The World and Everything in It: June 2, 2025

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

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! Today on Legal Docket: a wrong address and a SWAT raid. The Supreme Court wants to know how much checking is enough before the flashbangs fly.

GORSUCH: How about making sure you’re on the right street? Checking the street sign. Is that asking too much?

NICK EICHER, HOST: The high court takes up the question of what happens when federal agents kick down the wrong door.

Also today the Monday Moneybeat, economist David Bahnsen is standing by. Today we imagine he’s king for the day.

And the WORLD History Book, remembering a major flood almost 80 years ago.

NISTLER: Oh, the dike broke, the dike broke … So we jump on our bicycles.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, June 2nd. 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: Time for the news. Here’s Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: FBI investigating ‘targeted terror attack’ » The FBI is investigating what it referred to as a targeted terror attack in Boulder, Colorado.

A man reportedly wielding Molotov cocktails attacked a group of people who had gathered Sunday to draw attention to Israeli hostages still being held by Hamas in Gaza.

One witness described the alleged attacker:

AUDIO:  Shirtless and was yelling with, with some kind of accent and was threatening to burn people.

Boulder Police Chief Stephen Redfearn:

REDFEARN:  The initial callers indicated that there was a man with a weapon and that people were being set on fire. The, uh, initial response by our officers, we were on scene very quickly. Uh, when we arrived, we encountered, uh, multiple victims that were injured, uh, with, uh, injuries consistent with burns and other injuries.

Video footage of the incident shows an officer with his gun drawn advancing on a bare-chested suspect with containers in each hand.

Redfearn says officers took the suspect into custody without incident.

Gaza ceasefire latest » And in the Middle East, Israel and Hamas are seemingly no closer to a ceasefire to bring more hostages home.

Republican Sen. Dave McCormick spoke Sunday after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He said the U.S. should continue to pile pressure on Hamas.

MCCORMICK: There cannot be a military body from Hamas standing when this war is done.

Hamas responded to the latest US proposal with a list of new demands, which President Trump's special envoy, Steve Whitcoff, called “totally unacceptable.”

He said the U.S. proposal is the only way to close a 60 day ceasefire deal in the coming days.

The proposal calls for a truce leading to the release of 10 living Israeli hostages, and the bodies of more than a dozen captives killed in Gaza.

Ukraine peace latest » Negotiators from Ukraine and Russia are set to meet for peace talks today in Istanbul.

But two U.S. senators are warning that Vladimir Putin is preparing to ramp up Russia’s offensive while pretending to have interest in peace.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal:

BLUMENTHAL:  He is in effect stalling and stonewalling, prolonging the conversation so that he can mount this offensive and take control of more territory on the ground.

Blumenthal and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham spoke after traveling to Ukraine and then meeting with French President Emmanual Macron in Paris. Sen. Graham said Sunday:

GRAHAM:  We saw credible evidence of a summer early fall invasion, a new offensive by Putin. He's playing the game at the peace table. He is preparing for more war, and I think the Senate is fed up with Putin.

The senators are urging swift support for a sweeping sanctions bill to sever the economic lifeline fueling Russia’s war. They say U.S. Congress and Europe may have just two weeks to act.

President Trump last week said he was holding off on new sanctions against Moscow a little longer to allow more breathing room for peace talks.

Steel tariffs » Meantime, Treasury Secretary Bessent said China is violating the terms of what was effectively a ceasefire in the US-China trade war.

BESSENT:  They are withholding, uh, some of the products that they agreed to release during our agreement. Uh, maybe it's a glitch in the Chinese system. Maybe it's intentional.

The two sides last month agreed to ratchet down tariffs as trade talks continued.

Trans athlete wins medals in California » In Oregon, two female high school athletes over the weekend staged a quiet protest over being forced to compete against a male so-called ‘trans’ athlete.

As their names were called during a girl’s high jump award ceremony, they stepped off the podium and turned away.

