The World and Everything in It: March 3, 2025

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

At the Supreme Court: a debate over the power of federal agencies, and it all may turn on the rules of grammar:

GORSUCH: I mean, isn't that how you learned your high school grammar, that you don't use the present-perfect tense for something that's wholly completed and in the past?

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

Also the Monday Moneybeat, the president touts an immigration gold card to reduce the debt. David Bahnsen is standing by.

Later, the WORLD History Book. Today we remember an Austrian Christian who stood up to Hitler.

AUDIO: I can’t swear loyalty to Hitler. I can’t do what I believe is wrong.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, March 3rd. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

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

REICHARD: It’s time for the news. Here’s Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR:  Security summit in London » European leaders held a security summit on Sunday in London to shore up support for Ukraine. That followed Friday’s fiery clash at the White House between Presidents Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer hosted the gathering.

STARMER: Our starting point must be to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position now so that they can negotiate from a position of strength. And we are doubling down in our support.

He also told 18 fellow leaders that every allied nation must step “up their own share of the burden.”

And with the relationship between the White House and Ukraine’s government now more strained than ever, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said …

MELONI:  I think it is, uh, very, very important that we avoid the risk that the West divides. And I think on this, UK and Italy can play an important role in bridge building, I'd say.

And to the point, Starmer said the UK and other nations have agreed to work with Ukraine to formulate a plan, and they will then discuss that plan with the United States.

Reaction to White House blowout with Zelenskyy » Reaction to that Oval Office argument between Trump and Zelenskky has been predictably split in Washington. Democrats accuse President Trump — and Vice President JD Vance — of mistreating Zelenskyy. Sen. Chris Van Hollen:

VAN HOLLEN:  I saw the meeting as a despicable display of bullying by the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States against somebody whose country is at war with Putin.

But the White House said Zelenskyy was antagonistic and rude during the meeting. And House Speaker Mike Johnson added on Sunday:

JOHNSON:  I hope and pray, frankly, that President Zelensky will come to his senses, come back to President Trump, uh, express gratitude as he should, you know, apologize for his behavior there.

Hopes of still completing U.S.-Ukraine economic deal » Trump and Zelensky had been expected to sign the agreement at the White House, until the Oval Office meeting went off the rails.

But many leaders in Washington and in Europe are expressing hope that both sides will still eventually sign that agreement.

British Ambassador to the U.S., Lord Peter Mandelson told ABC’s This Week:

MANDELSON:  Quite apart from the economic gain that Ukraine will derive from that, it will also give the United States a stake in Ukraine's future.

And with the U.S. more directly invested in Ukraine’s future, many have felt that that agreement could help pave the way for lasting peace and security in Ukraine.

The deal would include, among other things, U.S. access to rare earth minerals in Ukraine.

Israel latest »  Israel says it's stopping all humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip after the first phase of the ceasefire deal with Hamas ended Saturday. That drew condemnation from the UN and aid groups.

But Netanyahu said Sunday that Hamas steals the supplies, and that much of it never reaches the Palestinian people.

NETANYAHU: It uses these supplies to finance its terror machine, which is aimed directly at Israel and our civilians. And this we cannot accept.

He also said Israel has adopted a U.S. backed proposal. The plan would extend the temporary ceasefire for 50 days. Hamas thus far has rejected that proposal.

Pope health » The Vatican says Pope Francis has remained in stable condition, and has not needed any mechanical ventilation. It was a sign that his respiratory function was improving as he continues his recovery from double pneumonia and a respiratory crisis. But doctors again said his prognosis remains guarded.

Cuomo running for NYC mayor » Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is attempting a political comeback, launching a campaign for mayor New York City. He told supporters on Sunday:

CUOMO:  We are here today because we know New York is in crisis. But we know something else. We know that we can turn this city around and we know we will.

The campaign marks a return for a yearslong exile over a barrage of sexual harassment accusations. The scandal forced his resignation as governor in 2021.

