The World and Everything in It: January 26, 2026

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

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: Good morning!

Today on Legal Docket, how much power does a president have over independent government agencies like our central bank, the Fed?

NICK EICHER, HOST: Also today, the Monday Moneybeat: the economic side of that question. Economist David Bahnsen is standing by.

And later, the WORLD History Book.

AUDIO: How many Marches for Life have you been to? / This is my first one!!! So excited, and I don’t care if we’re gonna have a snowstorm! / This is my first March for Life here in D.C. / Maybe 10. I’ve been coming almost every year since college.

The largest annual human rights march begun in the 1970s and continuing on to this day.

ROUGH: It’s Monday, January 26th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Jenny Rough.

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

ROUGH: Up next, Mark Mellinger with today’s news.

MARK MELLINGER, NEWS ANCHOR: Tension mounts in Minnesota over ICE shooting » The tension is reaching a boiling point in Minneapolis… after ICE agents fatally shot a protester during a confrontation this weekend, the second fatal shooting involving ICE there this month.

Leading Democrats responded by doubling down on opposing the Trump Administration’s immigration enforcement raids in Minneapolis. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz…

WALZ: This is an inflection point, America. If we cannot all agree that the smearing of an American citizen and besmirching everything they stood for and asking us not to believe what we saw… I don’t know what else to tell you.

The man killed was Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old. The Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, says he was armed… and agents, fearing for their lives, fired defensive shots as he approached them. Border Patrol Commander At-Large Gregory Bovino..

BOVINO: The suspect put himself in that situation. The victims are the Border Patrol agents there.

But critics say videos shot by bystanders and reviewed by news organizations like The Wall Street Journal and Associated Press do not clearly back up DHS’s version of events… though that doesn’t necessarily undercut agents’ claims they felt they were in mortal danger.

Those videos appear to show Pretti with a phone in his hand as he steps between an ICE agent and a woman on the street, then show agents apparently disarm him of his 9 millimeter handgun during an ensuing scuffle… before shots ring out.

Democrats across the country are demanding ICE leave Minnesota. At least half a dozen Republican lawmakers in Congress are calling for a deeper investigation of the tactics being used there.

Democrats won’t support ICE funding » In the wake of this weekend’s ICE-involved shooting, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer now says Democrats won’t support more funding for DHS.

The Senate needs to pass funding for government agencies, including DHS, this week… to avoid a partial shutdown. Schumer’s urging Republicans to drop that part of the funding and overhaul ICE.

Maryland Democratic Governor Wes Moore says a shutdown would hit his state hard.

MOORE: We’ve had over 25,000 people -Marylanders- fired. Federal workers. Just in the process of this past year. And so the impact of the federal government decisions has significant impact.

Moore on Fox NewsChannel’s The Sunday Briefing with Peter Doocy.

If the Senate doesn’t pass a series of funding measures this week, another partial government shutdown would happen Friday.

Massive winter storm causes havoc across U.S. » Sleet, heavy snow, freezing rain, and ice. From New Mexico to New England, a massive winter storm walloped the U.S. this weekend… and it’s not over yet.

Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves…

REEVES: Things are bad in a lot of areas across our state. And with the temperatures not likely to get above freezing, it’s more likely that things are going to get worse before they get better.

The storm affected more than 213 million people, with thick ice leaving hundreds of thousands without power in Southeast states like Mississippi and Tennessee. Other states got blasted with a foot or more of snow.

The storm forced more than 11,500 flight cancellations and another 16,000 delays Sunday. Some states are still seeing fresh ice and snow today, along with a bitter cold front moving in. That front could hinder efforts to restore power in some spots.

President Trump has approved disaster declarations for at least a dozen states.

U.S./Russia/Ukraine talks » Another round of trilateral peace talks between the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine is set for next weekend… after the three countries held face-to-face negotiations in the United Arab Emirates this past weekend.

No agreements so far, but Moscow and Kyiv both say they’re open to further dialogue.

U.S. diplomats say real progress has been made in reaching a possible agreement to end Russia’s war on Ukraine, though Russia’s public posture has been more skeptical.

