The World and Everything in It: May 11, 2026

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

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The Supreme Court asks whether the Trump administration may end temporary protected status for Haiti and Syria, and much turns on what counts as a “consultation.”

KAGAN: You consult with somebody on the topic. ‘Weren't the Dodgers great last night?’ that does not seem like appropriate consultation.

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

Also today, the Monday Moneybeat. Some positive signs in the U.S. economy. David Bahnsen is standing by.

And the World History Book: the humble beginnings of a world famous American chocolate maker.

HENDERSON: He had two failed businesses, but that didn’t stop him.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, May 11th. 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 now for the news with Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Iran » Iran sent its answer to President Trump's latest ceasefire proposal Sunday — through Pakistani mediators. It calls for permanently ending the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, where Israel is still striking Iran Proxy group Hezbollah.

Tehran wants to put off discussions about its nuclear program off — for later talks. Trump fired back on social media — accusing Iran of "playing games" for nearly 50 years. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz:

WALTZ: He is putting, uh, giving diplomacy every chance we possibly can before going back to hostilities, but he's absolutely prepared to do that.

Drones tested the ceasefire Sunday — one set fire to a ship off Qatar, while the UAE shot down two it blamed on Iran. Iran's purported new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei also reportedly issued fresh orders — calling for "continued operations against the enemy."

Negotiators are stuck on Iran's near-weapons-grade uranium. The U.N. nuclear agency says Iran is holding more than 440 kilos of it — a short step from weapons-grade. And Waltz told ABC's This Week:

WALTZ: We don't expect a regime that's been in a, obsessed with a nuclear weapon to just give it up freely. It's going to take this type of pressure.

The U.S. military is maintaining its blockade of Iranian ports while talks continue.

Cruise ship update » Off the coast of Africa, the evacuation of a cruise ship hit by an outbreak of hantavirus rolls into a second day. The ship reached port at Tenerife in Spain's Canary Islands Sunday — its 140-plus passengers and crew flying out one nation at a time.

Dozens stepped off in hazmat suits, got hosed down with disinfectant, and boarded planes for Europe and North America.

World Health Organization epidemiologist Maria Van explained:

KERKHOVE: The passengers and the crew on board will be wearing respirators as they leave. There is a medical assessment that is being done on board before they disembark from the ship. They will be transported separately and directly to these repatriation flights.

Three people have died since the ship sailed from Argentina last month. One French passenger fell ill on her flight home Sunday.

Many passengers are being quarantined upon arrival in their home countries.

Even so, doctors say the public risk is low. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya:

BHATTACHARYA: You have to be in close contact with someone who has a lot of symptoms. Uh, there's been eight people that have been infected, all of them … Uh, the first two got it from, uh, of all things, bird watching, probably breathed, uh, mouse droppings in, in Argentina.

The ship will sail on to the Netherlands for disinfection — taking some crew, and the body of a passenger who died on board.

Pakistan suicide attack » In northwest Pakistan, hundreds gathered Sunday to bury 14 police officers. They died Saturday night when a suicide bomber and gunmen rammed an explosives-laden vehicle into a security post in. That triggered a shootout that collapsed the building.

A breakaway faction of the Pakistani Taliban claims responsibility — though authorities call it a front for the main militant group. Pakistan accuses Afghanistan's Taliban government of sheltering the militants.

Frontier Airlines incident » The NTSB is investigating a bizarre incident at Denver International Airport.

A Frontier Airlines plane was taking off Friday night when it struck and killed a person who was crossing the runway on foot. The impact ignited an engine fire.

AUDIO:  Tower, Frontier 4345. We're stopping on the runway. Uh, there—we just hit somebody. We have an engine fire. … Frontier 4345, I see that.

Authorities say the person had jumped a fence to get onto the runway.

Passengers escaped down emergency slides after smoke filled the cabin. Twelve passengers suffered minor injuries.

NTSB is specifically looking into the evacuation. Videos and passenger reports describe panic and chaos, and some people grabbing carry-on bags — against procedure.

Box office » It’s not yet the summer blockbuster season, but movie theaters are enjoying a badly needed resurgence in ticket sales with a string of recent hits. The latest is the Devil Wears Prada 2.

CLIP [Devil Wears Prada]: You are here to help us through our current scandal. And all I need to do is bide my time until you fail.

The sequel hauled in another estimated $43 million dollars domestically to top the weekend box office. Worldwide, it’s now over $400 million in ticket sales.

Three other films still in theaters have all grossed around or more than a half-billion dollars globally, Michael, Project Hail Mary, and the Super Mario Galaxy Movie.

