has  brought the House to a standstill. What is the logic behind these disruptions? The New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos weigh in.

David Grann is a staff writer for The New Yorker and the author of two nonfiction books that topped the best-seller list this summer: “The Wager” and “Killers of the Flower Moon,” from 2017, which Martin Scorsese has adapted into a film opening in October. Grann is among the most lauded nonfiction writers at The New Yorker; David Remnick says that “his urge to find unique stories and tell them with rigor and style is rare to the vanishing point.” Grann talks with Remnick about his beginnings as a writer, and about his almost obsessive research and writing process. “The trick is how can you tell a true story using these literary techniques and remain completely factually based,” Grann says. “What I realized as I did this more is that you are an excavator. You aren't imagining the story—you are excavating the story.” Grann recounts travelling in rough seas to the desolate site of the eighteenth-century shipwreck at the heart of “The Wager,” his most recent book, so that he could convey the sailors' despair more accurately. That book is also being made into a film by Scorcese. “It's a learning curve because I've never been in the world of Hollywood,” Grann says. “You're a historical resource. … Once they asked me, ‘What was the lighting in the room?' I thought about it for a long time. That's something I would not need to know, writing a book.” But Grann is glad to be in the hands of an expert, and keep his distance from the process. “I'm not actually interested in making a film,” he admits. “I'm really interested in these stories, and so I love that somebody else with their own vision and intellect is going to draw on these stories and add to our understanding of whatever this work is.”

The New Yorker presents a special conversation from Slate's “Amicus” podcast, hosted by Dahlia Lithwick. Lithwick talks with Judge Margaret M. McKeown, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, about McKeown's new book, “Citizen Justice: The Environmental Legacy of William O. Douglas―Public Advocate and Conservation Champion.” The Washington Roundtable will return next week.

In January, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell passed a career milestone: he became the Senate's longest-serving party leader. Since then, McConnell has suffered a number of health setbacks. This includes a fall and subsequent concussion in March and, most recently, a medical episode at a press conference in which he abruptly froze while taking questions, standing silent and motionless for more than thirty seconds. At age eighty-one, McConnell is hardly the only politician showing his years: the two leading Presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, are the two oldest Presidents in history. Susan B. Glasser, a staff writer and a co-host of the Political Scene's Washington Roundtable, recently wrote a piece for The New Yorker about what she calls “America's fragile gerontocracy.” She joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss how baby boomers continue to dominate our political system, and what this could mean for the 2024 Presidential election.

Bob Woodward has been writing about the White House for more than fifty years, going toe to toe with nearly every President after Richard Nixon. Woodward is every inch the reporter, not one to editorialize. But, during his interviews with Donald Trump at the time of the COVID-19 crisis, Woodward found himself shouting at the President—explaining how to make a decision, and trying to browbeat him into listening to public-health experts. Woodward has released audio recordings of some of their interviews in a new audiobook called “The Trump Tapes,” which documents details of Trump's state of mind, and also of Woodward's process and craft. Despite having written critically of Trump in 2018, Woodward found his access unprecedented. “I could call him anytime, [and] he would call me,” Woodward tells David Remnick. His wife, Elsa Walsh, “used to joke [that] there's three of us in the marriage.”

The Washington Roundtable: Mark Meadows, Donald Trump's former right-hand man, took the stand in Georgia this week to argue that his actions in the election-racketeering case—in which he was indicted two weeks ago, alongside eighteen co-conspirators, including Trump—were taken in his capacity as a federal official. For that reason, he and his lawyers petitioned for the case against him to be moved from state to federal court. Meadows, who has been a significant and disruptive force in American politics since he arrived in Washington, in 2013, may be trying to have his case heard before a more sympathetic jury. “I don't think there's anyone I can think of in American politics,” the staff writer Jane Mayer says, “who's put his finger to the wind more often to try to figure out which way it's blowing.” What does Meadows's rise—and now, potential fall—teach us about the Republican Party today? The New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos weigh in.