The main sticking point is the eastern Donbas region, which Russia wants Ukraine to surrender. Ukraine is refusing.

Iran says ‘finger on the trigger’ as U.S. warships head to region » The leader of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard says his force is “more ready than ever, finger on the trigger” as U.S. warships head to the Middle East.

President Trump says he’s moving the ships in case he wants to take action against Iran’s dictatorship… for its recent crackdown on protesters, which resulted in thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of arrests.

Iran opposition figure Reza Pahlavi says action from the U.S. could inspire Iranian citizens to take down the oppressive regime.

PAHLAVI: If indeed, as President Trump announced, there will be some retaliation for them doing what they did to the people, that would give people another opportunity to finish the job.

Trump had said the killing of peaceful protesters or mass execution of people arrested could draw a U.S. military response. So far, he’s held back, saying Iran halted the executions of 800 people detained in the protests.

IU celebrates national college football title » When you’ve just completed what many sportscasters consider the greatest story in college football history, it takes more than a winter chill to keep you from celebrating.

SOUND: [Crowd cheer]

Tens of thousands of fans braved the bitter cold this weekend to see their title-winning team in person one last time, making their way to Memorial Stadium in Bloomington to celebrate the Indiana Hoosiers’ national college football championship.

In front of a TV audience of more than 30 million, the Hoosiers knocked off Miami last week to win IU’s first-ever national title… and complete college football’s first 16-0 season in more than 130 years.

Just two years ago, before the arrival of coach Curt Cignetti, the Hoosiers were best known for their long history of mediocrity… racking up more games lost than any other program.

I'm Mark Mellinger.

Straight ahead: The Supreme Court weighs President Trump’s ability to fire a Federal Reserve governor. And later: How the March for Life began, and why it endures.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST:It’s Monday the 26th of January.

Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Nick Eicher.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: And I’m Jenny Rough. Time now for Legal Docket.

Once again, a major case at the U.S. Supreme Court involving President Donald Trump. This time: Trump versus Cook.

This one goes back just five months, to August 20th, 2025, when the president posted a message on social media: Cook must resign, now!!! Three exclamation points.

He meant economist Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Trump cited allegations that Cook had committed mortgage fraud.

Two days later, reporters asked him about it. Audio from CNBC:

CNBC REPORTER: The President spoke to the media this morning in Washington, about the controversy surrounding Governor Cook.

REPORTER: Are you going to fire Lisa Cook, the Fed Governor?

TRUMP: Yeah, I’m going to fire her if she doesn’t resign. What she did was bad. So I’ll fire her if she doesn’t resign.

EICHER: Three days later, August 25th. The president again takes to social media. This time, he posts a formal letter addressed to Cook. It says he’s removing her from office under his authority in the Constitution and the Federal Reserve Act. He thanks her for her attention to this matter.

That move raises a basic question: Can a president fire a Federal Reserve governor like that?

The Fed is designed to be independent. Congress established it more than a century ago, and its seven governors serve long, staggered fourteen-year terms—so no single president can easily remake the board.

Cook was first appointed by President Joe Biden in 20-22 and confirmed to a full term the following year.

Under the Federal Reserve Act, a president can remove a Fed governor—but only for cause.

That’s what Trump’s attempting here.

ROUGH: Cook sued to stop him and save her job, and it’s already on the Supreme Court’s docket. Here’s Solicitor General John Sauer defending Trump during his opening statement at oral argument.

SAUER: Deceit or gross negligence by a financial regulator in financial transactions is cause for removal. In a two-week period in 2021, Lisa Cook submitted mortgage applications for two properties in Michigan and Georgia. In both, she told the lender that, within 60 days, she would occupy that property for one year as her principal residence.

A borrower like Cook will get a cheaper interest rate on a primary residence than a second one. But a person cannot have two of them simultaneously. Sauer said to represent both properties to lenders as her primary residence was grounds for her removal.

SAUER: The American people should not have their interest rates determined by someone who was, at best, grossly negligent in obtaining favorable interest rates for herself.

