The World and Everything in It: June 23, 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!

The US Supreme Court say states can protect children from gender interventions—because it’s simply not the same thing as sex discrimination.

GIRGIS: Whether you’re a male or female minor, you’re subject to the same rule.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Expert analysis coming right up on Legal Docket.

Also today the Monday Moneybeat, what happens if our lawmakers do nothing about the national debt. Hint, you’re not going to like it. David Bahnsen is standing by.

And the WORLD History Book. Today, the start of the Korean War.

NEWSREEL: While the world wondered, communism marched again.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, June 23rd. 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: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR:  Iran: Deterring escalation » The Pentagon has positioned a massive show of force in the Middle East to send a strong message to Iran: Do not retaliate for weekend airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites.

Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies:

MONTGOMERY:  There's a carrier strike group, just, uh, uh, south of the, uh, strait of Hormuz. There's a second carrier strike group coming through from the Pacific, uh, the Nimitz Strike Group to join them. And then through the Red Sea, we have several destroyers.

He says the Red Sea Destroyers are designed to guard against attacks by the Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

And he adds that another five Destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean are tasked with helping to shoot down ballistic missiles fired into Israel. More on that momentarily.

President Trump made clear in remarks after those airstrikes:

TRUMP:  Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.

But the president stresses that the strikes were limited strictly to Iran’s nuclear facilities and that the U.S. does not want to have to fire on any other Iranian targets.

Iran: retaliation » Iran did quickly retaliate against Israel, launching dozens of ballistic missiles and drones at Tel Aviv, Haifa, and other cities.

Air defenses, including those U.S. destroyers took out most of the incoming threats, though more than 20 people were wounded.

But Iran is also threatening a response against the United States. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi:

ARAQCHI:  The U.S. administration holds sole and full responsibility for the consequences of its actions, including the Islamic Republic of Iran's right to self-defense under the principles of the United Charter.

He said Iran reserves “all options” in responding to the U.S. strikes.

American troops and bases in the Middle East are on high alert. And the State Department has taken precautions to better safeguard personnel abroad.

Iran: Assessing damage » With smoke still rising from several key nuclear sites in Iran, the US military is working to determine exactly how much damage it achieved.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine said Sunday:

CAINE:  Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction.

Seven B-2 stealth bombers dropped a total of 14 so-called ‘bunker buster’ bombs. They’re also known as MOPs, short for Massive Ordnance Penetrators.

They each weigh 30,000 pounds, and they are the only conventional weapons in the world, capable of threatening facilities buried under hundreds of feet of rock and concrete.

CAINE:  This was the largest B2 operational strike in US history and the second longest B2 mission ever flown.

The bombers departed from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.

Only the U.S. Air Force B-2s can be equipped with those particular bombs.

Iran: Reaction & debate (Washington) » On Capitol Hill, opinions are sharply divided on President Trump’s decision to order those strikes.

Democrats immediately criticized the move. Congressman Ro Khanna:

KHANNA:  Now you are gonna force Iran, uh, to go covertly in developing this nuclear, uh, material. Now you've put American troops at risk. Now you're wasting billions of our dollars because we're sending more troops to the Middle East.

Many Democrats also say the president was constitutionally obligated to seek authority from Congress. And at least two Republicans have said the same.

But most GOP lawmakers say the War Powers Act gave the president all the authority he needed. Congressman Greg Steube:

STEUBE:   He has the authority to protect our service members to be able to take military action when he deems, uh, authorized under the US Constitution.

Iran: Debate over strike (global) » Reactions have also been mixed around the world.

Iran’s two largest allies, Russia and China, strongly condemned the airstrikes. But notably, they’ve signaled no interest whatsoever in coming to Iran’s defense militarily.

And UN Secretary-General António Guterres also criticized the strikes as a—quote—“dangerous escalation” and a “perilous turn.”

GUTERRES: We now risk descending into a rat hole of retaliation after retaliation.

A number of European leaders have stopped short of criticizing the move outright … but called for restraint and de-escalation.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also serving as acting national security adviser responded. He said even countries that are publicly critical of the strikes:

RUBIO: Privately, they all agree with us that this needed to be done. They gotta do what they gotta do for, you know, their own, uh, public relations purposes. But the only people in the world that are unhappy about what happened in Iran last night is the regime in Iran.

But British Prime Minister Keir Starmer seemingly voiced support, affirming after those strikes that Iran—his words “can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.” Though, he too is now calling for de-escalation.