It's been eighteen months since Russia invaded Ukraine. In that time, Russia has annexed four Ukrainian territories; the mercenary Wagner Group staged a coup against Putin, and then its leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, died in a mysterious plane explosion; Ukraine mounted a successful counter-offensive, and then a less successful one, which is currently ongoing. All the while, the U.S. has engaged in what seems like a proxy war with Russia, imposing extensive sanctions and providing thirty billion dollars in weapons, training, and intelligence to Ukraine. Some foreign-policy experts are questioning this strategy.  Keith Gessen, a contributing writer at The New Yorker, has been covering the war in Ukraine since its beginning. This week, he published a piece titled “The Case for Negotiating with Russia,” about the analysts who are pushing for diplomacy over warfare. He joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the state of the conflict, and why it's the U.S. that could ultimately decide how it ends.

The Korey Stringer Institute at the University of Connecticut was named after an N.F.L. player who died of exertional heatstroke. The lab's main research subjects have been athletes, members of the military, and laborers. But, with climate change, even mild exertion under extreme heat will affect more and more of us; in many parts of the United States, a heat wave and power outage could cause a substantial number of fatalities. Dhruv Khullar, a New Yorker contributor and practicing physician, visited the Stringer Institute to undergo a heat test—walking uphill for ninety minutes in a hundred-and-four-degree temperature—to better understand what's happening. “I just feel puffy everywhere,” Khullar sighed. “You'd have to cut my finger off just to get my wedding ring off.” By the end of the test, Khullar spoke of cramps, dizziness, and a headache. He discussed the dangers of heatstroke with Douglas Casa, the lab's head (who himself nearly died of it as a young athlete). “Climate change has taken this into the everyday world for the everyday American citizen. You don't have to be a laborer working for twelve hours, you don't have to be a soldier in training,” Casa tells him. “This is making it affect so many people even just during daily living.” Although the treatment for heat-related illness is straightforward, Casa says that implementation of simple measures remains challenging—and there is much we need to do to better prepare for the global rise in temperature.

The Washington Roundtable: In the first debate of the Republican Presidential primary, which took place in Milwaukee on Wednesday night, six of the eight potential nominees onstage raised their hands to indicate that, if Donald Trump is their party's choice, they will support him—even if he is convicted in a court of law. Trump wasn't present. The following day, the former President had his mug shot taken in a Fulton County jail. Trump was booked on thirteen charges, among them that he, along with eighteen others, conducted a “criminal enterprise” to overturn his 2020 defeat in Georgia. The two events signal the G.O.P.'s dilemma regarding Trump, and his grip on the contest for the nomination. What motivates the Republican primary contenders to defend a man whom they are ostensibly trying to defeat? The New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos weigh in.

In this week's magazine, Ronan Farrow has published a major story about the business practices of Elon Musk. Farrow, who has reported extensively on abuses of power for The New Yorker, joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss how Musk has become an essential yet unofficial part of American governance, holding the keys to the green transition, the space race, and even the war in Ukraine. The reason for this, Farrow explains, is not Musk's outrageous personality; it's the structures of neoliberal capitalism that allowed a person like Musk to ascend. Read more by Ronan Farrow on Harvey Weinstein's sexual misconduct, Britney Spears's conservatorship, and the Israeli surveillance agency Black Cube.