EICHER: Cook disputes that. About three months after the president said he was firing her, Cook’s lawyer sent a letter to the Department of Justice. The letter explained she had no intent to defraud the lender. It said her Michigan home was her primary residence. As far as her Georgia property, she said the line on the mortgage application naming it primary was “inadvertent.” A second document to the same lender correctly identified it as a summer home.

ROUGH: Here’s Chief Justice John Roberts asking the solicitor general about the facts still in dispute.

ROBERTS: You began by talking about deceit. Does what you said after that apply in the case of an inadvertent mistake contradicted by other documents in the record? 

SAUER: Even if it was inadvertent or a mistake, it’s quite a big mistake, so to speak, in a key financial representation made in the context of interest rates.

ROBERTS: Well, I mean, I suppose we can debate that, how significant is it in a stack of papers you have to fill out when you’re buying real estate ...

Now, let me pause for a moment.

Because if you think things sound a bit unusual right now, you’re right about that. The Supreme Court generally reviews questions of law. Not questions of fact. The trial court typically sorts out the facts. By the time a case reaches the Supreme Court, the factual record is often set. But this case came to the Supreme Court on an emergency appeal. Because Cook’s lawsuit has not gone to trial, the factual record is still underdeveloped.

EICHER: After Cook sued, the trial court granted Cook’s request for a temporary order to block Trump from removing her while her case is pending. In other words, she gets to stay in her job in the meantime.

At this stage, the Supreme Court is not deciding whether Cook did anything wrong. It’s deciding whether to reverse that order. If it’s reversed, Cook is off the Fed during the lawsuit.

ROUGH: Eventually, the oral arguments did turn to the law. And tackled a range of questions.

Let’s start with due process. Cook argues Trump violated her rights under the due process clause of the Constitution and the Federal Reserve Act by denying her fair notice and a hearing.

Trump’s lawyer Sauer said what the president did was adequate. But Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson pushed back.

JACKSON: Traditionally, when an allegation is made about someone’s misconduct, or whatnot, there’s an opportunity for that person to present evidence, for the other side to present evidence. … So what I’m trying to understand is, what is the evidence that has been presented and considered with respect to Ms. Cook’s alleged misconduct?

SAUER: Well, the removal order addresses that.

JACKSON: What is the removal order? The Truth Social post?

SAUER: No, it’s the August 25th letter. … The evidence is you have mortgage applications within two weeks of each other that make clearly conflicting representations.

JACKSON: Was Ms. Cook given the opportunity in some sort of formal proceeding to contest that evidence or explain it?

SAUER: Not a formal proceeding. She was given an opportunity in public because she was notified—

JACKSON: In the world? Like she was just supposed to post about it and that was the opportunity to be heard?

If social media was the wrong way to handle fair notice and a hearing, what would be the right way? Here’s Justice Clarence Thomas and Cook’s lawyer, Paul Clement.

THOMAS: What would the hearing look like?

CLEMENT: I mean one example we have historically is President Taft, and he sort of gave the removed officials the full Taft, and it was notice, opportunity for a full hearing before an impartial tribunal … so that’s kind of the maximum that the president could give.

At a minimum, Clement said she should get at least three things: notice, the opportunity to present evidence—

CLEMENT: And the third thing is some effort to keep the final decisionmaker from prejudging the issue. … I mean, the president can be the final decision maker, but … you know, he needs to be a little bit careful and say these are the allegations. He can’t start by prejudging the issue by saying, “Resign.”

But Chief Justice Roberts sounded unconvinced a hearing would be of much help here, given what’s already played out.

ROBERTS: I’m not sure exactly what you want a hearing for. If your argument is inadvertence, it doesn’t seem to me that there’s much you can say factually other than that. … You have one sentence to say. It was an inadvertent mistake.

Trump’s lawyer Sauer agreed. What’s happened is enough. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett saw no harm in doing more.

BARRETT: Sit down across the table in the Roosevelt Room, where the president provides Ms. Cook, Governor Cook, with the evidence and waits to hear what her response is, gives her a chance to defend herself. I mean, that just wouldn’t be that big a deal, it seems.

