The World and Everything in It: February 16, 2026

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The Supreme Court takes up a fight over retirement math. At issue: whether companies get certainty, or pension funds get accuracy.

KENNEALLY: Those are all just facts out in the world that can’t be changed because of what someone thinks about them.

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

Also today, the Monday Moneybeat. AI shakes up the companies betting on AI. David Bahnsen is standing by.

And later, the World History Book: An underdog from down under makes his Olympic comeback.

BRADBURY: And she said, ‘Steve, you don’t stand a chance. Stay out of the way, hope for a mistake, and pick up a bronze.’

REICHARD: It’s Monday, February 16th. 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: DHS shutdown » The Department of Homeland Security shutdown continues with no end in sight.

Democrats continue to deny funding as they demand changes to immigration enforcement. Republicans agreed to some of those demands, but said others would hinder or endanger enforcement agents.

Border czar Tom Homan says the administration won't require agents to remove masks or display ID numbers. He says officers need to protect themselves.

Republican Congressman Tom Cole said of Democrats:

COLE:  What they've managed to do is shut down or make sure the Secret Service isn't paid. Uh, make sure TSA and air traffic controllers don't get paid. Make sure the Coast Guard doesn't get paid. Make sure that we don't have FEMA to take care of any disaster relief.

But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Democrats intend to—quote “hold the line.”

JEFFRIES:  And it's on Republicans. If the Coast Guard shuts down, if FEMA is shut down, and if TSA is shut down.

Congress won't return until next Monday, meaning DHS almost certainly won’t be funded anytime this week.

Initial meeting of Board of Peace » President Trump says that members of his newly created Board of Peace have pledged $5 billion to rebuild Gaza, and will commit thousands of personnel to help provide security and stabilize police forces for the territory.

Trump said Sunday that the pledges will be formally announced when members of the board gather for their first meeting Thursday in Washington.

Rubio Munich remarks / Eastern Europe » Speaking in Germany over the weekend, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told European leaders, that America wants to strengthen its friendship with its largest ally. But he also lamented what the Trump administration sees as Western decline in Europe.

RUBIO:  We do not want our allies to be weak because that makes us weaker. We want allies who can defend themselves so that no adversary will ever be tempted to test our collective strength.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, Rubio pushed the Trump administration's priorities. He talked about controlling mass migration, building stronger economies, and boosting military strength.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer echoed that message. He told fellow leaders that Europe must be ready to stand on its own feet when it comes to defense.

Starmer also announced the UK will send its carrier strike group to the Arctic this year.

EU foreign policy chief on civilization erasure » But the EU’s Foreign Policy chief pushed back on Rubio’s criticisms.

Kaja Kallas rejected the notion that immigration policies and declining birth rates have Europe on the decline.

KALLAS: Contrary to what some may say. Woke, decadent Europe is not facing civilization erasure. In fact, people still want to join our club.  

Kallas says, when visiting Canada last year, she was told that over 40% of Canadians have an interest in joining the European Union. And she said there’s a long waiting list to join the EU.

She also said she rejects what she called European bashing.

Storm system » A powerful winter storm is slamming California this week, bringing damaging winds and heavy snow to mountain areas.

Jacob Spender with the National Weather Service:

SPENDER:  If you are up in the higher elevations at the highest elevations within the Sierra, the coastal range in those areas like the Southern Cascades as well, um, we're looking at four to eight feet.

He said lower elevations could see a foot of snow along with showers and thunderstorms in the valley.

Meantime, a strong storm system is bringing tornado watches and widespread damage across the Southeast just as the Northeast starts to warm up. On Sunday, the National Weather Service reported some of the worst damage near Lake Charles, Louisiana.

High winds overturned a horse trailer and a Mardi Gras float. They also damaged an airport jet bridge and knocked an awning into power lines. 

I'm Kent Covington. 

Straight ahead: The Supreme Court takes up a fight over retirement math. And later … the WORLD History Book.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for February 16th, 2026. Glad you’re listening. Good morning! I’m Mary Reichard.