Even in a summer of record-breaking heat and disasters, Republican Presidential candidates have ignored or mocked climate change. But some conservative legislators in Congress recognize that action is necessary. Their ideas about how to tackle the problem, however, depart from the consensus that is dominant among Democrats. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who represents Iowa's first district, is vice-chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus and a former head of the Iowa Department of Public Health. “Where there's difference among individuals is with what urgency people believe there needs to be change. I believe that having rapid change without having affordable, available energy is not a solution,” she tells David Remnick. Miller-Meeks extols innovation in the private sector, but feels that mandates on electric vehicles would drive up costs too much for rural consumers. With a goal of reducing fossil-fuel consumption, she says, environmentalists need to reconsider their desire to remove hydroelectric dams to restore river habitats, and their opposition to nuclear-power generation. They should expedite mining for copper, uranium, and rare earth minerals, despite the environmental risks. “You have an Inflation Reduction Act which on one hand says you need to domestically source minerals,” she notes, “yet we won't allow permitting.” More broadly, she feels that the alarms sounded by environmental scientists have failed to convince the public. “Every time we advance that there is a crisis and there is doom, and it doesn't materialize, scientists, and we as political leaders, and people who are advancing policy, lose credibility.”

The Washington Roundtable: It has been a summer of history-making indictments against Donald Trump. This week, he received his fourth—this one from Georgia, where the former President and eighteen co-defendants are accused of conducting a “criminal enterprise” to reverse his 2020 defeat in the battleground state. Despite all of Trump's legal troubles, he remains the overwhelming front-runner for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2024, and a rematch with Joseph Biden appears imminent. Yet history cautions that, with fifteen months to go before Election Day, all kinds of factors could derail his campaign. How damaging are these criminal charges in Georgia? Can anything actually shake up the race? The New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos weigh in.

The practice of legacy admissions—preferential consideration of the children of alumni—has emerged as a national flash point since the Supreme Court banned affirmative action in June. Even some prominent Republicans are joining the Biden Administration in calling for its end. David Remnick speaks with the U.S. Education Secretary, Miguel Cardona, about the politics behind college admissions. Cardona sees legacy preference as part of a pattern that discourages many students from applying to selective schools, but notes that it is not the whole problem. How can access to higher education, he asks, be more equitable when the quality of K-12 education is so inequitable?    Plus, Jeannie Suk Gersen, a professor at Harvard Law School, looks at the problems facing admissions officers now that race cannot be a consideration in maintaining diversity. Gersen has been reporting for The New Yorker on the legal fight over affirmative action and the movement to end legacy admissions. She speaks with the dean of admissions at Wesleyan University, one of the schools that voluntarily announced an end to legacy preference after the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action. “So far, the responses have been overwhelmingly positive,” Amin Abdul-Malik Gonzalez tells her. “But we're obviously some time removed from the results of the decision. . . . I think it's both symbolic and potentially substantive in terms of signalling our value to not have individually unearned benefits.”

Andrew Marantz, in the August 14th, 2023, issue of The New Yorker, wrote about Leah Hunt-Hendrix, a major donor to progressive causes whose grandfather was a politically conservative oil tycoon. Hunt-Hendrix's use of her money and influence to support progressive social movements is remarkable in that the goals of these projects run counter to her class interests, and even aim to put her family's company out of business: raising taxes on the rich, pushing for more corporate regulation, and passing a Green New Deal. She funds grassroots organizations, and also co-founded the political organization Way to Win, which works to elect candidates on the left. In this episode of the Political Scene, Marantz, a guest host, invites the writer Anand Giridharadas to discuss the unexpected nexus between big money and movement politics. Giridharadas is the author of four books, including, most recently, “Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World” and “The Persuaders: Winning Hearts and Minds in a Divided Age.”