EICHER: Sauer insisted: The text of the statute says nothing about a formal or informal hearing. It simply says the president can fire her for cause and that’s what he did.

Courts often treat “for cause” as shorthand for serious on-the-job wrongdoing—but Congress didn’t define it that way here.

Leaving the question unanswered: What is the meaning of the term “for cause”?

Cook’s attorney wants the court to adopt a standard known as I-N-M: inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. That standard is found in other statutes that allow firing “for cause.” But, as Justice Barrett pointed out—

BARRETT: It doesn’t say INM. I mean, I appreciate your argument that “for cause” and INM are the same, but I mean … so, it doesn’t say INM.

Another issue: Cook’s conduct happened before she took office. Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

SOTOMAYOR: It’s not as if she’s been incompetent, negligent, or committed malfeasance while in office. This is something pre-office. So keeping her in-office is not causing an immediate harm to the agency.

But solicitor general Sauer argued that “for cause” gives the president broad discretion. The Court’s own precedent distinguishes between the president’s political actions that are discretionary in nature. In those cases, courts do not have the authority to review them. That’s left to the political process and the voting booth.

ROUGH: The propriety of Cook’s interim relief is technically the main issue in this case. The court will consider whether leaving the status quo causes Trump irreparable harm and what best serves the public interest.

EICHER: Just last month, the court heard a similar case involving government agencies, Trump versus Slaughter. There, the president took the position that requiring him to fire a federal trade commissioner “for cause” was unconstitutional. Here, he concedes he can only fire a federal governor “for cause.”

ROUGH: There’s lots to unpack there, but for better or worse, the Fed is treated differently than other agencies. The idea is to separate monetary policy from politics.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh thought giving the president too much control over the Fed—

KAVANAUGH: I mean that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve. It incentivizes a president to come up with … trivial or inconsequential or old allegations that are very difficult to disprove. It incentivizes the kind of search and destroy and find something and just put that on a piece of paper, no judicial review, no process, no nothing, you’re done.

Along with the Cook case, the Supreme Court handed down three opinions last week. All were short. All were unanimous. All turned on the same idea: when a law’s written plainly and constitutionally, that dictates the result. Judges don’t get a say.

EICHER: In Berk v Choy, the court said federal, not state, procedural rules govern medical malpractice cases in federal court. That matters because it determines how hard it is for patients to sue and for doctors to defend themselves, depending on where a case is filed.

In Ellingburg v United States, the court held that forcing certain defendants to pay money to the victims counts as criminal punishment, not a civil remedy. That means Congress cannot apply those penalties retroactively—and that protects defendants from being punished under rules that did not exist when they acted.

And finally, in Coney Island Auto Parts v Burton, the court enforced a time limit on challenging an alleged void judgment—bringing closure to cases that might otherwise keep the doors open.

ROUGH: And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

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

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

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

EICHER: Following up on our thorough coverage of the Supreme Court, and Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, and the president’s legal authority to fire her or any Fed officials for that matter … I do want to get into the economic side of that and we’ll get into it in a moment.

But first, something the Supreme Court did NOT do. We’d been expecting a decision last week on the scope of the president’s tariff authority.

Instead, it left that case unresolved, pushing a decision into at least mid-February.

But, David, from an economic standpoint, what is the effect of that kind of delay—especially for businesses and markets that were counting on clarity sooner rather than later?

BAHNSEN: Well, I actually understand it’s going to be the very end of February, and it’s mostly just mysterious. I mean, yeah, the delayed ability to get some sort of certainty and clarity is problematic for an awful lot of businesses, especially those that are waiting to place orders or make capital investments on their belief, or at least their hope, that there will be a pushback on this particular rationale of the tariffs.

Which does not cover all of them, but covers a pretty good portion of them. And so the main issue is not what it does to those already paying them, because I’m not totally convinced that even if the Supreme Court does rule that this rationale is unconstitutional, which I believe it is, the issue of whether or not they’re going to require refunds and rebates to those who have already paid—I’m not sure that will happen.

The issue is that a lot of people are waiting, and then you suspend certain activity, and I think markets would like to just sort of get this done.

