The World and Everything in It: January 13, 2025

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

Free speech or Trojan Horse? The federal government battles TikTok at the Supreme Court:

PRELOGAR: The Chinese government's control of TikTok poses a grave threat to national security. No one disputes that the PRC seeks to undermine U.S. interests.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket, and speaking of China we’ll talk trade with and tariffs on Beijing, economist David Bahnsen with the Monday Moneybeat.

And the WORLD History Book, today two stories of heroism in the air.

CONTROLLER: Cactus 1529, do you want to try to land runway 1-3?

SULLY: We’re unable. We may end up in the Hudson.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, January 13th. 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: It’s time for the news with Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Los Angeles wildfires latest » Catastrophic wildfires in the Los Angeles area have now killed at least 16 people while causing unimaginable damage.

LA County Sheriff Robert Luna:

LUNA:  And driving around some of these areas, they literally look like war zones. There are downed power poles, electric wires. There are still some smoldering fires. It is not safe.

He’s urging residents in affected areas not to try and return home before getting the all clear from authorities.

150,000 people in LA Country were under evacuation orders as of Sunday.

Thousands of firefighters continue to battle elements as they struggle to reign in the flames. LA County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone:

MARONNE:  Elevated critical fire weather conditions will continue through Wednesday. The Los Angeles County Fire Department is prepared. These winds combined with low relative humidities and low fuel moistures will keep the fire threat in Los Angeles County very high.

Over the next couple of days, forecasters expect sustained winds of 50 mph and gusts in the mountains reaching 70 mph.

In addition to the 16 confirmed deaths, authorities say another 16 people are missing.

LA wildfire blame » As the fires continue to burn, many in California and in Washington have questions about the emergency preparedness in Southern California ahead of this disaster.

President-elect Trump has been highly critical of environmental policies in the state that he says have diverted water away from Southern California. And Vice President-Elect JD Vance said Sunday:

VANCE:  I mean, some of these reservoirs have been dry for 15, 20 years. The fire hydrants are being reported as going dry while the firefighters are trying to put out these fires.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he’s ordered an independent review of why some of those hydrants ran dry, forcing firefighters in some cases to helplessly watch houses burn to the ground.

He also said he’s hopeful that President-elect Trump will not, in his words, politicize the disaster.

L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger says she has extended an invitation to President-elect Donald Trump to visit the LA area:

BARGER:  I look forward to welcoming president elect Trump to our communities so he can see the desperate need, but also the incredible opportunity, hope, and perseverance of our impacted neighbors.

Some GOP lawmakers say they expect hearings soon to discuss an aid package for California, but add that they’ll want answers about the state’s response.

Lankford on deportations / Trump planned executive orders » President-elect Donald Trump will take the oath of office one week from today. And he is preparing more than 100 executive orders that he plans to sign as soon as he’s sworn in.

Securing the border will be a top priority. And Trump says efforts to deport those who have entered the country illegally will start on day one.

And Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma says on that, Republicans are in lockstep.

LANKFORD:  To be very clear, if someone has violated the law in the United States, there should be consequences for violating the law in the United States. I'm not going to come out and say, hey, if someone breaks the law, we're just going to look the other way. That's not who we are. We are a nation of laws.

Also among Trump’s day-one orders. He will likely once again invoke Title 42, which allows the government to rapidly deport migrants at the border over public health concerns. And he intends to cut off federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with immigration and customs enforcement.

Confirmation hearings this week » Senate hearings are set to begin this week for Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks.

Many nominees have been meeting with senators individually for weeks. Now, they'll go before the committees overseeing the agencies that Trump wants them to run.

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso says he’s rolling up his sleeves:

BARRASSO:  I've met with just about all of them. I support every one of these nominees. As the whip, my job is to make sure they get across the finish line, get on the job. And President Trump deserves a team early.

Some of Trump’s nominees could breeze through the confirmation process. But others, not so much. Democrats seem largely united against Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth.

Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly:

KELLY:  There is not a job that's more serious and more critical to our national security than Secretary of Defense, and we need a qualified individual in that job. And he just does not seem to have the qualifications.