The New Yorker Radio Hour: Last month, the country singer Jason Aldean released a music video for “Try That in a Small Town,” a song that initially received little attention. But the video cast the song's lyrics in a new light. While Aldean sings, “Try that in a small town / See how far ya make it down the road / 'Round here, we take care of our own,” images of protests against police brutality are interspersed with Aldean singing outside a county courthouse where a lynching once took place. Aldean's defenders—and there are many—say the song praises small-town values and respect for the law, rather than promoting violence and vigilantism. The controversy eventually pushed the song to No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. The staff writer Emily Nussbaum has been reporting from Nashville throughout the past few months on the very complicated politics of country music. On the one hand, she found a self-perpetuating culture war, fuelled by outrage; on the other, there's a music scene that's diversifying, with increasing numbers of women, Black artists, and L.G.B.T.Q. performers claiming country music as their own. “I set out to talk about music, but politics are inseparable from it,” Nussbaum tells David Remnick. “The narrowing of commercial country music to a form of pop country dominated by white guys singing a certain kind of cliché-ridden bro country song—it's not like I don't like every song like that, but the absolute domination of that keeps out all sorts of other musicians.” Nussbaum also speaks with Adeem the Artist, a nonbinary country singer and songwriter based in East Tennessee, who has found success with audiences but has not broken through on mainstream country radio. “I think that it's important that people walk into a music experience where they expect to feel comforted in their bigotry and they are instead challenged on it and made to imagine a world where different people exist,” Adeem says. “But, as a general rule, I try really hard to connect with people even if I'm making them uncomfortable.”

The Washington Roundtable: This week, in a federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to four charges in relation to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his role in the January 6th insurrection. Those include counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States, to obstruct an official proceeding, and to oppress citizens' rights to vote. This third Trump criminal indictment is the most serious and far-reaching yet, going to the heart of the former President's efforts to undermine American democracy. The trial, which will coincide with the height of campaign season, could create a number of “constitutional sci-fi” scenarios. Hosted by the New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos.

On June 23, 2023, tanks rolled into Moscow and into the southern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don, and troops surrounded military and government buildings. They were fighters from the Wagner Group, a private battalion. The group's leader is Yevgeny Prigozhin, who sold hot dogs and ran a restaurant on a boat where Putin liked to dine before he became the head of this mercenary outfit. On that June day, he was initiating the strongest challenge to the Kremlin since the fall of the Soviet Union.  Joshua Yaffa has written an extraordinary piece about the Wagner Group's global reach, its brutal battlefield tactics in Ukraine, and its mysterious decision to mutiny. He joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss it, and to examine how Prigozhin became such a strange and significant player within Russia's military apparatus.

Nearly one in ten Americans owe significant medical debt, a burden that can become crippling as living costs and interest rates rise. Over the past decade, a nonprofit called RIP Medical Debt has designed a novel approach to chip away at this problem. The organization solicits donations to purchase portfolios of medical debt on the debt market, where the debt trades at steeply discounted prices. Then, instead of attempting to collect on it as a normal buyer would, they forgive the debt. The staff writer Sheelah Kolhatkar reports on one North Carolina church that partnered with RIP Medical Debt as part of its charitable mission. Trinity Moravian Church collected around fifteen thousand dollars in contributions to acquire and forgive over four million dollars of debt in their community. “We have undertaken a number of projects in the past but there's never been anything quite like this,” the Reverend John Jackman tells Kolhatkar. “For families that we know cannot deal with these things, we're taking the weight off of them.” Kolhatkar also speaks with Allison Sesso, the C.E.O. of RIP Medical Debt, about the strange economics of debt that make this possible. 

The Washington Roundtable: This week, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy moved one step closer to calling for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Biden, on the grounds that Biden has used the “weaponization of government to benefit his family.” For years, Hunter Biden's dealings with Ukrainian and Chinese companies have been the focus of Republicans' efforts to undermine the President, although investigations in the House and Senate have found no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden in relation to his son's business dealings. Also this week, the federal judge Maryellen Noreika, in Wilmington, Delaware, put the brakes on Hunter Biden's plea deal for tax and gun-possession crimes. Hunter Biden is not the first family member of a President to cause political headaches; the brothers of Presidents Nixon, Carter, and Clinton preceded him. What should we make of the latest news about the President's son? More broadly, how do Oval Office political scandals arise and take hold of the public's imagination? Hosted by the New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos. 

This summer, the Writers Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild are on strike together for the first time in sixty-three years. At the same time, hotel workers across Southern California are organizing coordinated rolling work stoppages. The Teamsters just successfully negotiated substantial wage increases and averted a strike for workers at UPS. But now the United Auto Workers, whose contract is up in September, are threatening to strike. What is behind all of this labor unrest? Is it a lingering effect of the pandemic, or something larger? E. Tammy Kim, a contributing writer and a former lawyer, joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the forces that led to what organizers are calling “hot labor summer,” and to imagine what may come after.