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

Today, we’ll tell you about two disputes before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both a little technical, but both boiling down to a simple question about pensions and investment funds:

Namely, when the numbers change, who has to pay?

And when retirement promises or shareholder rights are on the line, that answer matters—whether you manage the money yourself or you don’t.

We’ll begin with pensions and some background on how some of them work.

When several companies join together in a shared retirement plan, they promise benefits to workers that may take decades to pay out.

REICHARD: If one company decides to leave that plan, it doesn’t just get to walk away. It has to pay its share of any shortfall—that is to say, money promised but not fully funded.

In this case, the departing company believed the bill for the shortfall was just shy of $2 million.

But weeks later, it got worse, like more than three times worse, the pension fund adjusted one of its financial assumptions—and the bill jumped to $6 million-dollars plus.

The Supreme Court now has to decide whether that later adjustment was fair accounting—or whether the number was supposed to be locked in at year’s end.

EICHER: The dispute turns on two small words in federal pension law: “as of.”

The law says the exit fee must be calculated “as of” the last day of the plan year—in this case, December 31st.

M&K Employee Solutions argues that means you use the assumptions in place on that day—no hindsight, no future revisions.

The pension fund says it can consider information that was already known, even if the formal adjustment didn’t come until a few weeks later.

REICHARD: And here, the change of a single percentage point in the assumed rate of return—from 7.5 percent to 6.5—compounded over decades made all the difference.

Justice Clarence Thomas zeroed in on that point with the lawyer for M&K, Michael Kenneally.

THOMAS: So is the discount rate the major factor in the … cost differential?

KENNEALLY: Yes, it is, Your Honor, and that’s because of the compounding of interest over time and it has an exponential effect on the amount.

If the number is frozen at year-end, companies get certainty. If the number can be updated, pension plans get accuracy. The justices tested how rigid the rule would be.

EICHER: Chief Justice John Roberts tested M&K’s bright line rule with a hypothetical, that if companies have given all of their information on December 31st:

ROBERTS: — and on January 1st, one of the companies mails in saying … we forgot to count all of our accountants … 55 of them. You should add them to the numbers we sent you. Can the pension fund do that?

KENNEALLY: Yes, Your Honor.

That exchange exposed the problem: If some new information after December 31st can be considered, where do you draw the line on all new information?

M&K wanted to draw it between objective facts and professional judgment, not mere math.

KENNEALLY: And so there are objective facts out in the world, like the amount of plan assets or the number of retirees. Those are all just facts out in the world that can’t be changed because of what someone thinks … . But actuarial assumptions are fundamentally unlike that. They are judgments … about 10 to 40 years of future experience …

REICHARD: In other words: counting accountants is one thing. Rewriting decades of future assumptions is another.

Chief Justice Roberts pushed further.

What about real-world shocks—events so significant they upend financial forecasts overnight:

ROBERTS: … there must be situations where it is a more dramatic change, whether it’s, I don't know, the start of World War II, Pearl Harbor. I—it seems to me that there ought to be some bases where the assumptions that were made are fairly—are dramatically different and the liability is placed on the company as of the date—time they depart, right?

KENNEALLY: No, as of the date of the end of the prior year. Right. Congress chose not to make it the date of the withdrawal and I think they did that so that every withdrawing employer who withdraws in the same year will be charged the same amount of withdrawal liability.

That question gets to the heart of the dispute. Should the law lock in assumptions for predictability—or allow adjustments when reality shifts?

EICHER: Now, the person making those predictions is called an actuary—essentially the risk forecaster for the pension plan. An actuary estimates how much money the fund will need decades into the future, weighing life expectancy, expected returns on investments, and a host of other assumptions.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed that role directly:

JACKSON: COVID’s a major change. Let's say it happens in January or February of the year after and it's going to make a difference, thinks the actuary, in terms of the plan's performance. I think, under your rule, they—they would have to ignore that, right, because it didn't happen during the plan year, and I guess how is that consistent with Congress’s statement that the actuary is supposed to be making their best judgment?

REICHARD: Her question went to the core requirement of the statute: If Congress tells an actuary to use his “best judgment,” can the law really force that professional to ignore a known economic shock simply because it happened in January instead of December?