I'm Kent Covington.

Coming up, the Monday Moneybeat. Plus, a candymaker’s legacy extends beyond his famous chocolate.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 11th day of May, 2026. 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, and I must first correct something we said last week in the Monsanto Roundup case—the herbicide we called pesticide. Not only did we say it, but we used several soundbites from attorneys using the same wrong term.

Justice Clarence Thomas once worked for Monsanto as an attorney, and I should’ve listened more carefully to him:

THOMAS: Well, I think my point is, first of all, this is a herbicide, not a pesticide.

Herbicide. Weed killer, not bug killer, even though both are regulated under the same federal law.

EICHER: Not to get into the weeds, but this has been bugging us all week! 

REICHARD: Haha! See what you did there!

EICHER: Alright, on to a case testing the power of the executive branch of government over immigration.

ROBERTS: We’ll hear argument today in case number 25-1083, Mullin versus Doe and the consolidated case.

This one asks whether the federal government can end Temporary Protected Status—TPS—for Haitians and Syrians.

Congress created TPS three-and-a-half decades ago. It permits the Secretary of Homeland Security to protect people already in the U.S. when their home countries are not safe. Reasons might be war, disaster, or other crises. Protection is granted for 18 months, but it may be—and has been—extended.

REICHARD: Haiti received TPS after its devastating earthquake in 2010. Syria, in 2012 in the midst of civil war.

So, “temporary,” isn’t so much.

The Trump administration concluded the conditions in those nations no longer justify TPS. We’re talking about 350,000 Haitians and around 6,000 Syrians. And they sued.

EICHER: The question before the Supreme Court is actually two-fold. First, did the Trump administration follow the proper statutory steps to end TPS? And second, do the courts even have the power to review that executive branch decision?

The government says no; there is no review whatsoever. Foreign policy decisions belong with the executive. Full stop.

Solicitor General John Sauer argued the statute says exactly that:

SAUER: …there is no judicial review of any determination of the Secretary with respect to the designation or termination or extension of a designation of a foreign state for Temporary Protected Status. That provision means what it says… Respondents' attempts to carve out exceptions to the review bar would eviscerate it.

But Chief Justice John Roberts wasn’t so sure:

ROBERTS: You rely on Trump v Hawaii in your argument. But that involved the president and entry restrictions. Here we’re concerned with the Secretary and aliens that are already present. Your argument is a significant expansion of Trump versus Hawaii, isn’t it?

You may recall that earlier decision in which the high court upheld President Trump’s travel ban from predominantly Muslim countries, citing inadequate vetting procedures.

But in this case, the people are already here inside the country.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed back hard on the process used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to terminate TPS status for Haitians and Syrians:

JACKSON: Now we have a statute in which Congress has clearly required the Secretary to take certain statutory steps, to include, for example, consultation. ….So what was the point of Congress putting this statute into being and having requirements for the Secretary if there was no ability for anyone to challenge the Secretary’s compliance?

REICHARD: Justice Elena Kagan homed in on what exactly IS a consultation:

KAGAN: You consult with somebody on the topic. That means you ask a question. They give an answer that’s on the same topic. That’s consultation…‘Weren't the Dodgers great last night?’… does not seem like appropriate consultation.

Note, that’s not what happened, but you get the point. The government lawyer stayed firm that the courts have no business interfering:

SAUER: If she sought input from State, she has consulted… How much do I need to talk… is this response good enough?

…reiterating this is the kind of discretionary call vested in the Secretary.

Justice Jackson tested the government with this:

JACKSON: The Secretary's decision and I had a hypothetical… to pull out a Ouija board… … your view would be that no judicial review of that claim?

SAUER: And any exception… would be something that a truck could be driven through.

EICHER: Then there’s the allegation of discriminatory intent on the part of the administration. Justice Sonia Sotomayor mentioned some examples, including this:

SOTOMAYOR: Now we have a President saying at one point that Haiti is a "filthy, dirty, and disgusting s-hole country" --I'm quoting him – … I don't see how that one statement is not a prime example … showing that a discriminatory purpose may have played a part in this decision.
….

SAUER: All those statements in context refer to problems like crime, poverty, welfare dependence, drugs, drug importation.

Justice Kagan wasn’t buying the racial animus argument:

KAGAN: You know, ….the injection of this racial component into it, I guess I don't quite see how that operates when all of these programs went.