And Israel, of course, is expressing gratitude. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he asked President Trump for help in destroying those key Iranian nuclear facilities.

NETANYAHU:  I told him of our need to act. He understood it very well, and I knew that when push comes to shove, he would do the right thing. He would do the right thing for America. He would do the right thing for the free world. He would do the right thing for civilization.

Israel assessed that Iran could have been merely weeks away from a nuclear weapon a fear supported by recent reports from the UN’s nuclear watchdog agency.

Church gunman » In Michigan police say a security guard at a church in suburban Detroit stopped a gunman who had rammed his pickup truck into the church and then opened fire.

The Wayne Police Department says officers responded to an active shooter Sunday morning at CrossPointe Community Church. Arriving officers discovered that the security guard sustained a gunshot wound to the leg. but had shot and killed the suspect. No one else was hurt.

Police are still investigating the incident.

NBA Finals » The Thunder made history last night in game-7 of the NBA Finals.

The last time the franchise captured the Lary O’Brien trophy was 1979, but the team was then the Seattle Supersonics.

The Oklahoma City Thunder got it done in front of the home crowd last night, beating the Indiana Pacers 103 to 91.

I'm Kent Covington. 

Straight ahead: the Supreme Court releases more opinions. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat with David Bahnsen.

This is The World and Everything in It.  

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 23rd 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.

MONTAGE: Good morning. We are coming on the air with breaking news from the U.S. Supreme Court. / Breaking news, the Supreme Court has just released a major decision upholding a Tennessee / ban on gender affirming care for transgender minors. / It's an important decision. / This is a heartbreaking ruling for transgender young people. / The ruling was six to three / a 6-3 decision today, the justices ruled that the state’s law did not violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. / Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent the outcome in this case, quote, authorizes, without second thought, / untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. / If everybody starts following suit, then we're just stuck. I mean, I don't know what that would mean for us. / The states get to do what they want, if they want to pass bans, if they want to keep things just as they are, they're able to do it, but we as the court are not going to be the final arbiters of that. / The White House released a statement saying, in part, quote, today's landmark ruling by the Supreme Court is a victory for our Constitution … and common sense. / Tennessee not alone here, / roughly half of states have a ban that is similar to the one in Tennessee,  and this focuses on access to certain medications that can facilitate a gender transition.

That’s one of the monumental cases of this Supreme Court term. And as resounding as it was, and as alarmed as the three dissenting justices were, Mary’s analysis of this case does come with a bit of a cause for concern: Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion does accept some of the assumptions of gender ideology and she’ll tell you about that in just a few minutes. We’ve got a lot to cover.

REICHARD: Right, but before we do, let’s give a quick update on the June Giving Drive. If you remember back in the first week, we had an initial challenge gift, and it took you just three days to exceed it! Then the next week came a second, larger challenge gift and guess what? We can report it was just another three days and you exceeded that! So it’s going great. Thank you for your support, and if you haven’t given yet and you’ve been thinking you want to we are down to our last week of the drive and we do still need your gift.

EICHER: We do, and every gift goes to journalism, more strong analysis, more in-the-field reporting, more daily news in print, online, and on-the-air, more of what you rely on from WORLD.

For our part we simply rely on you; when we say “listener supported,” we mean exactly that. Please go to WNG.org/JuneGivingDrive. If you benefit from the kind of analysis you get with Legal Docket, if you benefit from the wisdom of people like David Bahnsen and John Stonestreet, if our reporting from Washington and around the world, frankly, if that reporting is worth supporting, then please make that known in this June Giving Drive.

It’s time for Legal Docket.

The case U.S. v. Skrmetti drew attention as the most significant ruling on how the Constitution applies to laws about transgender medical interventions.

REICHARD: I called up an associate professor of law at Notre Dame Law School to talk about the decision. Sherif Girgis focuses on constitutional law and served as clerk for Justice Samuel Alito:

GIRGIS: The Supreme Court … said that that law is okay under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Girgis explained what that clause means:

GIRGIS: It shows up in the 14th Amendment…adopted after the Civil War. It says no state shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws.

But not every law that treats people differently violates that clause. And that’s because some classifications—like those based on race or sex— require a higher bar to justify infringing on the rights of people based on those traits.

Girgis says this case turned on whether Tennessee’s law used one of those so-called suspect classifications.

GIRGIS: You’re allowed to apply puberty blockers to deal with early puberty. But you’re not allowed to apply them to any minors if the goal of the treatment is to relieve gender dysphoria or to help the minor approximate the opposite sex. Whether you’re a male or female minor, you’re subject to the same rule.