Justice Brett Kavanaugh took it a step further—focusing on the statute’s own language.

KAVANAUGH: … the companies would prohibit the plan’s actuary from considering those events when calculating withdrawal liability. And … that’s in tension with the word “reasonable,” in tension with the statutory word “best estimate,” and … under your view, the actuary would be reduced to admitting that its assumptions were wrong.
You want to respond to that?

KENNEALLY: Sure, Your Honor. I think that that’s an unrealistic view of how interest rate assumptions in this context work because we’re talking about retirement payments for two to four decades into the future, even a shock such as the 2008 financial crisis here, which I think, if any market event would change actuarial assumptions, that would.

Meaning, if the actuary has to use a “reasonable” and “best estimate,” can the law really require him to pretend known events did not happen?

EICHER: Multiemployer pension plans cover millions of workers. Companies that leave want certainty about what they owe. Workers depend on accurate funding to protect their benefits. The Supreme Court must decide whether “as of” means frozen in time—or flexible enough to reflect reality.

REICHARD: Several justices appeared skeptical that Congress meant to freeze assumptions in place when markets can shift dramatically. The case is officially listed as M-and-K Employee Solutions versus Trustees of the I-A-M National Pension Fund.

EICHER: All right, the first case was about who pays when the math changes. The second one is about who gets to sue when the management changes. At its core, it’s a question of enforcement power: When an investment fund breaks the rules, can shareholders take them to court themselves—or is that a job only the government can do?

REICHARD: Saba Capital Management is what’s known as an activist investor. It buys large stakes in investment funds it thinks are underperforming, and then pushes for changes.

One of those funds is FS Credit Opportunities Corporation, known as FSCO.

When Saba built up a significant stake, FSCO triggered what are sometimes called “poison pill” rules—bylaws designed to limit the voting power of any single large shareholder. In other words: to keep Saba from taking over.

EICHER: So, Saba sued under the federal Investment Company Act of 1940, arguing those poison pill provisions violate the law, which requires equal voting rights. But the Supreme Court is not deciding whether poison pills are good or bad. It’s instead asking a more foundational question: Does this federal law allow private investors like Saba to sue at all?

The statute does not explicitly say that shareholders can bring their own lawsuits to enforce it. So the question is whether courts should “imply” that right—or whether they should leave enforcement solely to government regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission.

REICHARD: FSCO’s lawyer Shay Dvoretzky argued against any implied right of action.

DVORETZKY: The Court should leave private rights of action to Congress and reject Saba and the Second Circuit's unworkable return to the ancien régime.

His argument was straightforward: If Congress wanted private lawsuits, it could have said so. Courts should not invent rights that lawmakers did not write.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor thought otherwise, reading from House and Senate reports that show Congress expected courts to imply private rights of action under the statute:

SOTOMAYOR: I know that many of my colleagues don't believe in statutory history, but, … I don't know how more—much more decisive on congressional intent than those statements are.

Justice Elena Kagan leaned that direction as well, pointing to similar legislation:

KAGAN: You would really have us … look at these two companion pieces of legislation passed at the same time and say that the exact same language has one result in one statute and the other result in another statute? … That seems like a pretty extreme position, honestly.

EICHER: Justice Neil Gorsuch reframed the debate as a separation-of-powers issue. Even if private lawsuits might be useful, he suggested, that is not the Court’s job to decide. Listen to this exchange with Paul Clement, lawyer for Saba:

GORSUCH: Less disastrous for private litigants perhaps but pretty disastrous for our system of government, where the people are supposed to write the laws that govern them, not judges.

CLEMENT: Yeah, I get it. But -­but --but –­

GORSUCH: You get it, the separation of powers might be disastrous? (Laughter.)

REICHARD: So, two very different cases — one about pension math, the other about investment bylaws.

But both ask a similar question:

When the rules are unclear, who bears the risk — and who gets to enforce them?

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: It’s time now to talk business, markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bahnsen. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bahnsen Group, and he is here now. Good morning to you.

