The World and Everything in It: April 21, 2025

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The Supreme Court considers the limits on what America can do to hold foreign groups accountable for terror attacks.

BERGER: Nobody likes pirates, right? But the United States does not try pirates in absentia.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead today on Legal Docket.

Also today the Monday Moneybeat. David Bahnsen is standing by, and we’ll talk about the public spat between the president and the chairman of the Federal Reserve over interest rates.

And a special WORLD History Book. Bob Case highlights music with a message for the season.

ROBERT CASE: In the Spring, a young man's fancy lightly turns to the thoughts of love.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, April 21st. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: U.S.-Iran nuclear talks » Negotiators from the U.S. and Iran plan to gather again on Saturday for a third round of nuclear talks. That, after a second round over the weekend was “constructive,” according to both sides.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the goal is clear:

RUBIO:  It has to be something that, that, uh, that actually not just prevents Iran from having a nuclear weapon now, but in per, you know, in the future as well, not just for 10 years with some sort of sunset provision or the like.

U.S. Special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reportedly spoke face to face in Rome this past Saturday. Iranian officials, though, described the talks as indirect.

Before they meet again in Oman next weekend, Araghchi said the two sides agreed that experts will hold technical-level talks in the coming days to discuss details of a possible deal.

Republican Congressman Buddy Carter tells Fox News:

CARTER:  It will be in Iran's best interest if they deal with President Trump. President Trump is offering them an opportunity here that they need to seize upon.

The president has made clear that he wants to solve the matter peacefully, but if diplomacy fails, the US will take military action to prevent a nuclear Iran.

Court ruling on Alien Enemies Act stay » The Supreme Court has sided — at least for now — with the American Civil Liberties Union on blocking deportations of some illegal immigrants.

The high court granted the liberal activist group’s request for an administrative stay temporarily blocking deportations of suspected Venezuelan gang members.

The Supreme Court had earlier ruled that the Trump administration could deport under the Alien Enemies Act as long as the migrants had a chance to challenge their removal in court.

The administration says it did give advance notice — and at the very least, the Court should narrow the stay.

Garcia case » Meantime, debate continues over the deportation of a Salvadoran national.

Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland traveled to El Salvador to meet with Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

VAN HOLLEN:  Bring Kilmar home so he can be afforded his rights under the Constitution.

But Republican Congressman Mark Harris says Garcia, who is now detained in El Salvador, is home. He says Democrats are trying to spin a narrative:

HARRIS:  That this is a Maryland man, that this is a Maryland dad, a Maryland husband, when in reality he's not a Maryland man. He is actually a national of El Salvador, who is a gang member of MS-13.

Attorneys representing Garcia deny that he’s a member of MS-13 while the Department of Homeland Security asserts that the evidence of his gang affiliation is undeniable.

Garcia entered the country illegally in 2019 but had been shielded from deportation by an immigration judge, before federal authorities mistakenly deported him earlier this month.

GOP reconciliation bill » On Capitol Hill, work continues on a bill that would extend President Trump’s first term tax cuts, among other things.

And GOP Congressman Brandon Gill says the president and Republicans are determined to balance the budget.

GILL:  We're going to be cutting spending in this reconciliation bill. We've got a lot of work to do. We've got billions of dollars of green new deal tax subsidies that we need to be rolling back.

Democrats call the Trump tax cuts a giveaway to the wealthy.

And House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries charges that Republican plans will make things worse.

JEFFRIES:  The cost of living in the United States of America is too high. Donald Trump and Republicans promise to lower the cost of living. In fact, on day one, costs aren't going down. They are going up.

Republicans argue that reigning in overspending in Washington will bring down inflation and consumer prices.

ashington will bring down inflation and consumer prices.

Secret Service Director on future of USSS » Secret Service Director Sean Curran is speaking out about efforts to strengthen the agency in the wake of two assassination attempts against President Trump before last year’s election.

CURRAN:  We're not gonna lower our standards. We're, we're looking for the best and the brightest. And I'll tell you, having the support of the president and the secretary, uh, secretary Noem, she's been very supportive as well.

The Secret Service ran a recruiting ad during Super Bowl 59 in February.

Curran's comments come as the Trump administration works to make cuts at the Department of Homeland Security, which controls the Secret Service. But officials say they’re cutting bloat and waste, not critical or necessary resources.

I’m Mark Mellinger.

