The World and Everything in It: February 17, 2025

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The case of a young man shot to death during a traffic check is at the Supreme Court. Do the seconds leading up to that moment matter, or only the officer’s perceived threat?

MCCLOUD: At the moment Sergeant Felix used force, he was clinging to the side of a fleeing suspect's car, and Felix reasonably believed that his life was in imminent danger.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Also today the Monday Moneybeat, David Bahnsen is standing by and we’ll talk trade, taxes, and more.

And later the WORLD History Book this week, a political assassination.

BETTY X: I saw people crawling on the floor. I knew they had shot my husband.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, February 17th. 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: Now news with Mark Mellinger.

MARK MELLINGER, NEWS ANCHOR: U.S and Russia to hold Ukraine War peace talks » Top leaders in the Trump Administration will be engaging Russian officials in direct talks this week aimed at ending Russia’s war with Ukraine.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is leading the U.S. delegation in Saudi Arabia, where the talks will be happening. This comes on the heels of President Trump’s phone call with Russian leader Vladimir Putin last week, after which Trump said the two men agreed to have their teams start negotiations immediately.

When it comes to where Putin stands on the war, Trump says:

TRUMP: I think he wants to end it, and they want to end it fast.

Trump also says Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will be involved in the talks, but didn’t elaborate. Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., Oksana Markarova, tells Fox…

MARKAROVA: If President Trump will be able to convince them -let’s use this word- to stop this war, God bless him. We all will work together with President Trump and with his whole administration to do it.

Zelenskyy has said in the past he won’t accept negotiations about ending the war that don’t involve his country. A Ukrainian delegation is in Saudi Arabia to pave the way for a potential Zelenskyy visit.

Europeans leaders concerned, hold Ukraine summit in Paris » French President Emanuel Macron is convening leaders from top European countries in Paris today for what he’s calling an emergency working meeting to discuss next steps for Ukraine.

Some European allies are concerned they could be sidelined from the U.S.’s direct talks with Russia on ending the war in Ukraine.

White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz says that’s not the case.

WALTZ: I have to push back on any notion that they aren’t being consulted. They absolutely are. At the end of the day, though, this is going to be under President Trump’s leadership that we get this war to an end.

The U.S. has said it sees this week’s talks with Russia in Saudi Arabia as early stage negotiations, and who ends up at the table could change.

The White House also says President Trump has spoken recently with Zelenskyy and Macron, and he’ll be talking to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer this week.

Rubio meets w/Netanyahu over Gaza » Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a show of solidarity with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Sunday. It came during Rubio’s first trip to Israel in his new role.

While the two leaders celebrated Hamas’s release of three more hostages over the weekend, they issued a united call for all the hostages from the war in Gaza to come home. And Rubio endorsed Israel’s goal in the war: to end Hamas.

RUBIO: As long as it stands as a force that can govern or as a force that can administer or as a force that can threaten by use of violence, peace becomes impossible. They must be eliminated. They must be eradicated.

Rubio and Netanyahu also discussed President Trump’s plan to remove Palestinians from Gaza so the region can be redeveloped. Netanyahu says he’s moving forward with that plan, calling it the only viable plan to enable a different future.

Deadly Southeast U.S. storms » At least nine people are dead after severe weather hammered the Southeast U.S. over the weekend.

Eight of those fatalities came in Kentucky, where heavy rain brought massive flooding. Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear:

BESHEAR: So many of these fatalities were due to attempts to drive through water and through moving water.

Beshear also says emergency crews carried out at least 1,000 rescues of people stranded by the flooding. President Trump has approved a disaster declaration for Kentucky.

The storms also toppled trees and caused power outages in several other states, including Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama, where officials confirmed an EF-1 tornado touched down.

Rebels gaining more ground in Congo » Rwanda-backed rebels are now occupying a second major city in Central Africa’s Democratic Republic of the Congo, or DRC.

The rebels took Bukavu, a city of more than a million people, with little resistance from Congo’s government Sunday.

African Union leader Bankole Adeoye says:

ADEOYE: We are all very, very concerned about an open regional war over eastern DRC.

Eastern Congo has trillions of dollars in mineral wealth that’s critical for powering much of the world’s technology. More than 100 armed groups have been fighting for control of it.

That fighting has displaced more than 6 million people and created the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.

Iran repression of Christians on the rise, Trump urged to confront » Iran has launched a new crackdown on Christianity. And, as WORLD’s Travis Kircher explains, there are calls for the White House to respond.