And by the way, I think the administration would like to get it done, even if there’s an unfavorable ruling. They already have contingency plans for how they plan to move around different rationales, and they would rather just get to it than kind of have this continued limbo.

So I just really can’t imagine why they’ve chosen to delay it.

EICHER: Well, you started to answer the question I was going to follow up with about clawing back that tariff money. But I want to stay on this: If the Court ultimately rules that the president lacked authority to impose these tariffs under the legal theory he used, I’m curious about the specifics of what would happen next.

David, is there a realistic scenario where tariff revenues already collected would have to be refunded—and what would the economic consequences of that be?

BAHNSEN: Well, the effect would be wonderful. It would be great for businesses to get hard-earned money back in their pocket. But the question that you ask about mechanics is just as unknown as whether or not there will be a ruling for rebates, because there’s a ton of different ways they could do it as well.

What I do believe is that it would end up requiring some type of protocol that an awful lot of smaller businesses are not going to be able to do—the complexity, the resources, the access to the people to sort of navigate the process. So I think that’s going to be kind of a mess.

And it’s one of the reasons I’m disappointed that the appeals court made a ruling that this is just overtly unconstitutional, and yet they’ve allowed to continue collecting the tariffs through this appeal process to the high court. I think it would have been far better for everyone to do the opposite.

Say, fine, if the White House wants to appeal to the Supreme Court, we can do it, but the appellate court ruling stands in the meantime, because now what you’ve done is you’ve allowed a lot of these collections to take place, and it represents a very arduous process to get it undone.

But it is very interesting. I have people ask me, like, oh, what a mess it would be if they have to give the money back. And I’ve never understood that. I think it’s a lot better for the economy for the government to give money back to the businesses than for the businesses to give money to the government.

EICHER: Now to Lisa Cook: not the legal issues but the economic issues. You were not in favor of Lisa Cook being appointed in the first place when she was appointed by President Biden—but you also have said there’s something to be said for an independent Fed … versus a Fed that simply carries out the wishes of the president, regardless of who’s president. But why? Why is that important?

BAHNSEN: Okay, let me make this real simple. I do not believe Lisa Cook should have been appointed to the Fed, just in my own assessment of her qualifications. But she was legally appointed by a president, confirmed by the Senate.

I do not believe that it is clear she broke any law on a mortgage application. It is absolutely clear that she hasn’t even been indicted or arrested or accused of such—that we’re only allegedly in the middle of some preliminary investigation. So nobody could even come close to claiming, with a straight face, that there’s been due process.

I am totally open to the idea that people do not believe the Fed’s personnel should be immune from being fired by the executive branch. A lot of people believe, no, they should be allowed to be fired without cause, at the discretion of the president. But that is not the way it is set up now.

And so there would have to be legal adjustments and clarity to this part of the way the Federal Reserve Act works. But with all that said, I also don’t believe that anything should be done pretextually.

In other words, if the reason it’s being done is just merely because she’s voting a way we don’t like, and so we go find a rationale like, oh, she called a vacation home a primary, allegedly, then that also undermines due process and truth in the court system.

And of course, President Trump was a victim of such things. And so the sort of disingenuity and lawfare of it is troublesome to me.

But your question—the important one economically—is why is that independent Fed issue important to begin with? And the high-level answer there is just that, in theory, and we’ve never had a president who, all things being equal, wouldn’t love a central bank to goose the economy to their favor.

That there are long-term things that bad monetary policy does, but short-term benefits from monetary policy. And presidents do four-year terms.

And so President Clinton was livid with Alan Greenspan for raising rates in 1994, and President Nixon was livid with Arthur Burns in 1971. And no one’s really taken it as far as President Trump in terms of public critique.

But the notion of not even a pretense of separation between fiscal and monetary policy is where you get Japan, where the Bank of Japan and the president of Japan are kind of one and the same.

And I believe that in America, it isn’t totally separated now, but regardless, I think that there’s a real benefit in not going all the way. That’s why this issue is important, even though Lisa Cook’s situation is kind of a small part of the whole story.