Most Republicans say he is qualified. A hearing on Hegseth’s nomination is slated to start tomorrow.

Among the others under the microscope this week include Doug Collins for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Doug Burgum at the Interior Department, and Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio.

Waltz on ending Ukraine war » The president-elect’s incoming national security adviser Mike Waltz says Trump is determined to see the war in Ukraine come to an end soon. And he told ABC’s This Week, that will mean bringing both Russia and Ukraine to the bargaining table.

WALTZ:  Everybody knows, uh, that this has to end somehow diplomatically. I just don't think it's realistic to say we're going to expel every Russian from every inch of Ukrainian soil.

Both sides have signaled a willingness to negotiate, but both with stipulations that could make opening those peace talks in earnest challenging.

Gas prices » Gas prices have held steady over the past few weeks, according to industry analyst Trilby Lundberg. Her national survey puts the current cost at $3.14 per gallon.

But she warns that prices could be on the rise soon after a recent increase in oil prices and the California wildfires.

LUNDBERG:  The timing is unknowable, but we will also have a surge of demand as California attempts its recovery, which may be long, very long and very painful. It'll place a heavy demand on all petroleum product, as well as pretty much any commodity and equipment.

Lundberg says Houston has the cheapest gas of any many metro area in the country right now, $2.53 per gallon.

Honolulu has the highest pump prices at $4.50.

I'm Kent Covington. 

Straight ahead: the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the TikTok ban. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat with David Bahnsen.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 13th day of January. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Mary Reichard.

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

Does anyone believe the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t have the ability to collect personal data from American young people by way of TikTok?

The current U.S. ambassador to China believes the CCP very much does. The company that owns TikTok is Chinese, but is not specifically a state-owned enterprise. Yet, like any Chinese company, it is required to have an in-house Communist Party committee composed of employees who are party members. Ambassador Nick Burns.

BURNS: We make the assumption – I certainly do as ambassador here – that the Chinese government has ultimate complete authority and access to convince a state enterprise here in China or a private company to do what they wish them to do. This is an authoritarian government. In an authoritarian environment, so that is an issue.

REICHARD: Eight content creators on the platform sued the U.S. government to try to stop it from banning TikTok. They say their freedom to enjoy TikTok and leverage it to promote their businesses is as American as apple pie. Content creator Paul Tran.

TRAN: It represents the dreams of countless Americans and entrepreneurs who deserve the right to choose how they reach their customers and share our stories—real American lives. There must be a solution that protects both our national interests and our constitutional rights.

So last week, all the parties to the dispute came to the right place: the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s time now for Legal Docket.

On Friday, oral argument went on for two and a half hours.

At issue is a new federal law that is a mouthful to say: the Protecting Americans from Foreign Controlled Applications Act. It was passed last March, with a bipartisan majority, and signed into law in April. Frank Pallone is a House Democrat from New Jersey.

PALLONE: The CCP has the ability with TikTok to compromise device security, maliciously access Americans’ data, promote pro-communist propaganda, and undermine our nation’s interests. This is extremely troubling. Beijing, China, should not have the control over Americans that TikTok gives them.

TikTok and the CCP really are the targets, but in addition it singles out North Korea, Russia, and Iran as foreign adversaries of the US and bars using apps those countries control. That includes any app operated by TikTok or its parent company ByteDance.

TikTok connects more than a billion users worldwide 170 million of them in the U.S.—nearly half the population. It’s more than just another app. Some call it a cultural phenomenon where social movements like MeToo and BlackLivesMatter found traction.

EICHER: At the same time, U.S. lawmakers say they’ve been flooded with calls from constituents, saying they’re worried about losing access if TikTok is shut down or forced to sell.

But from the perspective of Congress, TikTok could be a 21st Century Trojan Horse—an app that collects Americans’ data and secretly twists public opinion.

Another surprising twist: President-elect Donald Trump filed an amicus brief that urges the Court to block the law. And that would allow him to personally negotiate terms with TikTok and China once in office.