TRAVIS KIRCHER: Two professing Christians in their 60s who were recently pardoned by the Iranian government…have been re-arrested.

That according to Article 18…a United Kingdom-based N-G-O that tracks religious persecution in Iran.

Nasser Navard Gol-Tapeh and Joseph Shahbazian had both served a combined six years of their 10-year prison sentences. Their leadership of house churches led the Iranian government to charge them with “actions against national security.”

Gol-Tapeh was released in October of 2022 and Shabazian was freed in September.

But according to Article 18, both men were re-arrested the morning of February 6 and taken to Tehran’s notorious Evin prison. Several other professing Christians in Tehran were also arrested.

At this time the reason for their arrests is unclear.

Some activists are calling on the Trump administration to take punitive actions against the Iranian government unless it recognizes the religious freedom of Iran’s Christian minority.

For WORLD, I’m Travis Kircher.

I'm Mark Mellinger.

Straight ahead: Legal standards for police actions going before the Supreme Court. Plus, tariff strategies and government efficiency, in the Monday Moneybeat.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 17th day of February, 2025. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Time now for Legal Docket.

April 28th, 2016. Twenty minutes before 3 o’clock on a Thursday afternoon. Twenty-year veteran Officer Roberto Felix patrols the busy Sam Houston Tollway in Houston, Texas.

EICHER: Audio from the dashcam video is difficult to distinguish because of the enormous road noise.

Officer Felix pulls over a 24-year-old driver named Ashtian Barnes. The policeman suspects Barnes is responsible for unpaid tolls.

DASHCAM: “Driver’s license?” Radio chirping

REICHARD: The officer asks Barnes to produce a license and proof of insurance. Barnes says he doesn’t have them but looks around the car to search for them.

DASHCAM: “Don’t dig around! Don’t! Dig around. Don’t dig around.”

EICHER: The car door opens, the brake lights appear ,and at that moment, the officer draws his weapon, and steps up onto the door sill as the car lurches forward, the officer carried along.

DASHCAM: “Don’t [expletive] move! Don’t [expletive] move!”

Shots, loud ringing sound from radio, “Shots fired! Shots fired!”

REICHARD: Two shots fired.

Barnes bleeds to death in the driver’s seat.

There’s no video of what happened inside the car. Only outside.

EICHER: Barnes’s parents are heartbroken. The audio from Fox26 Houston.

BARNES: Ashtian was a very lovely…(breaks down)...I can’t talk about it…I never thought I would go through anything like this. Days I drive and cry.

His parents sued, pointing to the words of the Fourth Amendment, alleging the officer took away their son’s freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

But lower courts ruled for Officer Felix. The standard they used was what’s known as the “moment of threat” doctrine.

That’s the standard some parts of the country use including Houston. It means judges evaluate how reasonable the officer’s actions are in the exact moment he felt threatened.

REICHARD: Let’s review the dashcam.

The car door opens. The brake lights flash on, meaning it’s likely Ashtian Barnes is stepping on the brakes to put the car in gear.

The brake lights go off. The car accelerates, Officer Felix standing on the door sill out in the open, traffic whizzing by both directions.

EICHER: So how do you evaluate the next few seconds? Should courts consider only the moment of threat … or do they take into account whether Felix put himself in danger?

Four of the 12 federal appeals courts apply the “moment of threat” doctrine—including the Fifth Circuit, which decided the Felix case. Eight others reject it, favoring a broader “totality of the circumstances” approach.

ROBERTS: We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 23-1239, Barnes versus Felix.

REICHARD: Taking the case to the Supreme Court, Ashtian’s mother says what led up to the shooting has to be on the table.

Context matters. She argues that when an officer creates a dangerous situation, he should not be able to then use that danger to justify deadly force.

Her lawyer, Nathaniel Zelensky, referred to a lower court ruling:

ZELENSKY: The question before this Court is how to determine whether Ashtian's Fourth Amendment rights were violated….P 5 …on tape 1:48: as Judge Higginbotham underscored in his concurrence, the facts show that Officer Felix acted unreasonably. But this is a court of review, not of first view. The Court should rule for Petitioner on the sole question presented and remand for the lower courts to apply the correct constitutional standard.

The correct standard being “totality of the circumstances.”

But for Officer Felix, lawyer Charles McCloud defended the analysis of the lower court.