EICHER: That’s the difference: medical purpose, not gender identity. To return a body to normal physiology, not change for reasons of asserted mental health.

The decision says the law merely regulates a specific use of treatment for gender transition.

That’s the argument made by Tennessee’s lawyer Matthew Rice in December:

RICE: The Equal Protection Clause does not require the states to blind themselves to medical reality or to treat unlike things the same.

Justice Alito raised a key question during oral argument in this exchange with Chase Strangio, the lawyer arguing to strike down Tennessee’s law:

ALITO: Are there individuals who are born male … who at one point identify as female but then later come to identify as male,... Are there not such people?

STRANGIO: There are such people. I agree with that, Justice Alito.

ALITO: So it’s not an immutable characteristic, is it?

REICHARD: Girgis says that exchange goes to the heart of the court’s reasoning: whether gender identity is an immutable trait. The court has a test for that:

GIRGIS: And that test looks to a couple different factors. So whether as caselaw puts it, a discrete and insular minority based on an immutable characteristic, and whether that group lacks political power, where there’s a history of discrimination against the group, and whether the trait in question has any reasonable connection to policy concerns. And on those fronts, the justices said transgender status should not trigger heightened scrutiny.

EICHER: Justice Elena Kagan dissented. She thought heightened scrutiny was appropriate here—but said lower courts should sort out the facts first.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor went further in dissent, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in full. That dissent faults the state for approving a law that relies on sex stereotypes.

That raises the question of the meaning of words. Recall the infamous exchange between Senator Marsha Blackburn and then–Judge Jackson during her confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court.

BLACKBURN: Can you provide a definition for the word “woman?”

JACKSON: Can I provide a definition? No. I can’t.

BLACKBURN: You can’t?

JACKSON: Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.

REICHARD: If a judge must be a biologist to define the sexes, how can a justice rely on arguments about sex stereotypes?

That incoherency aside, the majority pointed out the law is not about sex stereotypes —it’s about health concerns and potential regret. And that’s a legislative call, not a judicial one.

GIRGIS: The fact that there’s uncertainty is an extra reason in the court’s view for the courts to defer to lawmakers. So lawmakers have all kinds of means at their disposal: to try to wade through the empirical medical, other sorts of evidence on both sides of an issue. They can hold hearings, they can bring in experts to testify, they can question the experts. They can commission studies. They can do all kinds of things. Courts are more limited in the resources they have to examine those issues.

And then there’s the matter of states rights:

GIRGIS: In the courts view, in general, it's for the states to make the kinds of controversial empirical and medical judgments that are involved in regulating health. And the states are owed a margin of deference from the courts on that front. So the fact that there's controversy and change and flux on these issues just makes it that much harder harder for the court to overcome its default of deferring to the states on health policy.

I asked Girgis what this ruling might mean going forward in other contexts. For example, if women’s sports can exclude biological males as a matter of policy:

GIRGIS: It'll be hard for people to say those other policies are unconstitutional because they discriminate against transgender identifying people… And then at least three of the justices are on the record now saying we don't even think that laws that do discriminate based on gender identity should trigger heightened scrutiny, and so that might influence how lower courts think about that question.

Girgis studies the intersection of law and religion, so I asked about that:

GIRGIS: People do also have religious beliefs about these issues, based on a Genesis vision of male and female being kind of original parts of the created order and valuable… and complimentary and equal.

And from those angles, then you'll face a question, if you're an employer, if you are running a school, if you're in these other capacities in civil society where you want to honor your own beliefs about men and women in the public square, I think there's a cultural impact to the court saying those distinctions are reasonable.

REICHARD: One other note we referenced at the top: On page 12 of the opinion, and you can read this yourself, the Chief Justice referred to a biological female as a “he.” I’ll read it: 

“When, for example, a transgender boy (whose biological sex is female) takes puberty blockers to treat his gender incongruence, he receives a different medical treatment than a boy whose biological sex is male who takes puberty blockers to treat his precocious puberty.”

So two kinds of boy … and one of them is a girl … in a Supreme Court opinion upholding a state law protecting children from this kind of confusion.

And that’s a problem, because laws and the judges who interpret them need to be precise in language. It’s a false premise to just take a person’s subjective feeling as reality. Accepting ideological language moves the culture in directions for which courts aren’t well-suited.