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

EICHER: Let’s start with the EPA’s move to rescind the Obama-era endangerment finding — the legal foundation for federal climate regulation. Some analysts say consumers won’t feel much impact because many of the major rules never fully took effect.

Whether it’s true or not at the consumer level, do you think it changes the investment climate for the energy industry — especially when it comes to capital expenditures?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, I think that we have to understand that these things have a sort of chain reaction to them, and particularly this endangerment finding that was used pretextually to rationalize a lot of EPA intervention and a lot of cost in particular.

Your point about CapEx is a good one—that there is some loosening of the concerns about capital expenditures into the energy industry when this, amongst other things, looms over people. The general finding that was used to sort of haunt people from doing investment in essentially carbon and the fossil fuel industry has taken a blow.

I think that there are other issues that still linger. That broader cultural context still matters, and that has been more favorable over the years anyways, but not because there has been a movement away from, for example, this endangerment finding as much as there’s been a movement away from the alternatives—that people have not found the intermittent sources of energy from so-called clean or green energy solutions to be reliable.

What this does to me—the reason I like the fact that President Trump did this—goes beyond just the fact that some energy company might wake up the next day and now decide to go forward with a particular project. I don’t think it’s quite that linear.

What it does, though, is set a broader cultural context in which there is a movement for the energy industry to recognize the need for ongoing investment in oil and gas. And by the way, that incentivizes people to find cleaner ways to do that. That’s where we’ve moved the needle the most.

The best example of that has been greater use of natural gas versus crude oil and particularly coal. So ironically, I think what the Obama-era stipulation did was disincentivize natural gas, which would have been by far a cleaner solution than where many had gone anyways, particularly in China.

EICHER: Say you’re an energy executive or investor, how much weight do you put on something like this — and how permanent does it feel?

BAHSNEN: I don’t think it’s as simple as just this. It is true that anything an executive branch can do can be done away by another executive branch. So I don’t think it’s a matter of them setting policy around what was done before or what has been undone now.

It’s more reading the tea leaves of the broader cultural context. That’s why I keep using that phrase, Nick. Very little of our environmental or energy policies have been legislated.

So energy companies 15 years ago, 20 years ago, only had the whims of an executive branch decision to go off of, and that’s all they have now as well. So I do think that it is a factor in their calculus. But the broader issue is where the overall cultural context is, and this moves the Overton window in that regard.

EICHER: We got fresh economic data this week. Inflation cooled to 2.4% year over year, helped by lower gasoline prices. And the jobs report showed modest gains — but, and it seems there’s always a but with these reports— this one included downward revisions to prior months.

Taken together, the inflation and the labor data, what do these numbers say about where the economy stands?

BAHNSEN: They say the same thing that we’ve been talking about for quite some time, which is this push-pull, mixed bag.

The biggest issue, though, is with shelter—that it is still showing annual increases of 3%, but that is much lower than what had been four or five. And this is the thing I’ve been talking about for a long time and why the inflation numbers were always inevitably going to be coming lower.

I happen to think they’re even lower than three in real-time market indicators. But the way it’s measured in the CPI, it’s still come down to three, which is much lower than the over 4% it was before.

The issue with jobs is much more complicated because you did have a higher-than-expected number. It’s still much lower than what our trend line growth had been.

But then one side of the pool filled up a bit, the other side of the pool cleaned out a bit because of the revisions that you talk about.

So as long as we’re still getting these heavy revisions later, it’s hard for us to have confidence in the real-time numbers.

The private sector data does not speak to a robust jobs environment, but none of the data speaks to a ton of firings. It just doesn’t speak to a ton of hirings. And so if you have a sort of run-in-place jobs environment, that’s not the worst thing. It’s not recessionary. But you do want to see more jobs being created.

EICHER: Market story this past week, David: A new AI tool from Anthropic that automates legal and compliance work triggered a selloff in software stocks — investors realizing AI may disrupt some of the very companies expected to benefit from it.

Are we seeing a classic example of creative destruction — or maybe just a balancing of stock prices that were too expensive?