Straight ahead: Legal Docket, the Monday Moneybeat with David Bahnsen, and the WORLD History Book.

This is The World and Everything in It. 

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 21st day of April, 2025. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s time for Legal Docket.

In 2018, an American-Israeli named Ari Fuld was leaving a shopping mall in the West Bank. About that moment, a Palestinian terrorist stabbed him fatally. But before he collapsed, Fuld was able to shoot the terrorist, and that prevented him from attacking anyone else.

REICHARD: The attacker ended up surviving. He received a life sentence in Israel. But was released in February as part of a prisoner exchange deal. Israel swapped more than 600 prisoners, including Ari Fuld’s killer. That group, given in exchange for six hostages held by Hamas.

Speaking to i24News, Ari Fuld’s brother Hillel explained the complexity of emotions Israelis feel about these swaps:

FULD: We all, you know, we feel the pain, but we also recognize that these, these families deserve to be reunited, and it's a dissonance that many of us experience. And at the same time, it's terribly painful to imagine this terrorist
who took my brother walking freely.

EICHER: Fuld’s widow, Mariam, had filed a lawsuit that finally made it to the Supreme Court this month, after years of legal battles in lower courts.

ROBERTS: We will hear argument this morning in Case 24-20, Fuld versus Palestine Liberation Organization, and the consolidated case.

The other consolidated case is Sokolow versus PLO, where victims initially won more than $650 million in damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

But that decision was tossed out by a lower court, ruling U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction over the PLO and the Palestinian Authority.

REICHARD: In response to that, Congress in 2019 approved the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. It clarified that U.S. citizens harmed abroad by terrorism could seek justice in American courts. Specifically, the law allowed jurisdiction over foreign entities if those entities received U.S. foreign aid or maintained offices or activities within the U.S.

EICHER: Now, the Supreme Court must decide a fundamental legal question: Can Congress do that? Can it mandate that foreign entities be subject to American courts, even for actions carried out overseas?

Kent Yalowitz represented the Fuld family and other victims, arguing not only Congress can do it, it should:

YALOWITZ: The United States can take many actions in response to terror activity abroad by the PLO and the PA that kills American citizens. The government could, for example, prosecute them under our criminal laws, and they admit doing so would not violate any due process rights. They contend, however, that bringing a civil action crosses a red line is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause. That is incorrect. The federal government's sphere of sovereignty is sufficiently broad that it follows American citizens wherever in the world they might travel.

Justice Clarence Thomas asked how the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantees enter in to the facts of this case:

THOMAS: If we analyze this under the Fifth Amendment, what limitations would the Fifth Amendment provide for personal jurisdiction?

YALOWITZ: So, first of all, the Fifth Amendment requires fair notice and opportunity to be heard, which the defendants had. In addition, it protects persons against arbitrary government action. Here, the statute reasonably advances a legitimate government interest and within the context of the federal government's power.

REICHARD: Other justices worried about possible overreach. Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

SOTOMAYOR: You’re basically saying there is no due process protection whatsoever under the Fifth Amendment even for U.S. citizens, because I don’t know why it makes a difference that this is a foreigner or a U.S. citizen. If there is, as you’re advocating, no Fifth Amendment due process constraint on government, then Congress could at its own whim say you committed an act in New York, it violated a federal statute, get tried in California, get tried in Alaska, get tried in Hawaii. …

Yalowitz responded by emphasizing reasonableness. That’s a key legal standard courts use to ensure the government does not overstep. He gave an example: Suppose Congress passed a law saying anyone who sets foot in Paris, France, could be hauled into court in Paris, Texas. That would clearly be unreasonable. That would amount to arbitrary government action and would therefore violate due-process rights. So “reasonableness” is a good guardrail.

EICHER: Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler agreed with Yalowitz and the victims, emphasizing that courts usually defer to Congress on issues of foreign policy and national security:

KNEEDLER: Congress determined that it is fair to deem the PLO and PA to have consented to personal jurisdiction in suits under the Anti-Terrorism Act if they made payments to or on behalf of persons who injured or killed Americans in acts of terrorism or engaged in certain activities in the United States. Both of those forms of conduct that are jurisdiction-triggering are knowing and voluntary. They have a clear nexus to United States territory and to United States nationals and to the compelling U.S. interests in deterring terrorism.