Still, the key legal takeaway is the court’s rational-basis standard of review—and that will be useful in future cases involving gender ideology … green-lighting legislatures and not just at the state level.

EICHER: Alright, in a 5-4 opinion in Perttu v Richards, the Supreme Court ruled that when there’s a fact dispute over whether a prisoner completed the prison’s internal grievance procedure, that’s for a jury to decide. Not a judge.

The dispute centers on a 1996 law called the Prison Litigation Reform Act. It aimed to reduce frivolous lawsuits filed by inmates.

But inmate Kyle Richards alleges the process failed him. He filed a grievance, but the prison staff allegedly destroyed it.

REICHARD: Mike Fox with the libertarian Cato Institute supported Richards:

FOX: You wind up with a situation where the person who’s responsible for taking the reports or the claims just destroys them. And then the prisoner never gets his day in court.

Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority said the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial.

FOX: Justice Roberts, in his opinion, did note that, you know, increased litigation concerns cannot override constitutional rights...

The decision means Richards’ case can proceed. But it doesn’t mean it’ll necessarily succeed in the end.

EICHER: Fox says he would’ve preferred a unanimous opinion instead of a split, but:

FOX: It doesn't matter. So it's like if you pass the bar exam by one point versus 100 points. You're still a lawyer.

The four dissenters argued the law doesn’t mention jury trials, so courts ought not read that into it.

Well now, we’ll end today with four more decisions, and we’ll do them in brief.

REICHARD: Yes. And this opinion had court watchers laughing, because it’s 2025 and the case is about faxes.

One 24 year old commenter on a Supreme Court blog had to ask: “What’s a fax?”

Replies poured in, for example: “It’s when an email and a phone call have a baby.” Another: A fax is “a big paper tweet.” And: “I’d tell you, but first you’d have to know what a land line is.” (laugh)

EICHER: Anyway, in a 6 to 3 ruling the Court sided with a small medical practice that sued the McKesson Corporation for sending unsolicited “big paper tweets.”

The majority says trial courts don’t have to follow the FCC’s definition of what counts as a fax under this law

REICHARD: Next: a 7–2 decision about sentencing limits for people on supervised release.

Edgardo Estaras had served time for heroin possession. While out on release, he fired a gun during a domestic dispute. The judge gave him more time—citing the need to “promote respect for the law.”

EICHER: But the Court said no. Judges can’t use that as a sentencing factor. The law lays out what they can consider, and promoting respect is not one of them.

Justice Sotomayor said as much during oral argument:

SOTOMAYOR: What you are basically saying is you can use anything you want, District Court Judge; you just can’t use it for this purpose.

REICHARD: Next, a loss for disabled workers who retire early.

Karyn Stanley fought fires in Florida for 19 years. Parkinson’s forced her to retire early. She thought she’d keep health insurance coverage until age 65—but a policy change meant it would end after just two years.

She hadn’t known that. So she sued, claiming disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

EICHER: But the Court ruled 7–2 against her. The ADA doesn’t cover retirees—only “qualified” individuals. And the Court said she no longer qualified.

So she loses about $1,000 per month in health benefits.

REICHARD: And finally today, a unanimous decision that closes American courts to terror victims seeking justice from foreign entities.

Ari Fuld was an American-Israeli stabbed to death in the West Bank. His family sued the PLO under an U.S. anti-terror law.

But the court said not so fast. PLO’s lawyer Mitchell Berger had the winning argument back in April.

BERGER: Nobody likes pirates, right? Pirates have been bad from the founding. Nobody ever thought that even though piracy is a crime against humanity or it's a crime that fits in the Define and Punish Clause, that, certainly, the United States can define piracy as an offense, but the United States does not try pirates in absentia…

EICHER: Same goes for foreign terror groups: No U.S. trial with no U.S. ties.

REICHARD: And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

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

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

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

EICHER: I do want to spend some time on the national debt—I appreciated the work you put into Dividend Café on that topic, and honestly, I don’t think we can talk about it too much.

But that said, the U.S. direct strike on Iran has massive implications, even if we can’t anticipate them all just yet.

So between that, the spike in oil prices after Israel’s initial strike, and all the usual noise around the Fed, interest rates, and earnings season right around the corner—it feels like a lot is swirling. How are markets handling the mix?

BAHNSEN: Well, it’s difficult in a week like this—so captivated by geopolitical and foreign policy stories playing out in the Middle East. Obviously, the impact on oil markets was significant. That story had actually begun a week ago—we talked about it last week—but the ongoing uncertainty paused a bit of market activity.