He takes on a large field of primary opponents including the incumbent, Mayor Eric Adams, who for now remains under indictment on federal corruption charges.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: robocalls and mandatory sentences on Legal Docket. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat with economist David Bahnsen.

This is The World and Everything in It.

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

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. It’s time for Legal Docket.

People complain about Robocalls , with good reason.

ROBOCALL AUDIO: Hey again, this is the Tax Guru. / We could resolve any of those IRS tax issues you might have. / My records show / my computer shows / our files show that you still owe some back taxes / some back taxes owed / some back taxes still due. / 
I’m calling to inform you how to apply for them to be forgiven. / It's super fast / give us a quick call / so reach out quickly. / We need to sign up this week. / 
My number is 607 / Um, my direct callback number is 855

Junk voicemails, junk emails, even junk faxes.

Two chiropractic businesses say they received unsolicited junk faxes from the McKesson Corporation. So they sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. But here’s the twist: the Federal Communications Commission later ruled that ads sent by fax aren’t covered by the TCPA. So the lower courts tossed out the lawsuit.

ROBERTS: We'll hear argument next in Case 23-1226, McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates against McKesson Corporation. Mr. Wessler.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Five years ago, in PDR Network …

EICHER: Now the Supreme Court is deciding whether judges must follow the FCC’s interpretation—or whether they can interpret the TCPA differently.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson saw benefit in going along with the agency interpretation:

JACKSON: Wasn't it trying to establish finality, predictability, uniformity?

That’s the same argument the fax-sender McKesson makes.

After all, the FCC has the authority to issue that rule excluding faxes. And under another federal law called the Hobbs Act, courts almost always have to follow it.

REICHARD: But Justice Neil Gorsuch worried about letting agencies make rules nobody can later challenge, citing a prior case called Corner Post. That held that even longstanding agency regulations can be challenged if the plaintiff’s injury is new.

GORSUCH: ….then we're going to have the Corner Posts of the world who are going to come in and say: I wasn't alive, I wasn't there, I wasn't in business. And we've said the statute of limitations allows them to file their claims. That's got to mean something, right?

EICHER: You might think the Supreme Court ended agency deference last year, when it overturned the so-called Chevron Doctrine. 

That now-defunct doctrine held that courts must defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. 

It was such a landmark case, Chief Justice John Roberts announced it from the bench in 2024:

ROBERTS: We start from first principles. The framers of our Constitution assigned to the courts, not the political branches, the responsibility and power to say what the law is, as Chief Justice Marshall famously put it in Marbury against Madison. And they expected courts to do so by applying their own independent judgment…

In short, Chevron is both wrong and increasingly irrelevant…The time has come to leave it behind. Chevron is overruled.

But this case isn’t about deference; it’s about jurisdiction.

REICHARD: Even with Chevron out of the way, the Hobbs Act still prevents lower courts from ignoring agency rules unless an appellate court overturns them.

Legal beagles are watching closely. Some argue that if courts can disregard agency rulings, what’s the point of having agencies?

We’ll know how the justices think about this by the end of its term in June.

And now our final case:

ROBERTS: Hewitt versus United States and the consolidated case …

EICHER: Tony Hewitt was convicted of conspiracy and bank robbery among other things. 

The law involved is a newer law called the First Step Act. It reduces certain mandatory sentences. In this case, Hewitt’s sentence was vacated before the Act passed, and then after it passed, he was resentenced. 

So does the First Step Act apply to him in the resentencing? Hewitt hopes so. Here’s his lawyer Michael Kimberly:

KIMBERLY: After decades of urging by sentencing judges and the Sentencing Commission, Congress in 2018 enacted Section 403 of the First Step Act. The point of Section 403 was to override Deal against the United States, which called for extraordinarily harsh mandatory-minimum sentences even for first-time offenders. In enacting this override, Congress had to balance two countervailing values: first, justice in sentencing, and, second, finality of judgments.

REICHARD: For the other side, the court designated lawyer Michael McGinley to defend the lower court ruling. (You’ll hear why in a minute.)