EICHER: Finally, I want to ask about the World Economic Forum in Davos. There was plenty of drama and no shortage of headlines.

But filtering out the noise, did Davos actually deliver any meaningful economic signal this year — or was it mostly a showcase of elite anxiety disconnected from what markets are doing?

BAHNSEN: No, not substantively economic. There were a lot of things said, and I think some of the more significant parts of the week were primarily geopolitical, and just speaking to various shifts in the rules-based order.

But on the economic side, because President Trump kind of pivoted away from what he had announced he was going to speak on—which he was going to use Davos to release a lot of a housing plan, is what had been sort of leaked from the White House—and then it ended up being all about Greenland and this other stuff, I think that more than likely the next speech we’ll get with any economic meat on the bone is likely to be the State of the Union.

EICHER: All right.

David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. He writes at DividendCafe.com and has a new article out at WORLD Opinions as well.

David, glad you’re able to duck the weather out in California … we’ll just slog through it here … and I hope you have a great and productive week. We will talk to you next time.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much Nick.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: Today is Monday, January 26th. Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day.

Good morning. I’m Jenny Rough.

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

Up next on The World and Everything in It: The World History Book–the March for Life’s past…and present.

Here’s WORLD’s Lindsay Mast.

LINDSAY MAST: In late 1973, just months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, a group of pro-life advocates gathered at the Washington, D.C. home of attorney Nellie Gray. The group included New Yorkers who had been fighting abortion legislation there…and now wanted to take the cause to Congress.

NELLIE GRAY: Those same people who were seasoned pro-lifers said that America could not let January 22 go by without memorializing that Infamous date in American history.

Audio from the Conservative Roundtable:

NELLIE GRAY: I was involved by sheer geography. I live in Washington and they wanted to meet in Washington. They met in my home one evening and put together the very first March for Life.

Gray said some 20,000 people joined the first march. But the group soon realized Congress had other priorities, so they decided to march again the next year, and the next.

NELLIE GRAY: After we had the very first March we saw that we were going to have to have more marches and since I was the one in Washington they used my house they used my phone and that's the way you become President of the March life.

The group has been marching ever since. Current President Jenny Bradley Lichter:

JENNY BRADLEY LICHTER: Throughout this year as we celebrate the founding of our beloved country…never forget that the United States of America was built on the foundation of the right to life. [Applause]

In 2022, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dobbs case overturned Roe v. Wade and sent the issue of abortion back to the states. That’s meant many who come to the march now go home to new political battles in their state legislatures.

WORLD’s Washington Producer Harrison Watters was at this year’s March and spoke to dozens of participants.

KIEDROWSKI: My name is Isaac Kiedrowski.

JENNIFER CHRISTIAANSE: Jennifer Christiaanse

BEN KEECH: Ben Keech.

GINA CLEMENT: Gina Clement.

PAUL BARRON: Paul Barron.

CLAIRE SEEVERS: My name is Claire Seevers, and I’m from Central North Carolina.

JOSUE SIERRA: My name is Josue Sierra, and I’m from Cecil County, Maryland.

WATTERS: Where are y’all from? 

HIGH SCHOOL BOYS: Michigan.

CARLA STRUCKHOFF: I’m from St. Louis, Missouri.

EMILY BROWN: I'm here with my college. We’re from Wisconsin.

SARAH FORD: And we’re from Kansas.

WATTERS: Why would you say you’re here?

RUBY STEDMAN: I’m here because life matters and we can’t just passively stand up. We have to show people that we stick to the guns and we do what we say we’re gonna do.

ANGELICA BERENDSEN: I’m here because I believe in the right to life from conception until natural death.

ANNA TOOTOO: I’m here because I want my kids to experience I want them to experience the March for Life, because it was a good experience for me, but I want them to see that there are other people that are like minded.

MARIO JACOME: Well, I’m here because I'm marching for life. I think abortion is evil and we should really protect the lives of innocent babies.

WATTERS: And tell me what your sign says. 

JENNA PIWOWARCZYK: Oh, my sign says “Your mom chose life.”