AUDIO (award ceremony): Fourth place honors from Sherwood, Reese Eckard. In third place from Tigard, Alexa Anderson

In a statement, Reese Eckard and Alexa Anderson said they acted not out of hate but out of necessity. They said someone has to say this isn’t right.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has launched a Title IX investigation in Oregon for forcing girls to compete against male athletes.

A Title IX investigation is also underway in California after officials there allowed a biological male to compete in a girls track and field event.

Canada wildfire, smoke in US » In Canada, authorities have evacuated more than 25,000 residents in three provinces as dozens of wildfires continued to burn.

Most of the evacuations were in Manitoba, which declared a state of emergency last week.

The fires have caused major air quality concerns, not just in Canada, but across much of the United States as well.

Bryan Jackson with the National Weather Service.

JACKSON:  Over the Dakotas into Minnesota. Uh, so the Eastern North Dakota, South Dakota into Western Minnesota. Uh, there's a, um, good concentration of smoke there.

The air quality concerns stretch as far south as Georgia and the Carolinas.

The USDA’s Forest Service deployed an air tanker to Alberta and said it would send 150 firefighters and equipment to Canada.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: mistaken identity, constitutional rights, and legal remedy. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat with economist David Bahnsen.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 2nd day of June, 2025. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Mary Reichard.

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

First, a little primer on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It says “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

REICHARD: To be secure in your house, safe in your home. That’s the relevant part of the Fourth Amendment we’ll be talking about today.

Specifically: What happens when government agents disrupt that security.

CURTRINA MARTIN: I was asleep.

October 17th, 2017, about 4:30 in the morning. This audio is from the Institute for Justice.

MARTIN: All of a sudden I hear a lot of banging.

IJ’s client. Curtrina Martin.

MARTIN: Bang, bang, bang.

EICHER: Martin and her boyfriend Toi Cliatt were sleeping when a SWAT team showed up to raid the house. 

Six FBI agents in tactical gear, guns drawn, shouting commands. A flashbang grenade exploded in the dark.

Martin’s son Gabe was just seven back then:

GABE: It was like two guns put in my face at like one time. I was just really nervous. That was my main focus, like, I didn’t want to get killed.

Cliatt remembers trying to make sense of what was happening:

CLIATT: The bang was so loud and so abrupt. I just remember landing on my feet out of the bed. It startled me. So immediately that’s what came to my brains: someone had broken into the house and I need to protect everyone.

REICHARD: Problem was, the agents had raided the wrong house. They entered the correct address into GPS, but the system led them astray, by about 400 feet, to a house that looked similar: corner lot, big tree out front.

MARTIN: The one and most important thing that sticks out to me is my child, being alone, by hisself (sic) in a room, underneath the carpet shaking, shivering from fear because someone was standing over him with a gun.

Only after agents noticed a piece of mail with a different address and people who didn’t match the suspect’s photo did they realize the mistake.

They apologized, left, and told Martin she could call for compensation.

She did that, but the compensation didn’t come.

Martin lost wages. Her son was traumatized. The therapist needed to be paid.

MARTIN: At the time I was a track coach. And I had to give that up because the trauma from the grenade, at the starting line when they shot the gun off for the runners to start, it would send me through a frenzy.

EICHER: So, Martin and Cliatt sued under Georgia law, making claims like negligence and false arrest. She also sued under a federal law, the Federal Tort Claims Act. Congress passed the FTCA back in 1946. The point of it was to allow citizens to sue the federal government when it does them harm.

Let’s take a moment to understand some background law.

Normally, you can’t sue federal agents. Before 1946, the only way was to ask Congress to pass a private bill just for your case. You can imagine this is time consuming and expensive.

That’s why the Congress approved FTCA.

REICHARD: Then about 30 years later, Congress amended FTCA after a string of drug raids at the wrong houses in Illinois. That 19-74 amendment was called the “law enforcement proviso.” It lets victims sue for certain intentional acts by federal officers— things like assault, battery, wrongful arrest, and false imprisonment. 

But over the years, courts carved out a big exception: Government would not be held liable if the officer’s conduct was discretionary (meaning the officer used his own judgment) and that judgment, that use of discretion, is grounded in considerations of public policy. 