MCGINLEY: Petitioners do not qualify for retroactive relief under Section 403(b) of the First Step Act… Petitioners each indisputably received a sentence before the date of enactment. It makes no difference that their sentences were later vacated after that date for unrelated reasons. This is the most natural, common sense understanding of the text read as a whole.

EICHER: The reason the Court had to appoint someone is because Hewitt’s lawyers and federal prosecutors wound up agreeing with each other—during the course of the appeal!

The government started out saying the law should not apply retroactively. But by the time Hewitt was resentenced, the government flipped ,and now says the law should be applied retroactively.

And that’s why the Court had to appoint someone else, McGinley to defend the ruling below.

REICHARD: The argument was equal parts statutory interpretation and grammar. Justice Gorsuch:

GORSUCH: Mr. McGinley, would you agree that the present-perfect tense usually refers to something that has a continuing effect?

EICHER: I’ll admit, I must’ve dozed off during the grammar lesson on the present-perfect tense, because I had to look it up. Turns out it’s the verb tense we use for something that happened in the past but still matters now. You build it by pairing “have” or “has” with the past participle—for example, this comes easily to mind, “I have eaten.”

REICHARD: Right—and for me, the past act of having eaten doesn’t just matter; it’s crucial, because you try explaining legal concepts on an empty stomach … not so easy! So, with that bit of grammar behind us, let’s return to the Gorsuch question: Would you agree the present-perfect tense usually refers to a thing that has a continuing effect? Here’s McGinley’s answer … as he continued defending the lower court’s ruling …

McGINLEY: I think the Chicago Manual of Style says it either can be that or something that has been completed.

GORSUCH: …-I mean, isn't that how you learned your high school grammar, that you don't use the present-perfect tense for something that's wholly completed and in the past, with no continuing effect?

Justice Brett Kavanaugh worried about disparities in sentencing people.

KAVANAUGH: The point -- the reason why I'm concerned about this case -- and the government's obviously been on both sides of this, so I feel good about that in terms of my own thinking --is there are still disparities, like really, really big disparities, and really big unfairness even under your reading, which, usually, when we say, well, the literal reading can't be right, it's because the non-literal reading makes more sense in context. And, here, there are still going to be big-time disparities.

EICHER: Justice Jackson suggested that Congress deliberately carved out relief for defendants like Hewitt.

JACKSON: And what I can't understand is why there's a difference between people who have sentencing to be coming because their prior sentence was vacated versus people who have sentencing to be coming because they weren't sentenced before. If you can't give an answer to that, I don't understand how you can win.

REICHARD: Justice Alito lightened the mood:

ALITO: Well, it's always fun to talk about grammar and -- (Laughter.) --and usage.

(react a little)…going on to give a much-better example of context-dependent present-perfect tense:

 ALITO: Anybody who won a gold medal at the Olympics can participate in a particular parade. And, in context, that would probably mean that somebody who won a gold medal that was later revoked due to violation of doping rules would not be entitled to march in the parade. Okay But -I could give you a thousand examples of situations in which present-perfect tense is used to refer to an event that doesn't have continuing --that does not continue up to the present. Were you ever employed as a dishwasher? Yes, somebody who washed dishes in college would answer yes. Were you ever a member of the Communist Party? Have you ever been a student at X college? …So it all depends on the context.

The justices’ questions suggest a split on how to interpret the words of the statute. If they rule against Hewitt, he and others could face decades of additional time behind bars. If they rule for him, the First Step Act will apply more broadly to those awaiting resentencing.

EICHER: Finally, the Supreme Court handed down four decisions, we’ll hit those quickly.

First, Glossip v. Oklahoma: Death-row inmate Richard Glossip will get a new trial after prosecutors failed to correct false testimony. State Attorney General Gentner Drummond:

DRUMMOND: I do not believe that Richard Glossip is innocent. I believe him to be guilty. But I believe him to not have been given a fair trial.

By the way, Justices Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Cases two and three were unanimous. Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers: The court held that an affiliate’s profits can’t be included in trademark damages, unless the affiliate itself is a defendant. And Waetzig v. Halliburton: A voluntarily dismissed age-discrimination suit can be revived after an unsuccessful arbitration.