In making “Oppenheimer,” which opens in theatres this weekend, the director Christopher Nolan relied on a Pulitzer Prize-winning 2005 biography of the father of the atomic bomb, “American Prometheus,” by Kai Bird and the late Martin J. Sherwin. Bird is credited as a writer of Nolan's movie, and he spoke with David Remnick about Oppenheimer's life story—in particular, about the ambivalence that the scientist felt, and expressed publicly, about the use of the bomb, which led to a McCarthyist show trial that destroyed his career and reputation. “He's very complicated and he's highly intelligent, so he's capable of understanding and holding in his head contradictory ideas,” Bird says. On the one hand, “He feared that if [the bomb] was not used, or the war ended without the use of this weapon, the next war was going to be fought by two nuclear-armed adversaries and it would be Armageddon.” On the other hand, after Hiroshima, Oppenheimer used his status as a celebrity scientist to educate the public about the dangers of nuclear warfare, a move that landed him in the crosshairs of federal officials. “What happened to him in 1954 sent a message to several generations of scientists, here in America but [also] abroad, that scientists should keep in their narrow lane. They shouldn't become public intellectuals. And if they dared to do this, they could be tarred and feathered,” Bird notes. “The same thing that happened to Oppenheimer in a sense happened to Tony Fauci.”

The Washington Roundtable: The midsummer Presidential campaign is full of surprises, including a deluge of upcoming legal battles for the G.O.P. front-runner, former President Donald Trump. Recent federal disclosures have painted a preliminary picture of the race to raise money taking place between Republican primary contenders. The campaign of Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, who was initially viewed as a powerful competitor to Donald Trump in the Republican primary, has spent much of its cash and been forced to lay off staff. Meanwhile, the centrist group No Labels hosted an event in New Hampshire this week co-headlined by Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat, and former Utah Governor and Republican Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, raising concerns among Democrats of a possible third-party “unity ticket” shaking up the race. Plus, Trump may face his third indictment—this time, for his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election. In a separate case against Trump, regarding classified documents, a federal judge in Florida has set the trial date for next May, shortly before the Republican nominee for President will be named in Milwaukee. Hosted by the New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos.

Many Americans have been fascinated by the story of Hunter Biden, who has allegedly leveraged his father's prominence for his own financial gain. Hunter's spiral into alcoholism and drug addiction has been chronicled by the press. Recently, federal prosecutors announced a deal in which Hunter would plead guilty to two tax charges and be sentenced to two years of probation, bringing a five-year-long investigation into his business dealings to an end.  In July, 2019, The New Yorker published a groundbreaking investigation titled “The Untold History of the Biden Family.” Its author, Adam Entous, uncovered the rags-to-riches-to-rags story behind the President's modest upbringing in Scranton. It's a very different tale from the one that Joe Biden has shared with the public, replete with polo matches, war profiteering, addiction, and scandal. It's a story that, until recently, even the President and his children may not have known in full. It provides crucial context for the Hunter Biden saga, and a deeper understanding of Joe Biden himself—and the people and events that have shaped the choices he's made during his decades-long political career.

No Labels, which pitches itself as a centrist movement to appeal to disaffected voters, has secured a considerable amount of funding and is working behind the scenes to get on Presidential ballots across the country. The group has yet to announce a candidate, but “most likely we'll have both a Republican and Democrat on the ticket,” Pat McCrory, the former governor of North Carolina and one of the leaders of No Labels, tells David Remnick. Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are reportedly under consideration, but McCrory will not name names, nor offer any specifics on the group's platform, including regarding critical issues such as abortion and gun rights. That opacity is by design, Sue Halpern, who has covered the group, says. “The one reason why I think they haven't put forward a candidate is once they do that, then they are required to do all the things that political parties do,” she says. “At the moment, they're operating like a PAC, essentially. They don't have to say who their donors are.” Third-party campaigns have had significant consequences in American elections, and, with both Donald Trump and Joe Biden historically unpopular, a third-party candidate could peel a decisive number of moderate voters away from the Democratic Party. 