So if a court finds those two things, that’s when sovereign immunity kicks back in. Then you can’t sue.

EICHER: At the Supreme Court, Patrick Jaicomo of Institute for Justice represented Martin.

JAICOMO: There’s no such thing as a discretionary, intentional tort. …If even proviso claims Congress amended the statute to affirmatively guarantee are barred by sovereign immunity, what is left of the Federal Tort Claims Act?

In other words, what happened to Martin is what the 1974 amendment was created to fix.

The government’s lawyer Frederick Liu didn’t deny a mistake, but argued it just doesn’t rise to a constitutional or legal violation.

LIU: The officers here were weighing public safety considerations, efficiency considerations, operational security. The idea that they didn’t want to delay the start of the execution of the warrants because they wanted to execute all of the warrants simultaneously. Those are precisely the sorts of policy tradeoffs that an officer makes in determining, well, should I take one more extra precaution to make sure I’m at the right house.

REICHARD: Justice Neil Gorsuch cut to the absurdity of letting government agents violate rights under the guise of “discretion.” Listen to this exchange with Liu for the government:

GORSUCH: No policy says: “don’t break down the wrong house, the door of a house?”

LIU: No, I — I — excuse me. Of course—

GORSUCH: And don’t traumatize its occupants? Really?

LIU: Of course, it’s the U.S. policy to execute the warrants at the right house, but state…

GORSUCH: I should hope so.

Liu reiterated those policy considerations of the officers: public safety, efficiency, operational security.

The exchange with Justice Gorsuch got more prickly:

LIU: Those are precisely the sort of policy tradeoffs an officer makes in determining, well should I take one more extra precaution to make sure I’m at the right house? Here petitioners suggest for example that the officer should’ve checked the house number…

GORSUCH: Yeah, you might look at the address of the house before you knock down the door?

And it continued on like that:

LIU: That sort of decision is filled with policy tradeoffs.

GORSUCH: Really.

LIU: Because checking the house number at the end of the driveway means exposing the agents to potential lines of fire…

GORSUCH: How about making sure you’re on the right street? Is that, is that, (laughs) Just the right street.

LIU: (Stammers)

GORSUCH: Checking the street sign. Is that asking too much?

EICHER: Lawyer Jaicomo for the family had the last word during rebuttal:

JAICOMO: There's no question that there was no policy here ... .If you really, really meant to drop the pizza off at the right address, it doesn't matter, you still need to give a refund if you drop it off at the wrong address….

Winning here wouldn’t mean an automatic payout. Just a day in court to try to win one.

REICHARD: Alright, the justices handed down one opinion last week. It was a case about trains, oil, and how far environmental reviews should go. The court ruled that they went too far. We covered this case back in December and have a link in today’s transcript: It’s Seven County Infrastructure Coalition versus Eagle County.

The justices were unanimous in the decision, but not for all the same reasons. The case will end up narrowing the scope of a federal environmental law known by the acronym NEPA … the National Environmental Policy Act.

EICHER: At the center of the case is an 88-mile stretch of railroad in the Uinta Basin of Utah. The track connects oil producers in that remote area to the national freight network—so they can ship crude oil all the way to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

Environmentalists had sued. They argued that the federal board that approved the project looked only at the 88 miles of new track—and not the broader effects… not the potential for spills or emissions in Colorado, not the increased refinery activity thousands of miles away in Texas and Louisiana. That argument did persuade a lower court and the judge blocked the project.

REICHARD: That’s what the Supreme Court reversed. It said the law, NEPA, allows for a check, not a chokehold. In other words—quoting from the opinion—NEPA is a “procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock. The goal of the law is to inform agency decisionmaking, not to paralyze it.”

That means federal agencies must review the direct environmental effects of the projects they approve—not every distant or downstream consequence that might happen later. Bottom line: it’s a win for infrastructure and energy development, and a signal that courts won’t stretch NEPA beyond its original design.

