The World and Everything in It: January 20, 2025

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Good morning!

At the Supreme Court, the porn industry fights age verification, saying filtering software is sufficient. But that argument met with skepticism:

BARRETT: Let me just say that content filtering for all those different devices, I can say from personal experience, is difficult to keep up with.

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

Also today the Monday Moneybeat.

And we’ll hear from a few college football players competing tonight for a lot more than merely a national title:

SOUND: So that’s why we don’t place our whole priority and our whole entire life in this game. He has a steadfast love that never changes.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, January 20th, inauguration day. 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 the news. Here’s Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR:  Inauguration » With his left hand on the Bible, Donald Trump J. Trump will raise his right hand once again this afternoon:

SOUND: [2017 oath of office]

ROBERTS: … And repeat after me. I Donald John Trump do solemnly swear.

TRUMP: I Donald John Trump do solemnly swear. [fade under and out]

And, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, just as he did eight years ago, will administer the oath of office at noon Eastern Time.

After ceremonies at the Capitol, President Trump’s motorcade will head to an arena in the nation's capital, where the traditional parade down Pennsylvania Avenue is being moved indoors due to extreme cold weather.

And finally, it’s onto the White House for inaugural ball celebrations. Those will include performances by singers Jason Aldean and Gavin DeGraw as well as The Village People …

SOUND: [Victory rally Village People]

… who also performed at Trump’s victory rally on Sunday.

Sunday rally » Trump told supporters packed into the nearly 20-thousand seat Capital One Arena in Washington that as of today:

TRUMP:  The curtain closes on four long years of American decline and we begin a brand new day of American strength and prosperity, dignity, and pride.

Also speaking Sunday was Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. He’s tasked with helping lead the independent Department of Government Efficiency. He told the crowd, “we’re looking forward to making a lot of changes.”

Executive orders, agenda » Donald Trump also promised—quote “the most extraordinary first 100 days of any presidency in American history.”

TRUMP: Every radical  and foolish executive order of the Biden administration will be repealed within hours of when I take the oath of office.

And he is planning to issue more than a hundred executive orders of his own.

Those will include numerous actions aimed at locking down the southern border and launching a promised mass deportation of those who have entered the country illegally.

TikTok » Another executive order will be aimed at saving TikTok.

The social media app is back online in the US. It temporarily went dark over the weekend after a law took effect banning the app in the United States. But TikTok flipped the switch back on after President Trump vowed an executive order.

Trump advisor Jason Miller:

MILLER:  A lot of people are concerned about security and other measures such as that, who know that he's going to get the deal done right. So I think you should be pretty optimistic if you're a TikTok user or supporter. And if anyone can help solve it, it's President Trump.

The law required TikTok’s Chinese parent company to sell the app or face a nationwide ban. That was due to concerns over user privacy and even national security. The president’s executive order will aim to give the platform’s owners more time to find the right buyer.

Confirmations » The Senate will be voting in the coming days on President Trump’s cabinet picks. At least a handful of those votes will likely be tight. But others could cruise to confirmation, most notably, Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio.

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine told CBS’ Face the Nation:

KAINE: He visited my office before the hearing. He did very well at the hearing. And I think we are likely to act on day one, and he’ll get a strong bipartisan vote.

Rubio could be confirmed today. And US officials say he is expected to begin international engagements this week meeting with the foreign ministers of India, Japan and Australia.

Gaza ceasefire » Three hostages released from Gaza are now in Israel in the first test of a fragile ceasefire with Hamas.

Israeli government spokesman David Mencer says President Trump has given his full backing:

MENCER:  to Israel's right to return to the fighting if Israel reaches the conclusion that the second stage of negotiations are ineffectual. Israel's government does, of course, want all stages to be, to come into effect.

The deal calls for Hamas to gradually release 33 hostages over the next six weeks. In return, Israel will release almost a thousand Palestinian prisoners, including militants and others accused of crimes.

Winter weather » A polar vortex will blast most of the country east of the Rockies this week with extreme cold.

Mark Chanard with the National Weather Service:

CHENARD: Wind chills below minus 40, um, already being observed across portions of North Dakota and Minnesota, but then wind chills, you know, as low as minus 20 spread across much of the central plains, even into the Great Lakes.

The Mid Atlantic, and the Northeast will have wind chills below zero.

It will also blanket large portions of the Eastern US with snow.