On Tuesday, July 4th, it was the hottest day ever recorded on Earth. That is just one of many heat-related records that have been broken this summer. Historically high temperatures have been recorded around the planet, causing fires, floods, and other extreme weather events. In a recent article for The New Yorker, Bill McKibben explained that, even as we enter a terrifying new era for our planet, there is still a brief window in which it's possible to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Major technological strides in recent years have made green energy the cheapest form of power available. The question is how quickly this new infrastructure can be implemented. McKibben joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss what's needed to make the necessary changes in time: an organized climate movement to break the fossil fuel industry's grip on political power. “There's a very hopeful case for the world that we could be building,” McKibben says. “It's just we have to build it fast.”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the son of a former Attorney General and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy, has announced that he's running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. He is nearly seventy years old, and has never held public office. “There's nothing in the United States Constitution that says that you have to go to Congress first and then Senate second,or be a governor before you're elected to the Presidency,” he tells David Remnick. With no prominent elected Democrat challenging President Biden, Kennedy is polling around ten to twenty per cent  among Democratic primary voters—enough to cause at least some alarm for Biden. He is best known as an influential purveyor of disinformation: that vaccines cause autism; that SSRIs and common anxiety medication might be causing the increase in school shootings; that “toxic chemicals” in the water supply might contribute to “sexual dysphoria” in children. He wrote a book accusing Anthony Fauci of helping to “orchestrate and execute 2020's historic coup d'état against Western democracy.” He seems not at all concerned that Donald Trump, Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson, and Alex Jones—all of whom would like to see Biden bruised in a primary challenge—have praised him. “I'm trying to unite the country,” he says to Remnick. “You keep wanting to focus on why don't I hate this guy more? Why don't I hate on this person more?” Kennedy, who regularly attends recovery meetings for addiction to drugs including heroin, says that “the recovery program is an important part of my life, is an important part of keeping me mentally and physically and spiritually fit. . . . And my program tells me not to do that. I'm not supposed to be doing that.”

The White House chief-of-staff role is the hardest gig in Washington, D.C. Dick Cheney blamed the job for giving him his first heart attack, during the Ford Administration. A hapless chief of staff can break a Presidency; an effective one was nicknamed the Velvet Hammer. In January, Joe Biden's first chief of staff, Ron Klain, was replaced by Jeffrey Zients. In a conversation from last winter, the staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos use Klain's departure as a jumping-off point to discuss what it's actually like to run a White House.

Yevgeny Prigozhin's march on Moscow last weekend, which killed more than a dozen Russian soldiers, fizzled as quickly as it began, but its repercussions are just beginning. The Wagner Group commander issued a video from Belarus claiming that he did not attempt a coup against Putin but a protest against the Defense Ministry. Mutiny may be the more accurate description, but Prigozhin “was strictly staying within this mythology that Putin makes all the decisions in Russia, and if he makes bad decisions, it's because somebody has given him bad information,” the staff writer Masha Gessen says. “He was marching to Moscow to give Putin better information.” David Remnick talks with Gessen and the contributor Joshua Yaffa, who has written on the Wagner Group, about what lies ahead in Russia. Both feel that by revealing the reality of the war to his own following—a Putin-loyal, nationalist audience—Prigozhin has seriously damaged the regime's credibility. If an uprising removes Putin from power, “there will be chaos,” Gessen notes. “Nobody knows what happens next. There's no succession plan.” And whatever the West may wish, Ukraine may be better off with the current regime. “Whoever comes to power after Putin, it's not going to be anybody who articulates liberal values. It's going to be some sort of Putin-ism without Putin.”