REICHARD: But the Haitians’ lawyer Geoffrey Pipoly pounded the racial animus argument hard. Listen to this lengthy exchange with Justice Samuel Alito:

ALITO: TPS was terminated for quite a list of countries … . I don’t like dividing up the people of the world arbitrarily into three racial groups, but you say they’re all non-white and that’s the distinguishing characteristic?

PIPOLY: That is the distinguishing characteristic that the district court held. But I would —I would emphasize, Justice Alito, that—

ALITO: Well, do you think that if you put Syrians, Turks, Greeks, and other people who live around the Mediterranean in a lineup, do you think you could say those people are—that all of them, are they all non-white?

The lawyer hemmed and hawed around for a while, and then Justice Alito invoked his own ancestry:

ALITO: How about southern Italians? (Laughter.)

PIPOLY: Well—well, certainly—certainly, 120 years ago, when we had our last wave of European immigration, southern Italians were not considered white. So I think our concept of these things evolves over time.

… later … ALITO: You have a really large—you have a really broad definition of who’s white and who’s not white. As I said, I don’t like dividing the people of the world into these groups.

EICHER: Thus showing that “whiteness” isn’t a scientific fact but a shifting social label.

That led back to statutory interpretation as to what is the meaning of the word “determination,” in the context of how the Secretary decided to end TPS.

So is determination the final decision, or is it the entire process leading up to the decision?

REICHARD: I have no prediction on how this one will go.

Alright, next case:

ROBERTS: We’ll hear argument this morning in case number 25-429, Todd Blanche v Lau.

This is another immigration matter, but more technical.

The issue is this: when a lawful permanent resident returns to the U.S. from outside the U.S., can the government treat that resident as though he is seeking admission, therefore potentially deportable, based simply on allegations of criminal conduct?

EICHER: A man named Muk Lau holds a green card. He’s charged with selling counterfeit goods. He left the country prior to trial, returned, and immigration stopped him at JFK airport. A person on the air side of passport control at JFK hasn’t technically “entered” the U.S., and that gives the government more power.

Immigration gave him a type of temporary permission called “parole” to stay while his criminal case worked out. After he pleaded guilty, the government moved to deport him.

REICHARD: Lau says the government cannot do that because before he’d pleaded, he hadn’t yet been convicted.

Justice Sotomayor uncovered the tension, asking Assistant to the Solicitor General Sopan Joshi if the government had enough proof of guilt right there at the airport:

SOTOMAYOR: Did he have enough proof at that moment? Forget --

JOSHI: For whom? For whom?

SOTOMAYOR: For him.

JOSHI: Yes, the border officer had enough proof for himself.

Lau’s lawyer argued that lawful permanent residents might be paroled just based on a mere suspicion, and that can’t be right. Justice Alito:

ALITO: Yeah, but that's not what we have here. We have a criminal charge. The immigration officer didn't make that up. The charge was leveled by the State of New Jersey. I guess the State of New Jersey is in on this conspiracy?

EICHER: Justice Amy Coney Barrett saw a practical problem with on-site interrogation:

BARRETT: How would we know whether the border officer had clear and convincing evidence? There would be no administrative record.

A moment of levity came when the government lawyer laid out a three part answer to the question about how Lau was classified upon re-entry to the U.S.:

JOSHI: And then the third, I'm going to try and respond to what I anticipate will be your response to my first two answers. (Laughter.)

KAGAN: Because -- because -- that would be because the first two won't sound very good? (Laughter.)

REICHARD: I think the government will win here on statutory grounds, but maybe not by much.

Ok, quick mention of a case argued in March: Kealthley v Buddy Ayers Construction. It’s about a legal rule called judicial estoppel. Now, that’s a fancy lawyer term, but it’s basically the court’s “No Flip-Flopping” rule. It stops people from taking inconsistent positions just to win different cases.

EICHER: Here’s what happened: A man filed for bankruptcy, but he didn’t tell that court he was also planning to sue someone over a car accident. Since a legal claim is technically an “asset,” the lower courts tossed his accident case out. Saying, in effect: “You told the bankruptcy judge you had nothing; you can’t show up here now and say you’re owed a million dollars.”

But some of the Justices on the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Roberts, seemed skeptical of that “all-or-nothing” approach. He worried that by punishing the man for a paperwork mistake, the court was accidentally giving a “get out of jail free” card to the person who caused the crash.

ROBERTS: In terms of the courts' integrity, it does seem a little much that the one person who's getting off is the one who -- whose truck hit the other guy, right?

REICHARD: In other words, judicial estoppel shouldn’t be a windfall for reckless drivers. We expect the Supreme Court to send the case back with instructions to be more flexible.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

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

The Monday Moneybeat.