REICHARD: Final case: Lackey v. Stinney, the Court said no attorney fees for drivers who sued Virginia over license suspensions, because the state repealed the law before final judgment. In dissent, Justices Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor.

And that is this week’s Legal Docket.

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

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

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

EICHER: Apple grabbed headlines last week by announcing a $500 billion capital-expenditures plan on artificial intelligence projects and infrastructure. Some observers say it could transform the AI industry; others note that big ambitions don’t always translate. So does this matter? How do you interpret the big Capex spend?

BAHNSEN: Well, Capex certainly matters. The question is how it matters and what comes of it. But I need to point something out, Nick: This came up before with announcements from other hyper scalers. They didn’t spend $500 billion on AI Capex. They announced that they are willing to. They announced an intention to. They announced a plan. They don’t have anything to spend $500 billion on right now.

But they’re committing to this over a period of time. So the question is not, What’s going to come of this $500 billion? When I refer to questions about AI Capex, it’s will these announcements—the latest one, as you point out, is Apple’s $500 billion—will this happen? Okay?

If in four years, Apple has only spent $80 billion instead of $500 billion, if they’ve hired 5,000 people for AI research instead of 20,000, what will that end up meaning?

I am well aware of a lot of announcements and intentions and plans, but it sort of raises the question, if someone says, I’m planning to get a shovel and go dig for a hundred tons of gold, the question is not if they have a shovel. The question is if they find the gold.

That’s really what we’re talking about here. Will there be $500 billion of opportunity or not? I’m not sure that there will be, but I’m not sure that there won’t be. I just think it’s a matter of big questions about the future.

EICHER: Turning to trade policy, it’s Monday morning, the calm before the storm. We’re hearing about tariffs set to take effect tomorrow. Of course, we’re a little more than a month into the new administration, and we’ve heard announcements of tariffs, followed by delays, followed by re-announcements ... and that seems to have left markets and businesses a bit unsure what’s really going to happen tomorrow. What’s your take on all this?

BAHNSEN: Well, Nick, you notice at one point he had said he was delaying it until April, and then the next day said, “No, we’re gonna go ahead and go Tuesday.” Then they’ve already put other qualifications on what’s supposed to happen tomorrow—and the market was up huge on Friday.

I think that the market at this point is totally done getting fooled by all the threats and negotiations and back and forth.

I maintain my same view that we have a president who loves talking about tariffs and we don’t have a president who loves doing tariffs. We will see how it plays out. This doesn’t mean certain tariffs don’t get put on. But I’m firmly convinced that any tariffs that do get put on are going to be loaded up with exceptions and caveats so they lose their teeth and are not likely to stay on very long.

EICHER: We also saw some late-night drama on Capitol Hill last week, with the House managing to pass its budget. But it’s clear this is only step one. How do you see the political lay of the land right now?

BAHNSEN: Well, we have a long way to go. As we say in my business, there’s a lot of wood to chop and this next step is the harder part. Although the first part that got done this week was very, very hard.

I mean, it was really on the chopping block. They had sent everybody home. okay? They did not have the votes, and then they called the a few people back upon realizing that they were able to kind of flip their votes. So it did matter that the House got that part done, but nobody believes that what the House passed is going to become law.

It now must go to the Senate and then it ends up in conference, where they must get a House and the Senate bill together. But one of the biggest issues in American politics right now, and I’m so grateful that it’s one of the few things not taking place on cameras, not taking place on social media, is the dynamic between Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune. They have to work together and they have the dignity and class to be doing it privately.

It doesn’t mean they’re going to get it done. Thune can’t speak for his 53 Republicans in the Senate and Mike Johnson can’t speak for all the Republicans in the House. But they are the leaders who have to get this stuff done together and they are trying. They want to get it done as one bill, but then Thune has to maintain a two-bill approach if the one-bill approach falls apart. That’s where we are, Nick.