But Justice Elena Kagan wondered about Constitutional limits:

KAGAN: If the minimum contacts test is a constitutional test, why does what Congress says in a particular statute modify that

YALOWITZ: Be --because the --minimum contacts test grows out of Fourteenth Amendment cases that provided for limitations on state governments. Those limitations do not apply to the federal government. The Court has said that.

For the PLO’s side, lawyer Mitchell Berger acknowledged he’s representing a deeply unpopular cause. He highlighted the historical limits of prosecuting defendants who aren’t actually here:

BERGER: Nobody likes pirates, right? Pirates have been bad from the founding. Nobody ever thought that even though piracy is a crime against humanity or it's a crime that fits in the Define and Punish Clause, that, certainly, the United States can define piracy as an offense, but the United States does not try pirates in absentia because there's a delta between what Congress can prescribe as laws and what courts can do in adjudicating individual claims against someone who violates a law with extraterritorial effect.

REICHARD: And then Justice Samuel Alito compared the relative harms in the case:

ALITO: What exactly is the unfairness in --in this case? It's the --it's too burdensome to litigate this in New York, where the PA and the PLO conduct some activities?

BERGER: Well, so I --

ALITO: What's the unfairness?

Berger answered the courts have already ruled that having an office in the U.S. or any kind of seat at the UN is not enough to establish jurisdiction in American courts over the PLO. It wouldn’t be right to deprive it of that liberty interest now.

If the justices side with Congress, that could reshape how American courts deal with foreign defendants in jurisdictions far from their homes. I think that side will prevail though, as I counted at least five justices leaning that way.

EICHER: Okay, so we can get caught up a bit, there’s another overseas terror case to touch on, in brief. This one deals with financial support for terror. It’s Blom Bank v Honickman. Here, victims and family members accused a Lebanese bank of supporting Hamas financially. Lower courts dismissed the case twice. Now the Supreme Court must decide how much flexibility courts have to let plaintiffs amend complaints after dismissal.

REICHARD: Alright, one more quick hit: Esteras v United States. In this one the court is weighing how much discretion judges have when they revoke the supervised release of a prisoner.

Edgardo Esteras violated the terms of his supervised release when he fired a gun during a domestic dispute. The recommended sentence for that was between 6 and 12 months. But the judge gave him two years, saying it was necessary to promote respect for the law.

EICHER: Esteras argues that federal law doesn’t give judges that kind of power. In cases like these, they’re supposed to consider only rehabilitation, not punishment. But that leads to a tricky question: how is a judge supposed to consider the nature of someone’s offense—without considering the seriousness of it?

REICHARD: Justice Samuel Alito pointed out this tension directly:

ALITO: Under the statute, the judge must consider the nature and circumstances of the offense. But, on your reading of the statute, the judge may not consider the seriousness of the offense. And how is the judge supposed to do that? 

EICHER: In other words, what’s the real difference between considering the nature of an offense and punishing someone for it? That’s what the justices have to figure out.

Finally today, one case the justices did figure out. It’s a unanimous one, Cunningham v Cornell.

REICHARD: It makes it easier for employees to challenge retirement plan managers, ruling that employees don’t have to disprove every defense just to get their case heard. Employers must justify their own decisions, and that will reinforce protections for workers who are saving up for retirement.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Time now to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen. David heads up the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group. He is here now. Good morning to you, David, and glad you’re here.

DAVID BAHNSEN: Good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

EICHER: Well, good to be with you, too, David. So we’ve talked an awful lot over the past several weeks about tariffs—and finally I’ve got a story that’s not tariff-driven, but it is President Trump driven with a touch of tariff policy. And that is the spat between the president and the chairman of the Federal Reserve Jay Powell. I’ll note; the Jay Powell President Trump nominated in his first White House term in 2018... now he’s fallen out of favor. What’s going on there?

BAHNSEN: Well, I want to give all sides of it here. It’s a tricky thing for me—like so much with markets and the economy that require nuance—because it doesn’t lend itself to a this-side versus that-side.

There’s a few different things to say. I’m critical from time to time of this Fed chair, Jay Powell. I’m often more critical of the role that we have asked the Fed to play. I don’t really blame a particular Fed chair for doing the job they were given to do that I don’t think they should have been given to do. I have to separate where I’m critical of the way a Fed chair is doing their job versus the job itself that I may not agree with. There’s a little bit of both sometimes of Chairman Powell.