EICHER: Finally, a news item: last week the FBI’s deputy director Dan Bongino announced on social media a new probe into the leak of the draft of the Dobbs decision in 2022. That’s the decision that overturned Roe v Wade and sent abortion policy back to the states.

Here’s Bongino on Fox News explaining why:

BONGINO: The place has taken a reputational hit. There is zero question about it. There are a lot of bad actors, one of them’s still out there causing us all kinds of trouble. So we had to fix it and rebuild public trust. One of the ways to do it is these cases of significant public interest that matter.

REICHARD: Marshal Gail Curley’s 8-month investigation turned up no culprits. Her probe received criticism in part because the justices were not asked to sign sworn affidavits as others with access to the draft opinion were. She was investigating her superiors, which also created a conflict of interest that undermined the credibility of the investigation.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

NICK EICHER, HOST: Just last Friday, these golden voices wrapped up this year’s World Journalism Institute collegiate program … and it was a remarkable two weeks of Dordt University hospitality. And thanks to the generosity of WORLD donors, 32 aspiring journalists were able to train this year in Northwest Iowa. And now here they are, the WJI class of 2025, united by one mission—and made possible by you.

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

EICHER: 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, Nick, Good to be with you.

EICHER: Nice piece of writing in your latest Dividend Café, David, or should I say “Your royal highness, David, king for a day”? You’re obviously responding from readers saying, what would you do if you had the power to set policy—and a lot of great ideas.

But in brief … and the whole thing is worth the read … but you noted debt-to-GDP has exploded … and what’s driving is is spending and not taxes … you say entitlements are the elephant in the room … that pro-growth policies matter, but they must be lasting—and your hypothetical Dave-Land reforms illustrate the hard choices we face economically.

So let me start on entitlements … and for this we return from Dave-Land to present-day USA … is there a single entitlement change that you believe has a chance of gaining bipartisan support?

BAHNSEN: I’ll do you one better. I think one of the biggest things isn't just that it has a chance. It’s inevitable. It’s a question of whether it happens proactively and preemptively—or for some people against their will—and that is changing the age of eligibility for Social Security.

Anybody receiving benefits, nothing changes, and anyone in their 60s and getting closer to that date, nothing changes. But imagine some sort of modest adjustment in eligibility age for benefits, higher for people in let’s say their mid 50s, and higher still for people in their 40s and younger. My suggestion was age 68 if you’re between 50 and 55, and then age 70 if you’re under the age of 50. I not only think it has a chance, Nick, I think it’s just so absolutely, fundamentally obvious that they’re going to have to do it.

Just a few years of eligibility change, multiplied by that population, multiplied by that benefit. We’re not talking about one of these typical small fixes. This is massive.

So, ironically, as much as we have all talked about Social Security forever—and so many people have gone through, “oh, I’m never going to get it”—because we always talk about how hard the thing is going to be. There’s so many criticisms of the program, how inferior it would be to people just being able to have invested on their own. Yet, there’s societal acceptance of a need for some social safety net.

Social Security is by far the easiest of the three between Medicare and Medicaid—Medicaid because of the political toxicity and the severity around the people it impacts, and Medicare because of the complexity and the size. You’re talking about a basically universal program for seniors, those two are going to be much harder than Social Security.

There are a couple others that I included, the cost-of-living adjustment, means-testing the COLA adjustment. I really do think that has a very good chance, because a person by the name of Barack Obama once suggested it. His opponents suggested it, both John McCain and Mitt Romney. So, you had bipartisan support for it back then, and they couldn’t get it done, even with a popular president.

But the other idea I had, I’ll throw it out there, was one I think is just a really good idea, and yet I don’t know that it has the ability to happen, which is just offering a significant number of people of the right means a buyout, but at a big discount. And I mean a discount from the discount. In other words, it would be something people would be sacrificing to take, but they would be taking an upfront amount of money versus an ongoing stream. That cuts out that liability for the government, for the taxpayers forever.