It’s going to come down to whether or not they can figure out a way to get the spending cuts necessary to allow for tax cuts that are passable to fit into budget reconciliation and do both of those things in a way where there are, shall we say, conflicting interests—from deficit hawks to those who have a certain vision for the tax cuts they want to those who want very specific tax cuts implemented. It’s not going to be easy in conference to bring House and Senate together. It is doable, but a lot is on the line right now.

EICHER: Before we go, I’m eager to hear how you respond to the idea floated by the president and his commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick—the idea of a special immigration “Gold Card.” A $5 million dollar path to citizenship ... Secretary Lutnick saying we can start paying down debt. What do you think?

BAHNSEN: Nick, I guess I would ask if MAGA and the Trump base thought that they were voting to allow wealthy immigrants to buy their way into the country. Politically, I think it’s a disaster for Trump’s base.

Now, I like innovative solutions. I am one who believes we need more skilled labor coming into the country—legally, you know, with the right process. I don’t think that they are going to sell two— I think Secretary Lutnick this week said they were going to sell 250,000 of these at $5 million apiece, bringing in over a trillion dollars.

So if he believes there are 250,000 people that are in a position to pay five million dollars to enter our country, I would love to see that list. But I think it could raise some money, let’s call it, a hundred billion, not a trillion. The question is not whether it makes sense economically, because it does in that regard. It’s just a political question.

So at the end of the day, I’m not sure that the MAGA base will get behind it. They do like throwing stuff out there. They do like throwing, you know, funny titles around it, gold card, whatever. There are some that thought it might have constitutional or legal issues, and I will tell you, I don’t agree. I don’t know of anything that would be illegal about a program like this. But the politics and the optics are probably what’s gonna kill this. That’s my opinion.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. David writes at dividendcafe.com and regularly for WORLD Opinions. David, thanks! Have a great week!

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, March 3rd. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next, the WORLD History Book. Today, the story of an unassuming Austrian farmer who stood up to Hitler.

Franz Jägerstätter was one of more than a million Austrian men drafted during World War Two. He reported for duty just like the rest of those million men, but then refused to swear allegiance to Hitler.

EICHER: Jägerstätter was arrested on the spot on March 2nd, 1943. Here’s WORLD correspondent Caleb Welde.

WELDE: Franz Jägerstätter is more or less neighbors with Hitler. Hitler’s “Eagle’s Nest” fortress is only an hour from the farm where Jägerstätter lives and works with his wife and three little girls.

NEWSREEL: …While in Vienna, Austria’s Nazi leader watches a gigantic parade.

When the war begins, Jägerstätter shows up for the required military training.

ELLSBERG: Jägerstätter was not a pacifist. He was not just in principle against all war…

Robert Ellsberg is editor in chief at Orbis Books which published Jaggerstatter's later prison letters in 2009. He says Jägerstätter goes voluntarily.

ELLSBURG: It was only when he was really faced directly with the question of the implication of accepting induction and making this oath to Hitler.

The oath reads, in part: “I swear by God, this holy oath, that I shall render unconditional obedience to the Leader of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler.” Jägerstätter says to take that oath would be, at minimum, a lie.

FRANZ: Who can serve two masters? When we Catholics fight, sacrifice, and work for the National Socialist victory, then it seems to me to be entirely impossible that we would find God granting our prayers for peace, for in our actions we are doing the exact opposite of what we are praying for.

Jägerstätter knows he might face prison for his convictions. After his training he'd been allowed to return home to care for the farm.

Virtually none of Jägerstätter’s friends support his stand. His wife Fani begs him not to put his life at stake. He struggles with why the Catholic Church initially opposed National Socialism, and now acts indifferent. His priest and bishop explain he’s not responsible for his government’s actions. Jägerstätter isn’t persuaded.

FRANZ: I can never and shall never believe that we Catholics must make ourselves available to do the work of the most evil and dangerous anti-Christian power that has ever existed.

Everyone asks, “How can you do this to your family? They are your first priority.” Jägerstätter points out he will have to leave his family and risk his life either way; either for Hitler, or for Christ. He’s been reading scripture.