Almost half the country right now is under some kind of winter weather advisory, watch, or warning.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: the Supreme Court considers arguments for and against age verification laws. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat with economist David Bahnsen.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 20th day of January, 2025. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

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

MONTAGE: We have breaking news now the Supreme Court has upheld the law that could ban TikTok. / Good Friday morning to you we're coming on the air with some breaking news from the Supreme Court: The High Court has just declined to stop a / ban against TikTok can go into / effect on Sunday yet / unless its Chinese parent company ByteDance sells to a US based company in the next two days / So it's not a surprising ruling / and of course, now it's going to be a question of what goes on once the president-elect takes office. / Yeah, well, it literally just dropped. / TikTok's lawyers had really tried to argue this was a First Amendment case.

But no sooner had TikTok gone dark than it flickered back to life.

MONTAGE: Breaking news from TikTok, it is in the process of restoring service after going dark for more than 170 million American users late last night. / I've been in shock for the last 48 hours. / This has been such a roller coaster ride for content creators and users. / This comes after President-elect Trump said he planned to give TikTok a 90-day extension to continue operating. / Speaking of the president-elect, we also have a statement here from him via Truth Social. I'm asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark. I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law's prohibitions take effect. / Megan, we just learned about this news a few seconds ago / During the commercial break / During the commercial break. / It's getting banned. Wait, no, it's gonna get saved. No, no, no, it's actually going dark on the 19th. Wait, no, but it might come back the next day.

It’s time now for Legal Docket.

We’ll talk about three decisions of the Supreme Court … and oral argument in a case that may be as important as the TikTok case. But we will begin there.

It was just 10 days ago that the high court took up TikTok’s appeal on an expedited schedule.

By Friday came an unsigned opinion that we can safely assume was unanimous. It holds that the ban does not violate TikTok’s First Amendment Rights—despite the argument of the China-owned company that it did.

EICHER: But the court found the government’s argument most compelling: that the app is a Trojan Horse threatening national security. It collects Americans’ data and twists public opinion.

Listen to this comment from Chief Justice John Roberts to the lawyer for TikTok what he says here gives a hint as to where the court was leaning.

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… “to be subject to Chinese laws that require it to assist or cooperate with the Chinese government’s intelligence work,” and to ensure that the Chinese government has the power to access and control 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?

This is going to have to factor into incoming President Trump’s ultimate resolution. His hope is to save the app by way of a deal with ByteDance, the Chinese owner of TikTok. Or perhaps finding an American buyer would solve the problem.

REICHARD: Alright, from TikTok to woof-woof—prescription pet food and allegations of deceptive marketing. A decision in the case of Royal Canin USA v. Wullschleger.

This one was a narrow legal issue over jurisdiction—meaning, where a lawsuit can be heard.

Lead plaintiff Anastasia Wullschleger sued in state court, but included both federal and state law claims in her complaint.

EICHER: Because of the federal claims, the pet-food maker moved the case into federal court.

Wullschleger felt she had a better shot in state court, so she amended her complaint. She removed those federal claims, to get the case out of federal court.

But that was the exact controversy: The pet food company argued no take-backs. What gets to federal court, stays in federal court, she can’t just go back to state court.

But the Supreme Court said oh yes she can , and it was unanimous.

You can hear the eventual ruling in this comment from Chief Justice Roberts to the pet food maker’s lawyer during oral argument in October:

ROBERTS: You complain about the forum manipulation problems this would create. I don't see how that's a problem here. They wanted --they start in state court; they want to go back to state court. They're not trying to manipulate anything.

REICHARD: So Wullschleger and her dog Clinton return to state court in Missouri.

EICHER: The next decision deals with overtime pay … a big win for employers in EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera.

The law at issue is the Fair Labor Standards Act, the F-L-S-A.

Here, sales reps sued for overtime pay. Outside sales jobs are considered exempt from overtime, but these employees said their actual job duties were mostly not in sales.

F-L-S-A puts the burden on the employer to prove these workers truly are exempt from overtime rules.

REICHARD: So the narrow legal question was how they prove it. 

What do bosses have to show to prove that an employee is or isn’t exempt from overtime pay?

There are two possibilities: Option A is showing merely that workers “probably” don’t qualify for overtime pay. (Meaning a “preponderance” of the evidence.) Or just more than 50% likely. 