MCCLOUD: At the moment Sergeant Felix used force, he was clinging to the side of a fleeing suspect's car, and Felix reasonably believed that his life was in imminent danger. That conclusion should end this case. Petitioner's contrary argument attacks a strawman. Let me be very clear. We are defending the decision below and the "moment of threat" doctrine as it actually exists. The core premise of that doctrine is that an officer doesn't lose his right to defend himself just because he made a mistake at an earlier point in time.

EICHER: During oral argument, the Justices grappled with these competing perspectives. 

When the lawyer for the family made the point that courts ought not limit their analysis to a split-second, Justice Brett Kavanaugh returned to the traffic stop. But backed up a few seconds in the deadly timeline.

KAVANAUGH: Was it reasonable to --for the officer to jump on the side of the car?

ZELENSKY: So, uh, Ju, uh…

Zelensky going on to argue that this was exactly the kind of issue lower courts ought to be able to consider. But under the current doctrine in some jurisdictions, they can’t.

Justice Samuel Alito raised another concern.

ALITO: So "unreasonable" has a particular meaning when the Court has to decide whether there was a Fourth Amendment violation. But, in lay speech, "unreasonable" could go to whether the action was prudent, whether it was a violation of best police practices or the practices of a particular police department. Those are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, it seems that they're probably different. So you are eliding these two different meanings of "reasonable." Now maybe that's --maybe that's sound. Maybe that's unsound.

REICHARD: Zelensky replied we need to balance the state’s interest to enforce law with the individual’s interest not to be harmed. “Moment of threat” analysis doesn’t permit that kind of balancing.

But what about totality-of-circumstances? How far does that standard go? Chief Justice John Roberts.

ROBERTS: How broad is the totality of circumstances under your view? Do you get to put in: This is the training record of the officer, and, look, he got D minuses in all the—the excessive force parts of it?

McCLOUD: No.

ROBERTS: I mean, is that part of the totality as you view it?

McCLOUD: No, Your Honor. We don't view that as relevant. Those sorts of policies and --and procedures do not inform the reasonableness question that is being asked by the Fourth Amendment.

EICHER: An unusual thing happened as this case got to the Supreme Court. Felix’s legal team abandoned the “moment of threat” doctrine that won them the case so far. They went ahead and shifted their argument and now embrace a “totality of circumstances” analysis.

So both sides now argue for the same standard … but that’s still not the end of the case. They disagree on how the standard applies.

REICHARD: Justice Neil Gorsuch raised an even bigger question:

GORSUCH: We’ve always said, reasonableness is a totality of the circumstances. And, at common law, these are all questions for the jury. And you also have layered on top of the Fourth Amendment qualified immunity to protect the officers in these cases. Why would we start creating a new jurisprudence of exceptional circumstances?

Qualified immunity is a whole other can of worms.

That doctrine protects police officers from lawsuits unless they violate what are understood to be “clearly established” constitutional rights. 

What’s clear, what’s established—it’s complicated. I called up lawyer Ben Field with the Institute for Justice. That’s a firm that’s worked on the problem of qualified immunity leaving people without recourse when police violate their rights.

FIELD: I think that one thing that this shows is that at least in Fourth Amendment cases like this, qualified immunity is kind of doing double duty here, because the Fourth Amendment test looks into reasonableness. And so that's already very, very deferential to officers.

Field thinks the justices will send the case back to lower court to apply the totality of the circumstances standard to the facts of this case. I think that’s right, given that both sides now agree on the standard. But it’s going to come down to how it applies.

ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel. The case is submitted.

This case is not just about one police officer and one suspect. It’s about how courts analyze police shootings nationwide. There is no uniform standard and the court is likely finally to provide one.

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. David, good morning.

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

EICHER: So last week, the president made headlines with an announcement on tariffs—but instead of imposing new ones, he directed federal agencies to study reciprocal tariffs. Markets reacted positively to that, seemingly relieved that no immediate action was taken. But overall, there seems to be some confusion around the administration’s trade policy. Is this kind of uncertainty an intentional negotiating strategy, do you think, or does it reflect a lack of clear direction?

BAHNSEN: Well, there was a good progress made last week—at least in terms of their ability to get out of budget finance committee—the framework of a package whereby assuming the whole house passes it, they do have a vision for a one bill approach and the dollar amount they’ve settled on is $4.5 trillion.

However, that requires $2 trillion of spending cuts to the mandatory spending category, which would likely mean some form of reform or kind of changing around of how certain Medicaid and Medicare items are funded or certain growth expectations are taken back—things like that.

For every dollar they don’t cut of that $2 trillion, that comes off of the $4.5 trillion of available tax cuts.

So there are three concerns.