So many companies have done this with their pension fund, without a severe discount and had a very, very high participation rate. I’ve seen enough data to convince me that you’d have a lot of people that don’t really rely on their Social Security at all that would be happy just to take an upfront check and be done. I think it would save $2- or $3-trillion.

EICHER: On a different note, Elon Musk’s stint leading the Department of Government Efficiency—DOGE—has ended after the statutory limit. He poked fun at the “big, beautiful bill” on his way out.

But in real-world terms, politicians do respond to voters. How do you convince the public it’s time to accept painful cuts? What’s the most effective way to build that consensus?

BAHNSEN: Nick, one of the most influential books in my life was a book by a man named Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions. He laid out what he called the “constrained vision,” and basically identified it as the fundamental difference between conservatives and non-conservatives. The idea is that we accept the imperfectability of things and want to make the best of situations. He has a very famous line that is important in economics: that there are no “solutions,” only trade-offs.

When it comes to DOGE, you’re not going to get things perfect. There’s going to be pain and messiness around any attempt to make things more efficient, or to purge out fraud, waste and corruption.

That said, your question is, how do we persuade the public? While we can’t do it perfectly because of the constrained vision, we certainly don’t need to agitate. We don’t need to make the task of persuasion even harder than it already is. We’re not going to make all the people happy all the time, as another wise man once said.

But I think to go about doing something that’s already going to be unpopular, already going to be messy, already subject to constraints, there needs to be a conscious effort to do it diligently and with precision. Not to be putting wrong information on a website and taking it back every single day. Not to announce that you saved $8 billion and then say, “I meant $8 million.” Not to bring the chainsaw out.

I think that we had talented people who are used to in Silicon Valley blowing things up. You can’t blow things up when you’re trying to persuade the people. You have to go about things with a bit more, I guess, technique. That’s what I would say.

I don’t think the stuff that they want to do in DOGE is undoable. It just can’t be done perfectly. None of it can be done without collateral damage, constrained vision.

But it can be done without purposeful agitation, and regrettably, I think they got off on the wrong foot with this, and the public turned against it.

EICHER: Let’s talk about one more thing you’ve said you’d like to see: a rules-based Fed. So I’ll point out the Fed now has very specific targets, using specific data points the government publishes—seeking 2% inflation, full employment. What exactly would a “rules-based” Fed look like compared to the current system?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, no, what I mean by rules is rules in terms of how they administer monetary policy.

They can say we have a target to get to 2% inflation, or we can say we have a target to get to full employment, but that’s not a rule as to how to get there. That’s a goal for where you want to go. So yes, wanting stable prices and wanting full employment are both goals, but the rules are not in place for how to get there.

The way monetary policy is administered, consciously, legally, purposely, explicitly, is at the discretion of the Federal Open Market Committee. They are to go use their own open-market transactions at their discretion to decide what they think the interest rate should be. They have other policy tools as well, but the setting of the federal funds rate has become the primary policy tool available. That isn’t subject to a rule - it’s subject to discretion. And so my view is that a rules-based Fed further constrains but also limits the temptation of intervention, using discretion to intervene.

This is, by the way, why so many people are against it, because they view the discretion and the intervention as a feature, not a bug.

EICHER: All right, David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer at The Bahnsen Group. He writes regularly for WORLD Opinions, and at dividend-cafe.com. David, thank you so much. We’ll see you next week.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, June 2nd. 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. In 1948, Vanport was a bustling shipyard city in Oregon. Thousands of African-Americans worked side-by-side with whites, and they managed to avoid major strains on racial relations. At least, for the most part.

EICHER: There were some issues: Vanport and the neighboring city of Portland still enforced strict housing discrimination at the time. Then, a sudden, tragic disaster on Memorial Day upended life as everyone knew it. And it changed the city and its citizens forever. WORLD’s Emma Eicher brings us the story.

BOB NISTLER: Back in the day, you're talking about 1948, May 30, the real Memorial Day. And so then we had what they call the Vanport flood.

EMMA EICHER: Bob Nistler was only 14 years old when floods demolished the city of Vanport, Oregon.