Option B is showing “clear and convincing” evidence that the workers don’t qualify. It’s not quite “beyond a reasonable doubt” level of proof, but something around 75% likely to be true.

EICHER: Justice Clarence Thomas voiced the eventual rationale for a unanimous decision for the employer interpretation of the F-L-S-A.

THOMAS: Why should the FLSA be treated differently from discrimination laws? Title VII only requires a preponderance.

Disappointing for employees hoping for bigger paychecks, but at least there’s more clarity on the matter.

REICHARD: Those are the decisions. Now, a landmark case we probably won’t know the outcome of until closer to the end of the term.

This one grabbed headlines: Free Speech Coalition, Inc v Ken Paxton.

About that name, “Free Speech Coalition?” What this coalition means by speech is pornographic content. What it means by free is free of regulation. What’s behind this trade group is a pornography industry that by some estimates rakes in more than $100 billion per year.

That includes the operator of Pornhub, one of the most-visited websites in the world, number 12.

EICHER: The porn producers object to a law Texas approved in 2023 with only a single no vote. It requires age verification before allowing access to explicit material online.

The porn purveyors argue such an obstacle violates the rights of adults who want to look at pornography without anyone looking at them. They don’t want to reveal their identities. The Free Speech Coalition says age verification erodes anonymity and deters lawful access to content.

REICHARD: Justice Amy Coney Barrett is the mother of seven children. Here’s what she said to Derek Shaffer, he’s the lawyer who represents the pornographers:

BARRETT: Kids can get online porn through gaming systems, tablets, phones, computers. Let me just say that content filtering for all those different devices, I can say from personal experience, is difficult to keep up with. I think that the explosion of addiction to online porn has shown that content filtering isn’t working.

Shaffer argued that it’s still parents who have the responsibility to filter that stuff out on their own devices.

Justice Samuel Alito:

ALITO: Do you know a lot of parents who are more tech-savvy than their 15-year-old children? (Laughter)

SHAFFER: Justice Alito, it’s a fair question and I…(fade out)

NICK EICHER, HOST: Shaffer going on to say there’s content-filtering software out there. Besides, Texas should think about educating parents more.

Justice Alito scoffed.

ALITO: I mean, Mr. Shaffer, come on. Be real. There’s a huge volume of evidence that filtering doesn’t work. We’ve had many years of experience with it. We now have many many states who have adopted age verification requirements. Why are they doing that if the filtering is so good?

Here’s a shocking statistic we learned from this case: the average age of first exposure to internet porn in this country is 12 years old.

So that’s one thing.

But here’s another:

Pornography is considered "speech" under the First Amendment because it is a form of expression. It’s not an unlimited protection, though. Obscenity is not protected. But that’s another can of worms, trying to define obscenity, it’s why one justice famously said, it’s hard to define but I know it when I see it.

REICHARD: Regardless, lawyer Shaffer for the porn producers argues this case comes down to one key question: what is the standard of legal review? The standard the appellate court used is a much more lenient standard giving the state a freer hand to regulate his client’s products.

SHAFFER: In this case, a Fifth Circuit majority held that mere rational basis review, the most lax form of judicial scrutiny, applies to a Texas law that burdens constitutionally protected speech based on its content, specifically, by imposing an age verification barrier before anyone can access a sexually themed website. That aberrant holding defies this Court's consistent precedent…

He wants the court to apply strict scrutiny—that’s the most difficult standard—and he’d almost certainly win under that standard.

Shaffer leaned on a 20-year old ruling that a federal law called the Child Online Protection Act was probably unconstitutional under strict scrutiny.

The Texas law is similar to that one.

EICHER: Let’s take a moment here and talk about legal standards for review:

Strict scrutiny requires the state to prove, first, a compelling government interest to restrict a constitutional right. Second, it requires that even compelling government interests be pursued using the least restrictive way possible. That’s what the porn producers want.

The rational basis standard is probably the only way Texas wins. Rational basis requires only some legitimate government reason to restrict a right.

Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielsen:

NIELSEN: Petitioners don't dispute that their websites are not meant for children, that they harm children, and that children are watching. The Court faced the same situation with brick-and-mortar stores and applied rational basis to a law limiting adult content to adults…Age verification today, however, is simple, safe, and common, including non-identifying means. …Regardless, if strict scrutiny applies here, Texas would have to satisfy strict scrutiny to keep kids out of strip clubs. This Court's cases do not require that. Neither do history, tradition, or common sense. In all events, even if heightened scrutiny applies, Texas easily satisfies it, especially facially. We've tried content filtering for decades, and the problem has only gotten worse.