The first is, are they able to get this through the House and get it reconciled at conference with the Senate? Because if that falls apart politically, then they likely go forward with a two-bill approach that the Senate is pushing.

But assuming they thread the needle and get this done politically, Nick, the second concern is, will they come up with those spending cuts? Will they be able to do that?

Third, is even the $4.5 trillion large enough?

That basically leaves enough room to extend the Trump tax cuts from 2017 and maybe pass the no tax on tips, a little bit of SALT cap increase (the state and local tax deduction). But it certainly doesn’t come close to leaving enough room for no tax on overtime wages, no tax on social security, some of the other business tax reductions.

House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith was critical that the $4.5 trillion won’t be enough and that’s not even guaranteed.

So there’s still more wood to chop here for sure, not the least of which is whether or not they’re going to even get this through the House.

EICHER: The administration has been pushing hard for and moving fast on government restructuring and efficiency reforms—Department of Government Efficiency leading the charge. But in recent days, DOGE has faced criticism for inaccuracies in some of its claims about agency spending. Elon Musk took some of that criticism and said, you know, nobody’s going to bat 1.000. But all this does raise questions about whether the rapid-fire approach is actually delivering results or just generating headlines—and now some bad ones. Do you see these efforts leading to meaningful reform, or is there a risk of spreading too thin and losing focus?

BAHNSEN: Well, there are going to be some things that they accomplish. I think that when you find government employees who are not performing, not going to work and they quit or leave, or you force them out, then that accomplishes something.

But trying to drive a more efficient process from the people who work for government is different than actually reducing line items in the budget.

But I do think that they are shining a light on certain things that are inefficient. One of the risks when you take a “blow it up”-type approach and go after 5, 10 things a day is it is sort of like drinking through a fire hose for people to process what’s going on. But also to appreciate some of things that get done. In trying to do too much too quickly, you do run the risk of none of it really resonating.

So I think that they’ll be better off to focus on three big victories and hit those points home. It feels a little bit chaotic right now, and people can say, “well, that’s because of the way the media is covering it.” But the media are covering it that way—you know, on purpose. So it’s up to them to message it in a way that offers clarity.

EICHER: And we haven’t talked markets in a few weeks. We’ve seen a fair amount of market volatility one month into this quarter, but stocks are still up overall. What’s driving that, and what’s your outlook going forward?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, it’s been an interesting start to the first quarter in markets—with a fair amount of volatility. But what they haven’t really had is significant downward pressure. Markets are up on the year, even where some of the big tech and so-called Magnificent Seven names (Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Meta, and Tesla) have not been leading the way.

Other aspects of the market are still doing quite well. Nothing is really breaking out per se, but I think that the earnings results of first quarter are going to show, you know, about 11% profit growth year over year, about 5% revenue growth.

There’s no question that that kind of economic activity that is evidenced in both top-line sales and in bottom-line profits has gone well. I will continue to reiterate as much as I have to: The bigger question is not really company performance fundamentals as it is valuation.

It’s whether some of these good things already priced in and perhaps priced in and then some? That’s the big question in markets.

Bond yields were all over the place a little bit here this last week. I think the ten-year bond yield becomes a big question for both valuations in the stock market, but also some sort of indication of where growth and inflation expectations lie.

So there’s a little bit of volatility there in the bond yield. By the way, uncertainty about tariffs and uncertainty about what our tax reform is going to be, that is connected to some of the volatility in the bond market as well.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. David writes at dividendcafe.com and regularly for WORLD Opinions. David, thanks! Have a great week!

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, February 17th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Time now for the WORLD History Book.

It was 60 years ago that a controversial civil rights activist was gunned down in front of a crowd. The suspected killers were quickly arrested, but many people didn’t see what they thought they saw that day.

And only recently, a fresh look at the evidence uncovered the truth. WORLD’s Emma Perley has the story

WITNESS: I was sitting in the front row. I heard a rumbling behind me. My next impression—it all happened very rapidly if you can understand—is there’s a gunshot.

EMMA PERLEY: That witness has just seen a murder. As he tells his story to AP News, a crowd gathers around him, their mouths open in shock. They’re waiting to hear the fate of Malcolm X.

WITNESS: And I saw Malcolm had his hand up, he said stay cool, stay calm or something like that. And just then the gunfire went off, and I turned around quickly, and the next thing I saw was Malcolm falling back in a dead faint.