I do know him to be a very earnest and sincere man, and I have differences with him about certain elements of monetary policy. The president right now is upset with Powell because he did not cut rates at the last meeting, and last week gave a speech at the Economic Club of Chicago. In that speech, he stated that the Fed has concerns about the tariffs pushing prices higher and impacting some of their plans of monetary policy, and yet perhaps putting downward pressure on growth.

It could lend itself to a “stagflationary” environment, which is very difficult for a central bank to deal with. I don’t know if President Trump’s upset that he said it and believes the Federal Reserve chair should not be criticizing or commenting on potential policy—or if he’s upset about not cutting rates.

The president’s always wanted lower interest rates. He wanted them when he was a very leveraged real estate investor. Every president we’ve ever had or ever will have, if they could control the central bank, would like lower rates, not higher rates. I interpret it as the president working the referees a little bit.

The irony of this whole thing, Nick, is that Jay Powell is going to be doing exactly what President Trump wants, anyway. The Fed Funds Futures market have said all throughout that there’s probably four rate cuts coming this year, potentially five.

So, whether President Trump was complaining about this, I think Powell would be doing it. But he doesn’t want it to appear that he’s responding to the president’s prodding. And We’re going to have to watch this play out a little.

I suspect my theory is right that the president’s just working the refs a little bit.

EICHER: Yes, so you mentioned Fed optics: Powell doesn’t want to be seen as reacting to presidential prodding; he needs to be seen as independent, and there’s something unseemly about a president jawboning a Fed chair. But I must say, and I’ll put up a link to Powell’s Chicago speech, Powell doesn’t seem to mind complaining about White House policy.

BAHNSEN: Well, there’s a lot of different elements involved in the optics of what’s going on. On one hand, it’s so funny how many on the right have said, “Oh, inflation’s so high and it’s not going lower and why would the Fed cut?” Now President Trump’s in and they’re saying, “Hey, inflation’s come back down. He should be cutting rates.”

You know, everybody’s view on inflation tends to be highly levered to their own political outlook. There’s no question that inflation has moved a lot towards the Fed’s target on a headline basis that isn’t showing there yet. But as I’ve been pointing out on this podcast for over a year, I believe that’s because of a misreading of the data around shelter and rents.

So, I don’t have any problem at all with the Fed cutting rates. I do think they’re too tight and I do think the economy is slowing down substantially, and I think a lot of that is because of the uncertainty around tariff threats. But it’s peculiar for the president to say that the economy’s doing great and tariffs aren’t going to hurt the economy—and the Fed should be quickly cutting rates because of a slowing economy.

Now, by the way, there’s a legitimate criticism I’ll bring up. I was on the Kudlow show on Fox over the weekend. An economist from Heritage said it wasn’t fair that Jay Powell never criticized Joe Biden for all his spending—but then is criticizing the tariff policies.

I think that, prima facie, that’s a legitimate issue. But then my question is, what is it we’re asking for?

We’re asking that he not criticize the tariff policy or we’re saying he should have criticized the Biden policy. You know, there’s a sauce-for-goose, sauce-for-gander thing going on here too, right?

EICHER: Right, yeah. Works both ways. So before we have to go, David, we continue to hear warnings of recession, and I’d love to get a read on where you think the economy stands right now—the health of the economy from what you can see, the indicators you pay attention to.

BAHNSEN: Well, the signals we look at are backward looking, and the things I most care about are forward looking. When I look forward, I see a significant decline this quarter in capital goods, investment. Anecdotally, I’m having conversations with well over 100 business owners (and if they’re a bad representative sample, then that’s what it is, but I have a very hard time believing that they all that different from a lot of others out there). The uncertainty theme is pretty much unanimous. There are degrees of severity, some saying they worry for the sustainability of their business’s very existence and others saying they may face cutbacks later in the year.

But nobody’s going out doing big orders. No one’s doing big investments, whether it’s R&D (research and development) or hard Capex (capital expenditures) into big inventory, big factories, big manufacturing, capital goods. So, you have all that up against the uncertainty.

Then there’s the upside uncertainty of the tax bill (that the tariff thing, while it would not necessarily be completely wiped away or whitewashed, could have good degree of offset). If they could get this tax bill done above and beyond just extending the Trump tax cuts, with things like 100% business expensing or any other additional reduction of the corporate tax rate—which would be hard to do.

So, that’s the stuff I’m looking for, forward-looking, Nick.

I don’t care about retail sales last month. I don’t care about consumer confidence last month. All I have to do is look at Fifth Avenue and I know people in America still love to shop. So, I’m not worried about any of that.