REICHARD: The Biden Administration submitted a friend of the court brief, urging that the case be sent down to the lower courts, and there weigh the issues using strict scrutiny.

Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher argued that First Amendment protections must be robust. If strict scrutiny does apply, the Texas law fails the test.

But:

FLETCHER: …that should not prevent Congress or the states from restricting the distribution of pornography to children online, just as states have traditionally done it in brick-and-mortar stores and theaters.

All sides agree the government has a compelling interest to protect kids from harmful material.

The bugaboo is how to allow adults access while protecting kids.

Justice Elena Kagan worried about that:

KAGAN: Seems to me that there are possible spill-over dangers either way. One is the spill-over danger of you relax strict scrutiny in one place and all of a sudden strict scrutiny gets relaxed in other places. The other is the spill-over danger of you treat a clearly content-based law as not requiring strict scrutiny, and all of a sudden you start seeing more content-based restrictions that don't have to satisfy strict scrutiny.

EICHER: In other words, if the Texas law only affected the rights of children, then rational basis would be enough. Easy. 

But this one’s not easy—because the rights of adults are involved.

REICHARD: Reading the briefs, one in particular caught my eye: from an organization called Exodus Cry that works to end sex trafficking.

It told the story of a sexual assault nurse examiner in Kansas City who noticed a horrifying trend among her young victims. They were increasingly being assaulted by other children! This woman, Heidi Olson, reviewed data from hundreds of child sexual assault cases.

The only common risk factor she found was their exposure to pornography. Children were learning how to abuse others by watching it.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

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

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

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

EICHER: Let’s begin with the California fires, David. You’re a Californian, you have a home there, offices, employees ,and I’m glad to know that you and your people are safe. Amid all the devastation for so many that’s just hard to comprehend.

That said, I do think enough time has passed that it’s appropriate to have a hard conversation about policy choices. What would you say are the big economic stories, where economics applies, coming out of this terrible disaster.

BAHNSEN: I think it's three different economic stories, and you are right that we're focusing on the economic stories here where there's so much more that could be focused on around safety, around, obviously, the human tragedy, and then there's a political bend. Yet I do agree with you enough times gone by that there's been room for some rational contemplation of where there's been political failure here, and I think there's quite a bit.

That said, the economic side of it, takeaway number one is that when the governor of California says on Meet the Press we need to waive the red tape, we need to bypass coastal commission, we need to make it a lot easier for people to get permits so they can rebuild their houses. Take out for a moment the story of the fire, take out for a moment the story of people rebuilding. What he just said is what people like me and many others have been saying for years in terms of what is needed to build more houses in California.

He made the concession because he was forced to in the political and emotional moment of all the tragedy here. But it has profound economic admission behind it—that the state of California's red tape, the excessive and, in some cases, lunatic environmental requirements for building and regulation and zoning and permits and approvals are hurting housing.

Anytime a politician says, "Well, we have an emergency, we need to do something because it'll work really well," you should at least ask, "Is there a reason that we don't make this a default policy?”

Like, what is the unique thing here that means that this is just an exception to the rule? Why is this not the rule?

Because I obviously don't believe we should run around with fire hoses all the time, but we do do that when there's a fire. But see, this is different.

This is something he specifically said to the cause of building homes quicker. But that's not fire-related in the sense that we, before the fire and after the fire, need more homes built. So he identified a path to doing so. Why should that not become normative?

That's a huge economic principle at play here, Nick.

EICHER: So you said three big economic questions, the first housing, or housing policy, what about the others?

BAHNSEN: So the issue No. 2, in terms of economics, it is one of my ongoing frustrations where Christians have not made understanding economics much of a priority. But this requires us to understand incentives, to understand risk, but most importantly, Nick, to understand unforeseen consequences.

It sounds like a good thing to say, "We're going to limit how much insurance companies can charge, and we're going to make sure that there are certain things they can't do.” It sounds like you're helping the insured.

But when you take away the ability of insurance companies to manage their own risk and regulate what's called reinsurance—where they're able to sell off some of the risk they have to other insurance companies—it gets a little more complicated financially. But it's very important.