REICHARD: But the current U.S. government says TikTok is so under the thumb of the Chinese Communist Party that TikTok really has no freedom. Listen to Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar defend the ban:

PRELOGAR: The Chinese government's control of TikTok poses a grave threat to national security. No one disputes that the PRC seeks to undermine U.S. interests by amassing vast quantities of sensitive data about Americans and by engaging in covert influence operations….Those realities mean that the Chinese government could weaponize TikTok at any time to harm the United States. TikTok collects unprecedented amounts of personal data….That data would be incredibly valuable to the PRC. For years, the Chinese government has sought to build detailed profiles about Americans, where we live and work, who our friends and coworkers are, what our interests are, and what our vices are. TikTok's immense data set would give the PRC a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment, and espionage…The Act addresses the threat of foreign adversary control with laser-like focus. It requires only divestiture of TikTok to prevent Chinese government control, and that divestiture remedy follows a long tradition of barring foreign control of U.S. communications channels and other critical infrastructure.

EICHER: Prelogar making the national-security case: not targeting Americans’ speech, not targeting cat videos, but rather cutting off a pipeline of sensitive user data that ByteDance then funnels to the Chinese government.

REICHARD: TikTok, however, insists the ban is overkill. TikTok’s lawyers say the Act unconstitutionally restricts free speech.

Jeffrey Fisher argued for TikTok creators—because it’s not just the company, but millions of American users whose speech is at stake.

FISHER: Wholly apart from the companies’ legal interests here, the Act directly restricts the First Amendment rights… of American creators to participate and speak in what the Court, a little less than a decade ago, called the modern public square… And the Act fails any level of scrutiny under this Court’s case law. American creators have long and always enjoyed the right to speak with foreign speakers or publishers. … Restricting speech… because it might sow doubt about our leaders or undermine democracy are the kind of things our enemies do, it is not what we do in this country.

Noel Francisco is TikTok’s lawyer. He argues the law tries to ban speech under a false veneer of national security.

FRANCISCO: Under the Act, one of America’s most popular speech platforms will shut down in nine days… The Act is content-based from beginning to end… it singles out one speaker for uniquely harsh treatment, and it does so because the government fears that China could in the future indirectly pressure TikTok to disseminate foreign misinformation and propaganda.

It is also grossly underinclusive and ignores the most obvious less-restrictive alternative: simply banning TikTok Incorporated from sharing sensitive user data with anyone. We think this Act should not stand.

EICHER: And there you have the core conflict: Is this truly about real-time foreign adversary control? Or is it really about punishing and chilling the message of a certain speaker, however much an enemy it is or may become?

Justice Clarence Thomas pressed TikTok’s lawyer in this exchange:

THOMAS: Exactly what is TikTok’s speech here?

FRANCISCO: …TikTok uses an algorithm that in its view uses the best mix of content… The Act says TikTok cannot do that unless ByteDance executes a qualified divestiture. That’s a direct burden on TikTok’s speech...

Chief Justice John Roberts followed up, pointing out that ByteDance’s ties to Chinese intelligence are at the heart of the congressional findings.

ROBERTS: You began by saying this is a U.S. company operating in the United States. But the ultimate company that controls it, ByteDance, was found by Congress, let’s quote this, to be subject to Chinese laws that require it to assist or cooperate with the Chinese government’s intelligence work, close quotes, and to ensure that the Chinese government has the power to access private data that the company holds. So are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is in fact subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?

FRANCISCO: …We don’t ignore it, but it doesn’t change the First Amendment analysis for a couple of reasons.

REICHARD: But the government paints ByteDance as an extension of the CCP, with a non-stop pipeline of data flowing back to China.

Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed Prelogar, the solicitor general. He wonders why a disclaimer wouldn’t take care of the problem.

GORSUCH: General, isn’t this paternalistic point of view? I mean, don't we normally assume that the best remedy for problematic speech is counter-speech? And, you know, TikTok says it could even live with a --a disclaimer on its website saying this can be covertly manipulated by China in case anybody were left in doubt after today about that possibility. So you're saying that won't work because?