For months, Malcolm has been saying that someone is after him. After all, he’s spent years in controversial activism around the country—including in the heart of the segregated South. Unlike Martin Luther King Jr., who promotes nonviolent protests, Malcolm believes violence may be a necessary tool to end racism.

Malcolm is a devout Muslim, and for more than a decade, he was part of the Nation of Islam, an organization that blended black nationalism and the teachings of Islam.

Audio here from a 1963 interview with Malcolm at UC-Berkeley:

MALCOLM X: As Muslims, we believe that separation is the best way, and the only sensible way, not integration. But on the other hand, when we see our people being brutalized by white bigots, white racists, we think that they are foolish to allow themselves to be beaten and brutalized, and do nothing whatsoever to protect themselves. They should have the right to defend themselves against any attack made against them by anyone.

But in 1964, Malcolm becomes disillusioned with the Nation of Islam after its leader admits to molesting young girls. So, he splits from it, and publicly denounces the organization as a racist, pseudo-religion.

Malcolm knows now that he’s made the wrong people angry. So it’s no wonder that his life may be in even more danger.

Then, it happens. Malcolm and his family escape attempted murder on Valentine’s Day, 1965. Someone throws a fire bomb into their house, which explodes in the living room. Thankfully, no one is hurt.

But they wouldn’t be safe for long. A week later, on February 21st, Malcolm arrives at the Audubon Ballroom in New York City to give an address. His four daughters and his wife, Betty, sit in the front row. She has twin babies on the way.

Just as Malcolm takes the stage, the gunfire begins.

Betty immediately throws herself over her children. Audio courtesy of a CNN special report.

BETTY SHABAZZ: I heard shots, and I saw people crawling on the floor. I saw - and so I got down too. Then when I was looking out, and I saw someone look in amazement to the front, I knew they had shot my husband.

In the frenzy, the gunmen join the crowd stampeding towards the exits.

From a Smithsonian Channel documentary.

NEWS REPORT: Almost immediately after the shooting, New York City police apprehended two suspects, one identified by police as 22 year old Thomas Hagan. He was caught outside the building, was shot in the thigh by one of Malcolm’s bodyguards, and then beaten by anybody who could reach him with fist or foot.

Malcolm is taken across the street to the hospital, where he’s pronounced dead. He was shot 21 times.

Of the two apprehended, the wounded suspect Thomas Hagan is the most likely culprit because he’s a member of the Nation of Islam. Eyewitnesses give the police enough evidence to arrest two other men: Muhammad Abdul Aziz, and Khalil Islam who also belong to the Nation of Islam.

The police figure it’s an open and shut case. And yet, only Hagan actually confesses to the murder, saying that Aziz and Islam weren’t involved at all. In fact, Hagan insists that he and four other men were the real killers.

But a 1966 trial finds Hagan, Aziz, and Islam guilty, even though Aziz and Islam have alibis, and the eyewitness testimony is sketchy.

They’re locked away. 20-years-to-life.

Aziz and Islam maintain their innocence. They’re paroled in the late 1980s.

Then, in 2021, new evidence corroborates their claims.

From Good Morning America.

GOOD MORNING AMERICA ANCHOR: Two of the men convicted in his killing are set to be exonerated. This stunning development comes after a nearly 2 year long investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney concluded that the FBI and NYPD withheld evidence that might have proved their innocence decades ago.

The FBI releases documents that prove Aziz and Islam had no connection to the murder after all. The news is too little, too late for Islam, who passed away in 2009. But 83 year old Aziz finally gets his name cleared after 55 years. He spoke with ABC News in 2022.

ABC NEWS: REPORTER: You’ve gotten your good name back.

MUHAMMAD AZIZ: Well, I never lost it. Other people did what they did with it, but I never lost my name. A good name is better than fine gold. So, this name is gold. Better than gold.

The FBI files revealed how nine undercover agents—who were witnesses to the murder—withheld evidence of the real attackers’ identities.

The Manhattan District Attorney formally apologized to Aziz’s, Islam’s and Malcolm’s families for the miscarriage of justice. But the FBI has so far refused to do the same. Malcolm’s family filed a lawsuit last year against the FBI, CIA, and NYPD seeking $100 million in damages.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Emma Perley.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin continue to talk about ending the war in Ukraine. We’ll talk to a couple experts about the likelihood of success. And, how are Ukrainians feeling about it? We’ll hear from people who fled the conflict. 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.

Jesus said: “No one after lighting a lamp covers it with a jar or puts it under a bed, but puts it on a stand, so that those who enter may see the light. For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light. Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.” —Luke 8:16-18

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.