What California did is try to limit what could be charged, mandate what had to be insured, offer a free public option that pushed people out of private insurance, and regulate the way insurance companies could manage their risk. Everything they did made it almost impossible for there to be a legitimate fire insurance option in California that caused insurance companies to leave the state.

Ultimately, there is a very predictable consequence that will be borne by the people they were supposedly trying to help. This is not bad politics, it's bad economics.

The third issue was going to be about municipal bonds. It's a real big California problem. Voters in California are suckers for munibond deals, and that has come to play here again. But I'll skip over that one in the interest of time.

EICHER: We’ve been watching with interest the confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill, and I know you took special notice of the hearing for Treasury nominee Scott Bessant. As I looked in on that, David, I was struck with what I thought was a master class in understanding and explaining economic policy.

BAHNSEN: Well, there was a lot and I think “master class in economics” is a great way to put it.

You know, it's funny there was even a little bit of political deftness as well—in how he avoided certain questions that are just inappropriate. You know the Treasury Secretary should not have to answer what he would cut from spending Congress controls what they want to spend on. So to have Congress people who do control spending, asking the Treasury Secretary what he would cut in spending, reverses separation of powers. And he avoided that politically.

But economically, he understood the importance of the bond market. He understood the importance of financial markets, not just reflecting what happens in the economy, but giving signals that are helpful in navigating through the economy. It's what we call price discovery. It's a very important concept in a market economy that prices deliver information.

Bessant understands this in a way that very few Treasury secretaries, in my opinion, have been able to understand because he is a real student of financial markets, which I believe is important. Certainly he resisted the class warfare issues that were thrown at him.

You mentioned Senators Warren and Sanders. So I am bullish on the incoming Treasury Secretary. There will be a couple things he will say and pivot on a little around tariffs that I don't totally like. But even then, I give him a little slack based on the need to appease the boss, if you know what I mean.

I think he's navigating even that with wisdom and grace and so so far I'm excited and really thought what we saw in the hearing this week should give all of us optimism that we have a good Treasury Secretary coming in.

EICHER: President Biden gave a parting shot Thursday night, warning of a billionaire oligarchy ruling the country, specifically Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg. It was music to the ears of Senator Bernie Sanders. Let’s have a listen to this, where he tries to get Bessant to agree with him.

SANDERS: Do you think that when so few people have so much wealth and so much economic and political power, that that is an oligarchic form society?

BESSANT: Well, I would note that President Biden gave the presidential medal of freedom to two people who I think would qualify for his oligarchs. So I—

SANDERS: This is not a condemnation of any one individual. I'm just asking you, with so few people having so much wealth and power, do you think that that is an oligarchic form of society?

BESSANT: Senator, I think it depends on the ability to move up and down the—

SANDERS: No, that's not really the answer. I mean, even if you had that mobility, no matter who those individuals might be. All right, but let me ask you another question …

He just wouldn’t budge. I don’t really think of Bessant as a political player but it was quite the political performance.

BAHNSEN: Well, it was, and again, he didn't come into grandstand ideologically. He was pushed into this by prodding from Senators Sanders and Warren.

He is exactly right that this is something, even apart from the politics of it or what Bessant said or what Sanders said, just for WORLD listeners to really appreciate: The difference between an oligarchy and a country that can create self-made billionaires who themselves did not come from billionaire families is a very important difference. Now, some people out there may be uncomfortable with the fact that somebody could have a billion dollars But it is very different when somebody has a billion dollars because their dad had a billion and their grandpa had a billion and their great-grandfather about a billion and they have a lot of power in a feudal monarchy that allows them to constantly have a billion dollars going down generation after generation.

That is a very different system—isn't it?—then where somebody can grow up in a poor home and start Starbucks. Grow up in a poor home and start SpaceX. Who can become a very intelligent person and take big risks, make big decisions, and benefit from it. And I believe that that is not called an oligarchy, okay?

To the extent anybody out there is worried about an oligarchy, it is when somebody has tremendous wealth as a result of tremendous political power that protects it.

Well, I have a solution for that. Don't allow so much political power in the hands of Washington D.C. Then you don't have an oligarchy. You don't have people that are wanting to use the levers of power in D.C. to protect their fiscal position.