PRELOGAR: That won't work because it is such a generic generalized disclosure that it wouldn't put anyone reasonably on notice about when it's actually happening. And the example I've -

GORSUCH: That's your best -

PRELOGAR: --been thinking about is -

GORSUCH: --that's your best argument, is that the average American won't be able to figure out that the cat feed he's getting on TikTok could be manipulated even though there's a disclosure saying it could be manipulated?

PRELOGAR: But imagine if you walked into a store and it had a sign that said one of one million products in this store causes cancer, that is not going to put you on notice about what product is actually jeopardizing your health. And I think that's roughly equivalent to the type of disclosure they're contemplating here.

REICHARD: How the court analyzes this case may be the most important question. Does it review the law under a rational-basis analysis, giving the government the benefit of the doubt? Or does the court give it strict scrutiny, the highest level, reserved for when constitutional rights are at stake.

If it uses “strict scrutiny”, the government would have to clear high hurdles: the law must have a compelling reason and achieve its purpose in the least-restrictive way.

EICHER: Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether the government’s interest was truly “compelling.” Francisco replied that even if it were, the government doesn’t just get to single out a speaker.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh made a reference to the appeals court that sided with the government. Here’s Kavanaugh squaring off with TikTok lawyer Francisco:

KAVANAUGH: Chief Judge Srinivasan emphasized that there is a long tradition preventing foreign ownership or control of media in the United States going back radio, TV. I would think no matter the level of scrutiny that history has to be important and I want to get your response to it.

FRANCISCO: I don’t actually think it’s important in this context…That’s about bandwidth scarcity. The web has no such limitation. So you can’t just take that rule and apply it here.

…going on to say that radio and TV over the air uses bandwidth that is finite, whereas the web has no such limit. So those rules don’t apply.

The hearing was sprinkled with references to national security, free speech, and speculation about what the incoming Trump administration might do differently.

The president-elect says he wants the deal-making power to handle TikTok on his own terms.

TRUMP: I’ve got a warm spot in my heart for TikTok because I won youth by 34 points, and folks say TikTok had something to do with that.

REICHARD: TikTok is not only an American concern. Multiple countries have restricted or banned it. In Albania, authorities blamed the platform for its part in inspiring someone to stab a 14-year-old boy last month. France, Germany, and Belgium also tightened rules. Australia took a different tack and banned all social media for kids under 16.

EICHER: Back in the Supreme Court arguments, a final question is what the Court might do if it thinks the law is just too broad. Justice Samuel Alito suggested an “administrative stay”—basically a pause on enforcement—to give the new president or Congress more time.

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Cato Institute side with TikTok, warning of censorship. Former intelligence officials, on the other hand, side with the government, saying TikTok could “go dark” at a critical moment and weaponize disinformation.

REICHARD: I counted four justices who sounded firmly on the side of the government, in favor of banning TikTok, but that’s not enough to make a majority. Maybe they’ll persuade another justice to join them.

Or, perhaps they’ll take the idea suggested by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh: issue a stay and give the incoming president a chance to wheel and deal.

I expect a fast decision on this one, given the January 19th deadline the law sets out if TikTok hasn’t divested from its CCP parent.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Next up 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.

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

EICHER: Well David, as promised, we’re going to run through your very extensive white paper on trends you’re expecting in 2025, and obviously we can’t do everything. But I did manage to narrow down to three areas I think will be of interest. I’ll begin with China, US-China trade and tariffs on China. What are you looking for?

BAHNSEN: Well, I do believe that the overall relationship with China, not just the trade component, is a really big issue coming into the new administration. I think it’s going to be different than what President Trump faced when he came into office in 2017.

The consensus view is more of some version of, “Oh, you know, he’s going to really come in and there’s going to be a lot of hostility with China.” 
He got elected in 2016 off of a hawkish view of China—that they were an adversary to the United States in trade, there were unfair trade deals, they were taking advantage of us, they were doing unfair things with their currency.