There was some indication of movement into safety, but equities didn’t sell off. I don’t think you’re looking at a big risk factor. The Fed did exactly what we expected: they didn’t raise rates and stuck to a status quo approach. They still seem to think they’re going to cut a couple of times by the end of the year.

But I think, right now, the big questions are how the Senate is going to get this big, beautiful bill through—and, of course, where President Trump is going to go with some of his decisions around Iran. Those are major issues.

In the meantime, we’ll be into the month of July soon enough, and then a new quarterly earnings season begins. Companies will start reporting how they did in Q2, starting in mid-July. That’s probably the next thing I’m focused on—finding out what companies are saying about the impact of the uncertainty back in April, when President Trump was first threatening those really draconian tariffs.

So, there are a few things lingering out there, Nick. All of them are interesting—but that’s kind of why they say markets never sleep.

EICHER: So let’s return to the question we started with: What if Washington does nothing to address the national debt? Given the political incentives and track record, inaction seems not only likely—it seems almost inevitable. So what does that mean? If Washington continues down this path of doing essentially nothing to fix the debt mess, what happens next? What are the long-term consequences?

BAHNSEN: Well, I think the problem is that the way in which they do nothing is not necessarily totally clear either. There are different ways you can do nothing—and I know that sounds kind of counterintuitive—but along the way, certain things will become more evident. The question is how they respond to those things, which don’t all happen at one time.

That’s one of my big criticisms of this whole issue. A lot of people have this view in their minds that there’s this big buildup of national debt, and then one day there’s kind of an explosion—like a bomb going off. And then the question becomes: what are we going to do after the bomb has gone off?

I don’t think that reflects a real, careful understanding of history or of how debt-fueled financial problems actually unfold. It isn’t often that there’s just one big moment. More often, there’s an eroding effect over time.

The argument I make in Dividend Café is that the most likely scenario is the one we’re already experiencing. That is: a slow effect on growth over time—in other words, downward pressure on economic growth. And it doesn’t come in one moment. It comes, as T.S. Eliot talked about, as a whimper, not a bang.

I think this hasn’t yet been as bad as some would have predicted. But I still consider it a really significant development in American economic growth. We’re all just used to growing 30 to 40 percent less per year than we were accustomed to for the 70 to 75 years after World War II. That impact, over time, becomes really problematic for the opportunities our kids and grandkids will have.

In terms of the eventual changes that I think are all but inevitable—changes to Social Security, changes to Medicare—what I’m arguing is that if nothing is done, those changes become forced. Then they come with higher magnitude, at greater speed, and with more pain.

What I’m not arguing is that there’s some scenario where, if we just act now, we can avoid pain altogether. Pain is definitely unavoidable at this point.

EICHER: And that’s just it, isn’t it? We go to great lengths—and I shouldn’t presume to speak for everyone, just for myself—but I’m definitely a Thomas Sowell devotee who understands there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Still, we find ourselves wanting a silver-bullet solution, even though we know in our rational minds that one doesn’t exist.

That said, if you could implement a single structural reform, what would it be? Would it be something like a balanced budget amendment? And in the unlikely event that Washington were ever inclined to act, what’s the one change you’d prioritize?

BAHNSEN: I don’t believe there’s one silver bullet—and I don’t believe that even the most obvious one addresses the national debt directly. What that one does—which is, most definitely, the first and most important thing I would suggest—is simply to stop adding to the problem. It’s basically a way of saying: “Okay, before we fix the damage that’s already been done, let’s at least stop digging.”

So yes, I do think some form of balanced budget amendment, combined with other spending reforms, is necessary. But even then, we’re still not dealing with the current level of debt. We’re just trying to contain the annual deficit.

If you’re asking what we need to do to really address the debt—what that silver bullet would be—anything that doesn’t start with entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is a complete waste of time. That’s the issue. That’s where it has to start. That’s the low-hanging fruit.

I use an analogy all the time: imagine a household where 40% of the monthly expenses are the mortgage, and they’re a few thousand dollars over budget every month. But instead of addressing the mortgage, they focus on their Wi-Fi bill. Most of us would just laugh at that. What are you really accomplishing by trying to shave $20 or $40 off your bill when you’re thousands of dollars overextended?

In a way, that’s what our national fiscal situation looks like. The big, screaming, obvious issue is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But we talk as though we can tweak a few things around the edges—turn a knob here, a knob there—and somehow make a difference.