FRANZ: Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, even life itself, cannot be my disciple.

In late April, 1943, Jägerstätter gets the letter he’s been dreading, military orders calling him up for duty. He stalls a week, and then shows up, as ordered. He’s able to write his wife a day after he’s arrested for refusing to take the oath.

FRANZ: Dearest wife. Warmest greetings from my new residence. So far it has not been bad.

Fani writes back.

FANI: Much beloved husband. …Writing to you now in your current situation makes me terribly sad. ...I still had a small hope that you would change your decision during your trip because you have compassion for me… May God protect you. See you again. I shall constantly pray for you.

Jägerstätter remains in prison four months while he waits for a verdict from the military court. He and Fani write many letters.

FANI: Greetings in God, most beloved husband. Our little ones have insisted that I write you about them, telling of course only the good things they are doing…

Jägerstätter feels awful he isn’t there to help.

FRANZ: Thanks be to God you again have water. …My dear little ones, I am grateful you think so often about your father and pray for him. Unfortunately, I have not seen the flowers that your mother included in her letter.

The two celebrate Easter apart.

FANI: Your package arrived. The girls are grateful to you for the oranges. They are delighted with them. …”

FRANZ: “Hallelujah! The church rejoices today.” When we submit ourselves fully to God’s will, everything will turn out for the good. May things come about as God wants.

Two weeks after Easter, 1943, without warning, guards usher Jägerstätter onto a train. They’re heading for Tegel Prison in Berlin. A German pastor named Dietrich Bonhoeffer is also here. Bonhoeffer … for more violent resistance. After two months of solitary confinement, Jagersattater is sentenced to death. 

FRANZ: My dearest wife. You need have no heavy heart for me. Do not forget me in your prayers as I am not forgetting you.

He continues writing, and not just letters. He fills a notebook with hundreds of meaningful scripture passages and personal reflections on the Christian Life.

Five days later, Jägerstätter is ushered out of his cell into a room where his wife and local priest are waiting for him. Jägerstätter’s court-appointed defence attorney has arranged the meeting. He presents Jägerstätter a paper. Sign it, agree to serve the Fatherland, and he’s free. Jägerstätter refuses. Fani had made up her mind several months before she would stand with her husband. She writes him on the way back to the farm.

FANI: I hope that with God’s help everything will be made right. I’ll surely pray a great deal for you, and please do not lose heart…

The day his execution arrives, a priest administers final rites and reports later that Jägerstätter died at peace, even as he was beheaded, on August 9th, 1943.

In 2020 the Vatican released documents that showed that, beginning in 1939, the Pope had been secretly negotiating with Hitler. German Catholic bishops criticised the behaviour of their predecessors under the Nazis, admitting that the church did not do enough to oppose the war or the crimes the regime committed.

2020 was also the year Terrence Malick released a film he called “A Hidden Life.”

FRANZ: I can’t swear loyalty to Hitler.

NAZI: Do you think your defiance will have changed the course of things?

FRANZ: I can’t do what I believe is wrong.

Malik’s film won many award, introducing a quiet man of conviction to a worldwide audience. But for Franz Jägerstätter, his act of bravery was not for recognition. He prayed his life would be a testament of faith:

FRANZ: We are fortunate when we experience a little joy in this world. But what are the short moments of joy in this world in relation to that which Jesus has promised us in his kingdom? ‘No eye has seen nor ear heard and no human heart has grasped … what God has prepared for those who love him.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. Franz and Fani’s letters come from the book titled, Franz Jägerstätter : Letters and Writings from Prison … I’m Caleb Welde.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: Executive orders. They’re nothing new, it’s a presidential power that goes back to George Washington, but their reach is where the debate is.

And, homesteading. Growing numbers of Americans are living off the land.

That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

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

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible records that {Then} “Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve. He went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them. And they were glad, and agreed to give him money. So he consented and sought an opportunity to betray him to them in the absence of a crowd.” —Luke 22:3-6.

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.