It’d been an odd spring—first, it was freezing until mid-May. Then, it suddenly got really hot. And it’d been raining for days.

NISTLER: Anyhow, we got a letter from Army Corps that said, Oh, don't worry about the flood. They said, we'll let you know a few days ahead of time if there's any danger.

There’s a lot of water in Vanport, then a city of more than 18,000. It’s built on wetlands and sandwiched between the Columbia River and another waterway, called the Columbia Slough. About 5 miles of levees had protected the city from flooding since it was founded in 1943.

Those levees kept water out while locking in a unique culture. At the time, Vanport was known for its unprecedented level of racial integration since the ship-building industry there had hired thousands of African-Americans.

But some white residents grumbled and most neighborhoods were segregated, as Vanport still had major housing discrimination. And it was much worse in the larger city of Portland.

Then came 1948. The winter ice was melting fast. Too fast. And the rain didn’t help either.

Something had to give. And it did.

NISTLER: We heard somebody say, Oh, the dike broke. The dike broke, and it was probably four miles, couple two, three miles up … So we jump on our bicycles and ride up there.

Nistler’s “bike” was just an orange crate with handlebars and a couple of wheels. But it did the job. He and a neighbor kid streaked up to the levee to see the damage for themselves.

NISTLER: Just see the opening, the opening, and the big thing was probably 15, 20, 30 feet wide. And by the time we seen it, that water just roared through there.. It was getting bigger, so we took off, rode our bicycles back and told Mom and Dad.

His mom was recovering from gallbladder surgery—so they loaded her into a neighbor’s car. But there was no room for anyone else. And Nistler’s brother Joe was up in the hills with the family car.

So Nistler and his dad decided to wait for Joe to come back to make their getaway.

They waited, and waited, but Joe didn’t show up. The flood kept rising—and would ultimately plunge the entire city underwater.

NISTLER: So then we decided, well, maybe we'll run up here to get to the bus … Well, we got up to the bus … and all at once, you could see the water coming down and coming up to the bus. And so we turned around and run back home.

Nistler’s family lived on the bottom floor of an apartment complex. They ran up the stairs and started breaking into people’s apartments on the top floors … trying to get as high above the flooding as possible.

At one point, Nistler glanced out the window—and saw a very strange sight. About a half-mile away, they could see another house floating.

NISTLER: And there was a couple standing in the front looking at us, looking around …

Then, Nistler’s building started floating, and the waters carried them away.

NISTLER: The water come and picked us up, and we went into that slough, then all at once that just kind of stopped there and just kept raising the water and all at once it starts moving. It moved down … come to a bridge.

When the flood finally set them down, the Nistlers tumbled out onto dry land. They started back as the waters around them roared into the Columbia Slough.

But as they walked, the flood rose around them again. So they took shelter in another apartment building. Twilight fell as they waited for rescue.

NISTLER: We, see a boat way over there and so we waved at the boat. So they come and picked us up and took us out …

Nistler’s family was safe, and so were most of the Vanport citizens. But the flood took the homes of almost everyone. City officials teamed up with the Red Cross to help feed and shelter as many people as they could.

And there was a silver lining to the disaster. The racial integration that was so unique to Vanport spread to Portland. Whites opened their homes to welcome black families, and hired displaced black workers. The state of Oregon finally had to reckon with discriminatory labor laws and housing practices.

As for Nistler and his family, they moved a couple hours away to start their lives all over again.

NISTLER: We moved out to McMinnville and bought a small farm at that time, that was 1949 …

Bob is 91 now, but he still loves to tell the story of being washed away in a floating building.

With thanks to WORLD’s Bonnie Pritchett who interviewed Nistler for this week’s WORLD History Book, I’m Emma Eicher.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: Regulating artificial intelligence.

Also, the ongoing funding debate over NPR and PBS.

And bad psychiatry: Tomorrow we’ll hear from the former med school administrator who was demoted and ultimately lost his job after speaking out against gender ideology.

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 Apostle Paul wrote: “The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.” —I Timothy 3:1-3

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.