Look, I want to turn all the knobs we can. I don’t want to waste any money. But if we’re serious about dealing with the debt and the country’s unfunded liabilities, it has to begin with a meaningful, grown-up conversation about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

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 23rd. 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. NASA investigates unpredictable space weather to see how it affects us on Earth.

But first, the sudden outbreak of the Korean War leaves the Western world scrambling to respond. Here’s WORLD’s Emma Eicher.

NEWSREEL: Close on the heels of discussions of far East strategy … comes news that communist troops have invaded Southern Korea …

EMMA EICHER, REPORTER: In 1950, tensions are running high. The end of World War II splits Korea into two distinct regions: the communist North with its Soviet occupiers, and the southern Republic.

There are goals to unify the country, but negotiations turn sour between Russia and the West. Even the United Nations has no solution.

Then, on June 25th, the simmering unrest bursts into all-out war. Audio from British Pathé.

NEWSREEL: While the world wondered, communism marched again.

North Korean soldiers attack strategic spots along the border—called the 38th parallel. They advance south and easily overtake the Southern capital of Seoul on June 28th.

The United States immediately joins forces with the U.N. and South Korea to repel the invasion President Harry Truman appears in front of the army reserves to make the announcement.

NEWSREEL:ANNOUNCER: He proudly speaks of the momentous decision to defend Korea.

[clapping]

TRUMAN: Gentlemen, we face a serious situation. We hope we face it in the cause [for] peace. The only reason for the action … was hoping, always hoping, that we finally arrive at the peace in the world which we anticipated when we created the United Nations. That’s the only reason for the action, thank you very much.

Truman sends his best general, Douglas MacArthur, to command the troops. But the communist forces are relentless, eventually pushing the Western army up against the tip of the peninsula. There’s nowhere else to go, and it seems like the North might eke out a victory.

SOUND: [Gunfire]

Then, in September, MacArthur launches an amphibious landing behind enemy lines at Inchon beach. It’s called Operation Chromite.

NEWSREEL: As the first wave lands, carrier aircraft, guns and rockets shift their attention to the mainland …

Marines clamber out of warships, surprising North Koreans in the assault, and the tide finally turns in favor of South Korea. The army gains ground and pushes the enemy back to the border.

NEWSREEL: And so the biggest landing since D-Day races to its successful climax. Planned and mounted in secrecy, whilst the cause on land seemed lost, the invasion to end the war quickly is pulled off. The daring trap is sprung. The rest is time.

And time it would take. After three more years of war, North and South Korea sign an armistice where both countries are left much the same as they were at the end of World War II. And 75 years later, the 38th parallel still divides the free South from the authoritarian North.

Next, NASA gets curious about the sun.

Audio from the Goddard Space Flight Center.

GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER: [HUMMING]

ALEX YOUNG: You’re actually hearing the vibration of the sun. It almost has a warmth to it … it’s just enough where I can almost feel the sound on my skin or on my clothes …

As part of its deep dive into heliophysics—or, sun science—NASA launches the IRIS spacecraft on June 27th, 2013 (twenty-thirteen). The craft’s real name is the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph—so, IRIS for short.

The sun has a thin layer around it called the chromosphere—between the sun’s visible atmosphere and the surface. As it orbits the star, IRIS takes images of the chromosphere, gathering data. That data—called “spectra”—is sent back to engineers on the ground.

IRIS’s specific mission is to examine solar flares, so scientists can find out how they affect us on Earth. How, for example, do they cause radio blackouts, damage satellites, and knock out power grids?

And IRIS leads to even more scientific knowledge after that:

YOUNG: The sun is vibrating at lots of different frequencies. And … we can use those vibrations in the sun to look inside the sun.

This year, on June 11th, another sun-orbiting mission captured the first ever images of the sun’s north and south poles. The European Space Agency’s Solar Orbiter spacecraft uses data from the poles to examine the star’s magnetic field, among other things.

Audio from Space.com.

AUDIO: We’re going to places where no other solar telescopes have been before, we’re going to be very close to the sun to take very high resolution images of the sun …

Scientists are hopeful that the best is yet to come, as the Orbiter is already unraveling many of the sun’s mysteries.

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: a new study reveals how dangerous abortion pills really are for women. And, can Fidelity Month help move Americans back toward God and family? We'll talk to the founder of the movement. 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 Psalmist writes: “With my voice I cry out to the Lord; with my voice I plead for mercy to the Lord. I pour out my complaint before him; I tell my trouble before him.” —Psalm 142:1, 2

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.