BAHNSEN: Well, we’re not seeing it yet, but we’re certainly aware that it’s coming. And it should be something that people are excited about in the sense that if there was a tool on the horizon that is going to make something be done better or be done more efficiently, that sounds like a very good thing.

I think from an investment standpoint, the issue is not so much, “Oh, we didn’t know a tool was coming that would be disruptive,” as much as some of these software companies are so overpriced that their prices don’t reflect some of these things.

And then you need a catalyst to reprice. And a catalyst in the form of successful unleashing of a new product from Anthropic, for example, is the type of thing that sometimes results in what we refer to as a repricing.

This is very much a story of the software industry had been trading at 28 times earnings and it re-rated to 23 times earnings.

Twenty-three is still not cheap. Twenty-three is not saying, “Oh, creative destruction is coming. AI is putting us out of business.” That would be about 15 times or 12 times earnings.

It’s just repriced because the 28 was too expensive and was not accounting from an excessive valuation, was not accounting for some of the disruptions and so forth.

I continue to not be even remotely in the AI doomsday-ish camp that suggests that AI is just going to make it that no one has a job anymore. I think that represents a profound misunderstanding of how humanity works.

But I do believe that overpriced stocks are vulnerable to any form of catalyst that disrupts their margins, their model, their utility. And we got a bit of a sign for that. And that’s what you’ve seen—not just last week, but even over the last several months—that there’s been a bit of a rotation in the stock market around some of these realities.

EICHER: And in Dividend Cafe, you make the point that efficiency gains from AI aren’t the same thing as real economic growth. What would have to happen for AI to translate into measurable output — not just cutting costs, positive as that is for profit margins?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, it was. It’s a major theme in the discussion many macroeconomists are having about AI.

I’ll recap for WORLD listeners what you’re talking about that may not read dividendcafe.com. Arguing that AI makes something done quicker or makes it done more efficiently is not the same as arguing that you’re getting more things made.

And the argument to rebut that is if you can get things done quicker, then you can get more things done, period, and it would increase output.

The problem with that argument, Nick, is that the story of digital technology and the internet was not a story of getting more done. It was getting things done in a better way and then being content with that.

The productivity did not rise in concert with the enhanced efficiency.

So we are at risk of making a mistake of confusing activity with output.

And I don’t know very many people that have played around with AI a bit who don’t know that it’s going to benefit activity and efficiency. But seeing it lead to greater production of goods and services, higher output that then creates tangible value—that’s the big question.

So I’m bullish that AI will be transformative. But I am not bullish that that is all going to be imminent and clean and go as expected. I believe there will be some bumpy rides along the way.

EICHER: All right. David Bahnsen—founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. He writes at DividendCafe.com and at WORLD Opinions. David, hope you have a great week.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, February 16th.

Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day.

Good morning. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next: The World History Book.

Today, an unlikely Olympic victory.

At the highest level of sport, talent and pressure collide. Figure skating fans saw it Friday. Heavy favorite Ilia Malinin of the United States fell from 1st place all the way to 8th, opening the door for Mikhail Shaidorov of Kazakhstan to claim his country’s first-ever gold in figure skating.

EICHER: But that’s not the first time Olympic chaos crowned an unexpected champ. Twenty-four years ago this week in Salt Lake City, Utah, a dramatic speed skating final delivered one of the most improbable wins in Winter Games history and gave Australians a new phrase:“doing a Bradbury” . WORLD’s Amy Lewis has the story.

AMY LEWIS: Steven Bradbury started training in speed skating as a teenager in Brisbane.

ANNOUNCER: And Steven Bradbury, that man right there, skating for his place in Australian sporting immortality.

It’s an unlikely place to excel as a winter athlete. Audio here from Neds Australia.

BRADBURY: You know, I was training in complete anonymity and doing it on a shoestring. We didn’t have the budget, we didn’t have all the bells and whistles other countries had.

In 1994, Bradbury qualified for the Winter Olympics. His team travelled to Norway and skated in the men’s relay with a simple plan—stay on their feet, don’t get disqualified, and beat one of the three other finalist teams. Halfway through the race, the Canadian skater fell. That left the Americans to jockey with the Australians for second place. The Australians chose the safer route.