But business is not investing. That will catch up with us this summer in the economy.

We already know even though we’re not talking a whole lot about tariffs today, that stuff is still lingering in terms of China and other trade deals.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. David writes at WORLD Opinions and at dividendcafe.com. Thanks, we’ll see you next week!

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Today is Monday, April 21st. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Today, a special WORLD History Book.

REICHARD: Right, springtime is not just about showers and flowers, it’s also about history and the timeless songs inspired by the changing seasons. Here now is Bob Case opening The Great American Songbook to celebrate a musical tradition generations in the making.

ROBERT CASE: We are in a special time of the year when our fancy turns to the outdoors. While the fruitfulness of the earth becomes more apparent as buds and blossoms appear, human fruitfulness in the form of affection and love becomes more prominent in our hearts and culture. As Lord Tennyson waxed in his poem Locksley Hall, “In the Spring, a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love.”

In the Biblical Songbook, King Solomon had the same sentiments when he wrote in his Song of love:

See! The winter is past; the rains are over and gone. Flowers appear on the earth; the season of song has come; the cooing of doves is heard in our land. The fig tree forms its early fruit; the blossoming vines spread their fragrance. Arise, come, my darling; my beautiful one, come with me.

MUSIC: [APRIL SHOWERS (1921) SELVIN'S NOVELTY ORCHESTRA]

Turning now to the American Songbook, where do I begin with songs extolling April and human love? The earliest popular standard is the 1921 golden-oldie “April Showers” from the Broadway show, Bombo. Buddy DeSylva and Lou Silvers wrote the number, but the extraordinary vocalist Al Jolson made it famous.

MUSIC: [APRIL SHOWERS SONG BY AL JOLSON]

When Jolson introduced the song he unexpectedly jumped up on the stage runway, pointed his right arm to the gallery and shouted, “Look, look, they’re not clouds, no, no – they’re crowds – crowds of daffodils.”

36 curtain calls later, “April Showers” had become part of Jolson’s permanent repertoire. The song also became the last song he ever sang in public – to wounded American soldiers in a Korean hospital in l950 when he was dying himself.

MUSIC: [APRIL IN PARIS (1934) FREDDY MARTIN/ELMER FELDKAMP (VOCALIST)]

Next up on our cavalcade of spring standards is the most famous of all April songs from the American Songbook, the beautiful and haunting “April in Paris.” The song was written for the 1932 revue, Walk a Little Faster by Vernon Duke and “Yip” Harburg.

The lyrics tell of a love for a beautiful and romantic city, with the realization that the love of a person is what makes April and the City of Lights so special.

In l934 Freddy Martin’s orchestra had a number five hit with the song. Almost 20 years later, April-born Doris Day revisited this standard in the l952 movie of the same name.

MUSIC: [APRIL IN PARIS (1952) DORIS DAY]

In 1957 Sammy Fain and Paul Francis Webster wrote “April Love” for the movie of the same title.

MUSIC: [APRIL LOVE (1957) PAT BOONE]

Early rock and roll superstar and outspoken Christian, Pat Boone, recorded the song which charted for 19 weeks and sold over a million records and was nominated for an Academy Award.

April is a time for recommitment to the things that matter to us—love, romance, new birth…even spring cleaning.

As far as the Bible is concerned, April is the beginning of the year when the fruitfulness of God’s creation is evident to all. The Bible refers to April as the “first month,” the “turn of the year,” the “beginning of the months,” or even the “month you came out of Egypt,” signifying God’s new life.

The Church has long recognized the pleasures of April in her hymns. We close today with 18th century English hymnist Isaac Watts, and his wonderful hymn “There is a Land of Pure Delight” sung here by the Mennonite Table Singers.

MUSIC: [THERE IS A LAND OF PURE DELIGHT (1987) TABLE SINGERS]

Watts assures us that the love of our life, Jesus the Christ, awaits us in a “land of pure delight” where spring lasts forever. So, rejoice, fellow Christian in April because it is a foretaste of eternal Aprils.

I’m Robert Case.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: Earth Day 2025. We’ll explore the dominion mandate and hear from a farmer who believes stewardship is the key to better agriculture. And, a mother whose relentless love cut through bureaucratic red tape to rescue her adopted daughter. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is Biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Psalmist writes: “As for man, his days are like grass; he flourishes like a flower of the field; for the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more. But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him.” —Psalms 103:15-17

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.