Then the COVID moment happened, where a lot of the public sentiment had already moved towards Trump’s side of the China discussion. At that point, it became the majority view to see China more adversarially and less as this new 21st century trading partner.

I think that he is coming in right now with a lot of leverage. China’s economy is significantly weaker than it was four years ago, let alone eight years ago. I believe that there is an opportunity for him to actually extract a lot of things from China that are beneficial to U.S. policy interests that would be more friendly than people believe.


President Trump has taken the surprising view that he opposes this ban on TikTok. He invited President Xi to the inauguration. There is significant talk in the Treasury Department with the key people, including the Treasury secretary nominee, Scott Bessent, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. 
This is hardly secret information that he proposed a “Mar-a-Lago Accord,” named after the famous Plaza Accord of 1986, where Secretary of State James Baker in the Reagan administration brokered a deal at the Plaza Hotel regarding the US dollar in relationship to Germany, France, and Japan. It was a famous global currency deal and they’re talking about a Mar-a-Lago Accord that would represent some sort of change in the way that the Chinese and US dollar exchange rate works.

So I am purposely packing in a lot of things quickly because there’s a lot that’s here. 
And any number of things could go wrong that change what I’m talking about.

But by President Trump not picking Bob Lighthizer to be in his administration, I think he’s signaling more of an intent to get a deal with China. A deal would be beneficial to the United States on a number of different fronts, potentially even involving China and bringing about an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. China certainly has the capability to do that. 
Their friendliness to Putin is one of the only reasons that that war has gone on for three years.

So there’s just a lot there, geopolitically, economically, monetarily, trade, technology. And that is one of my forecasts for 2025, that we are not going to see acrimony and adversarialness, but rather some sort of positive movement.

EICHER: Okay, then David with apologies to Ben Franklin, nothing is certain except death and taxes, how about we skip death and go straight to taxes?

BAHNSEN: Well, sometimes the talk on taxes leads to talk on death, but yes, this is a big deal in 2025.


We’ve already talked a little bit about the complexity of how it’s going to get done. It requires something called a budget reconciliation bill—and it appears it may even require two of those.

There already is right now a debate—Speaker Johnson on one side and Senate Majority Leader John Thune on the other—of how they go about doing it.


President Trump, of course, has never been one for details. He is pretty agnostic about how it gets done. All he cares about is that it gets done. But it makes a difference in what gets done and when it gets done, if they have to do two bills versus one.

My view is that the one campaign promise he has to keep politically is the no-tax-on-tips. I think he won’t even bring up the no-tax-on-Social Security again or the no-tax-on-overtime wages. But the one that was really meaningful electorally—evidenced by the results in Clark County, Nevada as a great example—and the one he repeated about 10 to one compared to the others, was no tax on tips.

So I think he has to extend the tax cuts that are getting ready to sunset from 2017. 
He has to find a way to get no-tax-on-tips in there. They have to find a way to pay for this and all of that can be done.

Then I think there’s even room for a couple of things that are not as big a deal politically, but are a far bigger deal economically. 
If they bring back full 100% business expensing, bonus depreciation, if they get a bigger lift on the SALT (state and local taxes) deduction cap, which is right now set at ten thousand dollars, it used to be unlimited. That is just something that I think they have a chance of doing, which would represent a very significant tax cut to the middle class through the back door if they get that done by lifting that cap to $20,000 or $30,000.

So there’s a couple of little hidden gems out there that could get done and there’s going to be a lot of noise around this, Nick, and that’s what the story 2025 is going to be. 


They’re not coming out in February and getting a tax bill done. And if it has to go through a second reconciliation, it really can’t get done till the end of the year. If it gets wrapped into one big, what we are calling an omnibus bill that’s going to cover some border immigration, trade tax things all at once. 
April is the earliest and it’s very unrealistic. It’s probably more like July. It’s going to be tricky.

But the argument for it is you make people vote for the tax side by connecting it to some of the immigration and border side. 
All the tax things get more complicated, more wonky, and even a little bit more controversial, where like there’s just no political room to not support the immigration stuff he wants to do. So by tethering it together, they corner everyone to have to vote for it.