The New Yorker staff writers Susan B. Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos take a look at the political and financial forces behind the U.S. Supreme Court's hard-right turn. This term saw significant rulings on affirmative action in college admissions, election law, immigration, and environmental protection, all in the shadow of the decision just one year ago to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion. Right-wing victories in those cases owe a lot to Leonard Leo, a conservative activist and lawyer who has played a profound role in reshaping the American legal system. With public approval of the Supreme Court at an all-time low, our political roundtable takes a look at Leo's influence, and at the recent $1.6-billion donation his new nonprofit received.

In October, the Supreme Court heard two cases—against Harvard and U.N.C.—that are expected to bring about the end of affirmative action at American colleges and universities. The practice rests on the Fourteenth Amendment: equal protection under the law. But the Court, under the conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, is reëvaluating what “equal protection” really means, raising the idea that current methods of affirmative action are actually a thinly veiled form of racism. Jeannie Suk Gersen, a New Yorker contributing writer and a professor at Harvard Law School, was in attendance for the oral arguments, and wrote this week about the anticipated decision. She joined Tyler Foggatt last fall to discuss whether a more holistic admissions process is the best way to create diversity, and whether diversity is really the best ideal for universities to aspire to.

A year ago, the staff writer Emily Witt visited Fargo, North Dakota, to report on the Red River Women's Clinic—the only abortion provider in the state. The Supreme Court's Dobbs decision had just come down, and the clinic was scrambling to move across state lines, to the adjacent city of Moorhead, Minnesota. This spring, Witt returned to talk with Tammi Kromenaker, the clinic's director. Kromenaker says the clinic's new home has had some notable upsides—a parking lot that shields patients from protesters, for example—but North Dakota patients are increasingly fearful as they reach out, afraid even to cross the state line into Minnesota for care. “It only takes one rogue prosecutor,” she tells Witt. “I think people know that and have it in the back of their minds.” Kromenaker herself is experiencing what she calls “survivor's guilt,” recognizing how lucky she's been in comparison to her peers in other conservative states. “It's just been a really hard year in a lot of ways for providers.”

Earlier this month, the writer Elizabeth Gilbert announced her next book. Readers who know her only as the author of “Eat, Pray, Love” might have been surprised by its subject: a group of Russians who hide in the Siberian wilderness as an act of resistance against the Soviet government. The announcement was met by harshly negative feedback from Ukrainian readers, who accused Gilbert of “glorifying” Russia, and she decided to halt the book's publication. Free-speech advocates lamented the decision, with some asking whether Tolstoy would be next.  In January, the New Yorker staff writer Elif Batuman published an essay about Ukraine's grievances against Tolstoy and his literary peers. In it, Batuman explores how great Russian novels have been used to justify military aggression in the Slavic world, and contends with the moral weight of loving these books. She joins Tyler Foggatt to talk about Gilbert's dilemma and to consider how imperialism should change our experience of art.

Dexter Filkins has reported on conflict situations around the world, and recently spent months reporting on the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border. In a recent piece, Filkins tries to untangle how conditions around the globe, an abrupt change in executive direction from Trump to Biden, and an antiquated immigration system have created a chaotic situation. “It's difficult to appreciate the scale and the magnitude of what's happening there unless you see it,” Filkins tells David Remnick. Last year, during a surge at the border, local jurisdictions struggled to provide humanitarian support for thousands of migrants, leading Democratic politicians to openly criticize the Administration. While hardliners dream of a wall across the two-thousand-mile border, “they can't build a border wall in the middle of a river,” Filkins notes. “So if you can get across the river, and you can get your foot on American soil, that's all you need to do.” Migrants surrendering to Border Patrol and requesting asylum then enter a yearslong limbo as their claims work through an overburdened system. The last major overhaul of the immigration system took place in 1986, Filkins explains, and with Republicans and Democrats perpetually at loggerheads, there is no will to fix a system that both sides acknowledge as broken.