CHRISTOPHER PINO: It says, “Get married, have kids. You won't regret it.” I just think that's really powerful by Charlie Kirk.

VERA MILLER: It says, “If I am worth something later, I am worth something now.”

JESSICA CAMPOVERDE: My sign says “My clump of cells is 15 years old, and she's standing right next to me.”

JENNIFER CHRISTIAANSE: The back of my sign says, no flex on Hyde. The president has recently said that the pro life movement has to flex on the Hyde Amendment, and we are opposed to federal funds going to abortions, and we think that that's wrong.

J.D. VANCE: I know that there is still much road ahead to travel together. Take heart, take heart and how far we’ve come, but don't lose sight of why we march, and so long as you are out there marching for life, I hope you know that the Vice President of the United States will march with you. God bless you all! 

WATTERS: How many Marches for Life have you been to? 

JESSICA CAMPOVERDE: This is my first one! I’m so excited! And I don't care if we're gonna have a snow storm!

PAUL BARRON: This is my first March for Life here in D.C.

LAUREN CLEMENT: This is my second.

YVONNE HORNER: My family, starting with my parents back in the 70s, have been coming almost every year to the March for Life.

WATTERS: Who would you say you you’re marching for today?

MARIO JACOME: I’m marching for all those that didn’t get the chance to be born, and for all of those who are currently in the womb.

LAUREN CLEMENT: I’m here marching for anyone in my life that I could have met, but I had the opportunity taken away by unlawful killing.

WANDA WOLF: All those ladies who have aborted their babies, and now feel the conviction. I pray for them that they will have peace in their heart.

CALEB STEINDEL: I would say I'm marching for family members and for my lost sibling.

LILY DOAN: I’m marching for Belle. Belle is a four year old who is at my church who her mom was considering an abortion, but thankfully, chose to keep and save her baby’s life. Belle is a gorgeous four year old little girl.

WATTERS: What does it look like to be pro life in your home state?

SIERRA: Maryland is tough. You know, with Governor Moore, they've just expanded abortion on demand. It's really a tough state for the unborn.

CECILIA LEMANOWICZ: I would say it’s difficult because I’m from New Jersey, and we do have a pro-life movement there, but it’s very small.

STEINDEL: The fight for life has to happen in each state, and so that means in our state, in Pennsylvania, fighting for legislation on the ground that’s going to protect life.

MICHAEL KAUCHER: We have a fight in our legislature over life. You know, there’s a lot of push to advance abortion, but there's a lot of us standing strong, you know, and there’s always hope, and we’re ready to stand and defend life.

JESSIE DAGGETT: In the UK, there’s a very strong contingent of like counter protesters, and it can become quite tense. But here, it’s very positive, a very loving environment. Everyone’s here to celebrate life, and life is a gift.

PETE BLOCK: And I feel like more and more people are just coming to the realization that, you know, the truth, it’s not a clump of cells. It's not just, you know, it’s, they’re babies.

KATHY BLOCK: We feel that there’s people fighting for the babies now like that, are that are in the positions that can make a difference, make a huge difference. So it’s very it’s more of a joyous year, I think.

ADELAIDE HELWIG: I mean, it’s an exciting time. It’s fun to be there. I think I’m discouraged, just that there’s not more political movement and, like, actual change, like, I think some of the changes have been very small when we’re really fighting for equal rights for the unborn.

JENNA PIWOWARCZYK: Oftentimes, except for when Roe v Wade was overturned, a lot of times, our side can kind of feel like we're, you know, getting lost in the mud, getting lost in the news cycles. But obviously, we're here. I'm here with my school. I’m here with a bunch of other people who believe in the pro-life cause. So it keeps me coming back keeps me feeling invigorated.

DEMONSTRATORS: Make abortion unthinkable! Make abortion unthinkable! Make abortion unthinkable! 

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: the U.S. has officially left the World Health Organization–we’ll have a report. And, Kim Henderson with a story on young equestrians. 

That and more tomorrow. I’m Nick Eicher.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: And I’m Jenny Rough.

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 Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters. He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.

You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever.” —Psalm 23

Go now in grace and peace.

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