EICHER: And finally, the Fed and where you see it going …

BAHNSEN: Well, the mortgage rates are one of the big reasons that the Fed, I think, is cornered into having to cut rates—even though there’s this school of thought that says, “Oh, you can’t be cutting rates. 
The economy is doing too well.” You know, that was last Friday, there was all this hubbub and you saw the long term bond yields go way higher.

The stock market dropped because of the “horrible news” that a bunch of new jobs were created in December, far more than expected—and you get back to this thing I sarcastically talk about. When we believe that good news is bad news, there’s something wrong. It stems from the idiotic belief that growth is inflationary and growth is not inflationary. People having jobs is not inflationary.

The Fed right now knows that it’s more optics. It looks better to be cutting rates when there’s bad economic data than it does when there’s good economic data. 
But the real reason they have to cut rates is they know that the housing market is going to become a major problem. I don’t mean housing prices. I mean that there’s nothing that can get done with housing, and there’s so many jobs connected to housing, and there’s so much economic activity connected to housing.

So to have the fed funds rate in the fours and they need to get the mortgage rate down to the fours, that’s really the problem: the mortgage rate is staying up in the sevens.

That’s really where the Fed has to unwind a complicated thing next year. Add to that the jawboning that is certainly going to happen from President Trump if he doesn’t feel the Fed’s cutting quick enough—which they’re going to be going much slower than they originally were intending—then you get a kind of political thing going with it, which is going to complicate it even further.

So I expect there would be a little drama around some of this, but as my white paper at Dividend Cafe talks about, I think the bigger issue, Nick, is going to be not just the Fed rate, but quantitative tightening.

They’re still tightening their balance sheet, meaning they’re reducing the bonds that they’re holding on the balance sheet, they’re pulling liquidity out of the financial system, even as they’re loosening policy with the interest rate.


So this intellectual and policy incoherence I predict comes to an end in 2025.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. Check out David’s writing at dividendcafe.com. If you go there, look for that white paper. There’s a link and it will bring up a nicely designed PDF you can print out and read. And get comfortable. It’s about 10,000 words, so plan on an hour if you really want to get into it. It’s worth it.

David, thanks again!

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick. Great to be with you.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, January 13th. 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. Up next, the WORLD History Book. Today, two plane crashes—and several brave heroes who put their lives on the line to save passengers. WORLD’s Emma Perley has the story.

CBS NEWS REPORT: These daring helicopter rescues late this afternoon about a mile from the White House. Air Florida flight 90 had crashed on takeoff in a blinding snowstorm. It hit a bridge. It’s an eerie scene with helicopters circling above, casting a glow on the scene below, next to the Potomac River.

NEWS REPORT: District police and medical authorities still can’t say whether Arland Williams was the hero of the Air Florida crash …

EMMA PERLEY: On the morning of January 13th, 1982, a storm in Washington, D.C. pads the roads with 6 inches of snow.

Banker Arland Williams heads to the Washington National airport for a flight to Florida. It’s delayed for a few hours, and sits on the tarmac until finally, the crew gets the go-ahead.

The aircraft rolls onto the runway to wait in a long line of other planes. As the snow falls harder, ice forms along the wings. The pilot and the first officer neglect to turn on the engine’s de-icing system. Neither of them have much experience flying in snowy conditions. Two other passengers on the flight are Nikki Felch … she’s a secretary … and her boss Joe Stiley … who’s a pilot.

At 4pm, it’s finally time for liftoff. Audio here from Mayday Air Disaster.

STILEY: I got real nervous about halfway down the runway. When we got airborne, almost instantly it was clear that that aircraft was not flying normally. And I turned to Nikki and I said, ‘We’re in real trouble.’

The plane starts shaking and losing altitude. Audio here from the last moments before impac, courtesy of The Weather Channel.

CAPTAIN: Forward, just barely climb … stalling! We’re stalling!

FIRST OFFICER: We’re going down, Larry!

CAPTAIN: I know!