BAKA: And they won the bronze medal in ‘94…

Richard Baka researches the Olympics at Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia. He’s been involved with the Olympics for over 50 years.

That third-place relay in ‘94 marked Australia’s first medal in the history of the Winter Olympics. But Bradbury’s career soon became marked by disappointment.

BAKA: But then he had his big accident in Montreal at a speed skating event and slashed his thigh with 100-and-something stitches…

During the ‘94 World Cup race, the blade of another skater’s skate went through all four quadriceps in his thigh. With a heart rate of 200 beats per minute during the race, he quickly lost more than four quarts of blood on the ice. He survived but needed 18 months to recover. His 1998 Olympics races ended in disappointment when other skaters fell in front of him or knocked him over.

BAKA: He also, you know, had other injuries along the way…

Like when he jumped over fallen skaters and rammed head first into the barrier. He broke his neck. Doctors said he wouldn’t skate again. Less than two years later he was competing at the 2002 Winter Olympics.

He rose through the ranks to compete in the short track finals against 19-year-old American Apolo Ohno and three others for the gold. As the skaters entered the ice, the crowd went wild for the American.

ANNOUNCER: There he is. The hometown favourite, the hot favourite, the man 16,000 people have come expecting to see take the gold in the men’s 1000… [Crowd chants “USA”]

At 28, Bradbury was the oldest skater on the ice and the only one from the southern hemisphere. But he told his trainer Ann Zhang that he felt he could take on the world’s top four skaters. This is how he described it later in a motivational video.

ZHANG: And she said, ‘Steve, you don’t stand a chance. Stay out of the way, hope for a mistake, and pick up a bronze.’

She knew the other skaters would likely take more chances than usual in a race with medals on the line. Baka again:

BAKA: Because short track speed skating is like roller derby. It's got a lot of things that can happen.

While Australians slept on the other side of the globe, the skaters lined up. Bradbury was closest to the outside wall in the least favored position. The five competitors dug the toes of their skates into the ice ready to start.

ANNOUNCER: Ready (fan: Go, Apolo) (starting gun) Away they go. Steve Bradbury was content in his semi to sit at the back and it looks like he’ll do that again just here.

The other skaters vied for first place while Bradbury followed the pack by almost a half lap.

ANNOUNCER: The Chinese skater on the outside and—Oh! And it’s a lot of contact. Oh! They’ve all gone down. Bradbury is going to come through and win gold! Steven Bradbury from the tail of the field. (boos begin)

But the cheers quickly changed to boos. Bradbury’s initial expression of shocked happiness took on a more restrained appearance. Behind him, two of the downed competitors scrambled across the line and secured 2nd and 3rd places.

Bradbury says he wasn’t sure how to react. Should he accept the gold just because he was the last man standing?

BRADBURY: The way I won gold was obviously very different than other athletes in other sports.

In the end, he accepted the gold for Australia, not just for that race, but for all the work and training before it.

BRADBURY: I trained my guts out five hours a day, six days a week for 14 years to put myself in that position.

Bradbury’s name has become synonymous with unexpected success.

BAKA: It's a legacy thing now. “Doing a Bradbury” now means to win in unlucky or unusual circumstances. And I remember reading once in a horse race that the horse came from the back of the pack and ‘did a Bradbury.’

Bradbury’s gold medal was Australia’s and the entire Southern Hemisphere’s first in the Winter Olympics. But Bradbury says it was another moment that was his most satisfying.

BRADBURY: And so I got into the semis, and for me that was the moment of complete satisfaction. Because I went to that 4th Olympic Games purely to skate my best. That’s the highlight of my life. The gold medal has nothing to do with it.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Amy Lewis.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Tomorrow: Concerns about a new nuclear arms race. We’ll talk about what’s changing. And, a pilot’s family works through the aftermath of a crash. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

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 Bible says: “Doing wrong is like a joke to a fool, but wisdom is pleasure to a man of understanding.” —Proverbs 10:23.

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.