So the argument that is anti -oligarchy is the argument Sanders and Warren hate the most, which is to limit the power of of Washington DC and further embrace the open and free-market economy that can allow people to move their station in life. Scott Bessant captured this sentiment well, Nick.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. David writes at dividendcafe.com and he’s here each week. David, have a good one!

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Today is Monday, January 20th.

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

Good morning. I’m Mary Reichard.

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

Coming next on The World and Everything in It: the college football national championship.

Twenty-five million people are expected to be watching when the Ohio State Buckeyes and the Notre Dame Fighting Irish battle for the top prize.

In years past, the championship game falls earlier in January. But this year, the NC-doubleA allowed 12 teams to qualify for the playoffs … rather than the usual four.

If not for that change, the Buckeyes might’ve been watching tonight instead of playing.

REICHARD: But the new format isn’t the only unique thing about Ohio State’s season. Several players have made national headlines for their outspokenness about their Christian faith and their on-campus evangelism.

Last week while the team geared up for one of its last practices before the big game, WORLD’s Maria Baer talked with several of these players.

COMMENTATOR: It’s intercepted! Caleb Downs has got it… and Ohio State can start… celebrating a third consecutive playoff victory!

MARIA BAER: When Ohio State clinched their spot in the national championship, star running back TreVeyon Henderson gave an on-the-field interview right after the game.

HENDERSON: It feels good man. I truly gotta thank Him…

But he wasn’t looking into the camera. He was looking up.

HENDERSON: for what he’s done on this team, for what he’s done in my life, like. He laid down his life for every single one of us so we can have life, so we can know the Lord…

This OSU team had a roller-coaster season … but routinely made headlines for sharing their love of Jesus on and off the field. It started last August, when a handful of players led a worship service in the middle of campus.

SPEAKER: Whatever you’re going through in your life, whatever you been through, I’m telling you God desires you…

The event turned into a mini revival.

REPORTER: Stars like Emeka Ebuka, Gee Scott Jr., and Trey Henderson led thousands of people at an Invitation to Jesus event on campus, where more than 50 people were baptized.

Football players have been pointing skyward after touchdowns and thanking God for wins since the sport began.

But the faith of this year’s Ohio State football team seems deeper than gestures, or a sports-themed prosperity gospel. The team weathered some big setbacks, including a devastating loss to their arch-rivals the weekend after Thanksgiving. In Ohio it’s the “team up north.” A loss to the University of Michigan is almost worse than losing a championship. Rumors swirled that OSU’s head coach might be fired.

Between the ups and downs, Christian believers on the team kept holding Bible studies and praying together.

Last week they prepped for practice at their indoor fieldhouse on a bitterly cold day in Columbus. Star tight-end Gee Scott Jr. said he and his teammates prayed more for wisdom than for victory.

SCOTT: I think truly being surrendered to Christ is the ability to sit in some of the things that he has you going through and say Lord, what do you want me to learn from all of this? Some of the losses that we’ve had this year. So that’s why we don’t place our whole priority and our whole entire life in this game. He has a steadfast love that never changes.

For Christian college athletes, the pressure goes beyond the competition. There’s the normal social pressure — the college years are notoriously tough for Christian kids, especially at a secular school like Ohio State. For these football players, there’s the added pressures of fame and money.

Since 2021, college athletes have had the legal right to earn money off their name, image, or likeness. That means players get a check every time their jersey is sold, or their face and name is used in a video game. Many OSU players have signed endorsement deals and it’s rumored that some have made nearly 5 million dollars. .

Cornerback Lorenzo Styles, Jr. is a celebrity in his own right. By all accounts, he’s headed for a promising career in the national football league right after college. His father played in the NFL before him. Styles knows it can be a tumultuous job.

STYLES: In our sport, you have to have a reference point. If your reference point is measured in your success on the field, how much NIL money you’re getting, things of that nature, it’s easy to go up and down, so to find that support within the Lord has kept this team steady.

And then there’s the pressure of the game itself. Football is aggressive and physical, sometimes even between plays. Offensive Lineman Luke Montgomery knows that tension well. His job is literally to protect his Quarterback with his body.

MONTGOMERY: Football, at the end of the day it’s a big time hitting sport, and a lot of trash talking and stuff like that, I would be lying to you if I told you I don’t do that sometimes still, I still got some of that inside of me but that’s where I’ve got brothers beside me that can go hey knock it off.