The plane hits several cars as it scrapes the 14th Street Bridge—then crashes into the Potomac River.

From Mayday Air Disaster again with Stiley.

STILEY: And then, we hit the water. And that was a real, real impact. Much greater than the one with the bridge. And I felt myself blacking out. I thought I was going to die in that airplane that day.

The fuselage sinks into the icy water. Of the 79 passengers, only six survive—including Williams, who’s tangled in the wreckage. They all cling to the floating tail of the plane:

STILEY: I looked up and there were probably, seemed like 10,000 people up on that bridge and along the sides of it looking at us. And we were out there freezing to death. All those people standing up there and nobody could do anything.

A U.S. Park Police helicopter lowers a lifeline down to the survivors to rescue them one-by-one. Every time the helicopter comes back, Williams passes the life vests to those around him—making sure they get the first chance at rescue.

SOUND: [RESCUE]

A bystander, Lenny Skutnik, swims out to help one woman who is too weak to hold onto a lifeline. Five of the six passengers return safely to shore. Eventually, the wreckage submerges Williams underwater where rescuers can’t reach him.

Later his cause of death was determined to be drowning—he had no other significant injuries. After the 14th Street Bridge was rebuilt, it was also renamed in his honor. Former President Ronald Reagan gave Skutnik the Gold Lifesaving Medal for his heroic actions that day. And he awarded the same medal to Williams posthumously.

27 years later, another disaster in the sky, and on a river.

Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger is a whip smart captain for US Airways. He previously worked for the US Air Force, and has about 20,000 hours of flight experience. Here’s Sully in a 2020 interview with Inc.

SULLEY: January 15th, 2009 started just like 10,000 other days. Literally.

That day, Sully pilots an Airbus A320 with 155 passengers aboard. The plane takes off from LaGuardia Airport in New York City at 3:30pm.

SULLEY: And Flight 1549 initially, like all those other flights for so long, was completely routine and unremarkable for the first 100 seconds. But this, very suddenly, and I was aware of it at the time, became the worst day of my life.

The plane hits a flock of Canada geese—a bird strike—and the engines falter. Sully radios the air traffic controllers for an emergency landing. Audio here from the Federal Aviation Administration.

SULLY: Uh, this is Cactus 1539. Hit birds, lost thrust in both engines. We’re turning back towards LaGuardia.

CONTROLLER: Cactus 1529, if we can get it to you, do you want to try to land runway 13?

SULLY: We’re unable. We may end up in the Hudson.

Even after the 1982 tragedy on the Potomac River, Sully had only discussed theoretical water landings in the classroom. Now, with airport runways too far away, he has no choice but to head for the Hudson river. Sully and his co-pilot, Jeff Skiles, work quickly as the plane falls through the sky. Sully turns on the PA system:

SULLEY: I said, “This is the captain. Brace for impact.”

The plane crashes down and then settles into the water. It’s still intact.

SULLEY: And in the most amazing coincidence, Jeff and I turned to each other at that moment, and at the same time, using the same words, said, ‘Well that wasn’t as bad as I thought!’

The crew evacuates passengers through the emergency exits, handing out life vests and deploying an inflatable raft. Water spills into the plane as it slowly sinks into the Hudson.

Nearby boats hurry to help the rescue efforts. Sully himself inspects the plane twice to make sure everyone got out.

The media dubbed the near-fatal crash Miracle on the Hudson. And the airplane crew received high awards for their bravery and quick thinking. Sully later testified in a Congressional hearing on the accident. From AP News.

SULLEY: I want only to reiterate to the subcommittee that the successful outcome was achieved by the actions of many. Lives were saved due to the combination of a very experienced, well trained crew. All of whom acted in a remarkable display of teamwork.

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is out after his liberal party picks a new leader in March. But then what happens , we’ll tell you. And, the story of a woman who fell victim to a malicious online attack known as phishing. She spends her days now helping others avoid the mistakes she made. 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 Bible records that Jesus “called the people to him and said to them, ‘Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.’” —Matthew 15:10-11.

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.