During the Cotton Bowl, Montgomery was that brother beside his teammate Treveyon Henderson, the star running back who preached the gospel in his post-game interview. Henderson was penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct in the first quarter. He threw a punch at a Texas player in anger after the whistle.

COMMENTATOR: He gets picked up, gives a little head butt, a little left hand into the face, I’m sure maybe a few things were said…

Montgomery stepped in.

MONTGOMERY: I was right there in his face telling him, calm down, you’re good, that’s not you, get back in the game, play the next play, worry about us not about them.

Montgomery and others said their relationship with Jesus influences not just how they play, but why.

MONTGOMERY: One of my favorite verses is do not worry about tomorrow for tomorrow will bring worry upon itself, I think especially when I say like the unknown… you just gotta be in the moment and continue to press on.

But don’t misunderstand. They still want to win. Here’s tight-end Gee Scott again:

SCOTT: I’m praying that He may receive the glory that He deserves, that’s my first prayer. And then the last thing is to be victorious. I’m not afraid to pray for victory.

BAER: You guys gonna win?

SCOTT: Yes!

You heard it here first.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Maria Baer in Columbus, O H-I O.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Friday, January 20th. 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. Well, it’s inauguration day. The 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies the time of day when one executive term of office ends and the next one begins: noon Eastern Time.

EICHER: Our country is one where the transition of power is a cause for celebration. But WORLD Opinions contributor John Wilsey reminds us that’s not typical.

JOHN D. WILSEY, COMMENTATOR: Since the rule of the Roman emperors, transitions of power in the West have generally taken place through heredity, oligarchic election, or civil war.

After Augustus established the Roman Empire in 27 B.C., succession was a thorny problem because Rome had been a republic for more than five centuries. Most of the emperors in the immediate aftermath of Augustus’s death had short reigns and violent deaths because army factions usually were the force behind the rise of new rulers.

The Holy Roman emperor was elected by the German dukes beginning in the 10th century. The papacy has also been decided by election by the cardinals since the 11th century.

The monarchies of Western Europe have been ruled by families. The monarchy of France was held by one family, the Capetians and their relatives, from 987 to 1848…with a few interludes resulting from the French Revolution and Napoleonic rule. England’s ruling families came from further afield…Normandy in 1066, and later Scotland, the Netherlands, and Germany.

Even with hereditary succession, civil wars among rival claimants were common, the most famous of which perhaps being the overthrow and beheading of Charles II in 1649 and the rule of Oliver Cromwell until 1658 in England. After the American Revolution and drafting of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, the founders were determined not to see the chaos resulting from succession crises threaten union and liberty.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist (number) 1 “that the vigour of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well informed judgment, their interests can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people, than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.”

Meaning a government that is just, stable, and predictable.

The Constitution provided for a government that was under the law, not above it. It outlined procedures and principles for its functions that were clearly and simply articulated. And it ensured a set of rules and systems that were difficult to change—not impossible, but difficult, so that the government’s processes could be knowable, anticipated, and certain. A just, stable, and predictable government would be the key to the security of liberty.

There has been tension in American history in the lame-duck period between Election Day and Inauguration Day. From 1792 to 1932, March 4 was the day specified for the swearing-in of a new president, first by Congress and then by the 12th Amendment. John Adams famously did not attend Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801, leaving Washington before dawn on that March 4. Adams could have contested that election, one of our most bitter, since it was decided in the House of Representatives. But he set an important precedent of laying down power and letting the constitutional processes take their course.

The only time in American history that the minority did not accept the will of the majority in a presidential election was in 1860. Abraham Lincoln received the majority of electoral votes, and 11 states seceded from the Union as a result. The spark that lit the powder keg of the Civil War was a presidential succession crisis—secessionists in the South would not accept the outcome of the 1860 presidential election.

Today, we will observe the nation’s 69th Inauguration Day. Today is a celebration of a uniquely American contribution to civilization: a peaceful transfer of power that is, by and large, assumed as a matter of course. It is assumed because it is a picture of our constitutional system: just, stable, and predictable.

When we watch Donald Trump take the oath of office, as prescribed in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, we will witness a lawful procedure according to principle and tradition. If we feel gratitude for being Americans as we witness that event, we will be entirely justified.

I’m John Wilsey.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: a first-hand report of inaugural events. And, a conversation with super lawyer Paul Clement—on what it’s like to argue before the Supreme Court.

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 says: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.” Psalm 19:1-3.

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.