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

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

EICHER: Well, David, we have talked about being stuck in an economic data purgatory—seeing a combination of bad data and mixed signals. And it’s been difficult to tell what direction the economy’s headed. But I figured I would use the opportunity of a couple of new reports: a new jobs report for April from the Labor Department … labor statistics office … BLS … and a week ago from the Commerce Department—we didn’t talk about it last week—first-quarter GDP came out, not to mention the equity markets have put up some record highs on Wall Street. Are we getting out of purgatory? Are we seeing any clearer?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, I think it’s a little early to say, but I do think that I feel a little bit more optimistic about the direction than I did a few months ago. I think there is a long way to go. Nobody should get carried away with the data being optimistic.

But what does appear to be the case is that it isn’t worsening. And it very well could have. The vulnerability of that kind of slowing of new-job hiring very often is going to lead to an increase in terminations and firings, and obviously higher unemployment. And you’re not seeing that.

So while the hiring rate evidenced in the new BLS report wasn’t dramatic, it was positive. It was higher than expectation. Those weekly jobless claims have continued to be low. That’s a good sign, Nick.

But the purgatory element of no hirings and no firings—that’s still the predominant theme we see in the labor data. So the optimistic part is that it isn’t worsening. There’s a modest bias towards things being a bit better.

The job revisions in this week’s report for the month of April—the April report did not have worse revisions for March and February. They were, I think, down 16,000, and I was worried it could be down 50 to 100,000. So I think those things are positive.

And yet, I still recommend looking at the data month by month, not jumping to any forward conclusions at this time.

EICHER: We knew this was coming because of rulings in the courts striking down some of the Trump tariffs, but The Wall Street Journal had a piece on companies beginning to receive their tariff refunds. The story said businesses plan to use the refunds to pay suppliers, rebuild inventory, pay down debt, stabilize cash flow. Is that kind of what you wanted to see?

BAHNSEN: Well, that’s an all-of-the-above thing there. So there’s not a whole lot more they could do with it.

The issue of rebuilding inventories and of doing other capital expenditures is a very good sign. But let’s be really clear about what that means. If companies are going to use tariff refunds to go invest in their business, that means that the tariffs have been taking away from business investment.

And to the extent that there still exist a couple hundred billion dollars of additional tariffs, that means that we are able to better identify what the source is of this vastly diminished capital expenditures that, outside of AI spending right now, is negative.

But it is a positive thing to see that we’re seeing some of these declarations come to companies. Certain businesses that we’re invested in have gotten notice now that they’re receiving their tariff refunds.

We weren’t sure how long the red tape was going to last to process some of these. And I don’t believe a lot of companies have received the cash yet. But once you get the notice that the cash is coming, the cash is coming.

So it is a positive. And I think at the same time it gives us a really clear market signal that some of the depressed capital investment is a byproduct of the cost of import tariffs.

EICHER: Now, we did talk about the fact that the tariffs were pushing up consumer inflation, because we know ultimately who pays tariffs: the consumer buying the product tariffed.

Will this bring some relief?

BAHNSEN: Now, as a matter of just economic clarity, I want to say that I believe tariffs push prices higher, which is different than saying that they cause inflation, because I believe inflation is a monetary phenomenon.

Tariffs cause the thing being tariffed to go higher, but they don’t create new money supply, which would be lasting inflation.

Now, for all practical purposes, people don’t really care about the difference between what I just said. If a price has gone higher, that’s the issue that folks are dealing with.

To me, I think there is a chance that you will see some downward revision. But there is a stickiness in certain prices. And I also would argue that the higher cost in the supply chain is not merely on the direct cost of a tariff that now might be coming off, but also in the uncertainty premium that there is a higher price that gets baked in around not knowing what to expect.

And we’ve seen this in shipping cost as well, even well before the Iran war started and Strait of Hormuz issues.

So no, I don’t think it’s going to be deflationary, but I do hope it could be disinflationary to some degree.

But you’re still talking about $200 billion of new tariff cost this year versus what existed two years ago. That’s less than 300 billion, but it’s a lot more than 30 billion. So there are a number of uncertain factors out there still.

EICHER: Your Dividend Cafe this week takes an interesting look back at the Disney-Fox deal from a few years ago—not really as a media story or a political story, but as a business-model story. You argue Murdoch correctly identified which parts of the media business were becoming more vulnerable to disruption and which weren’t. What did he see that now looks so prescient?

BAHNSEN: I think what he saw was the fact that sports programming and news programming are real-time events that get delivered the way they get delivered, where the creation of entertainment content and scripted content, in the moment of the streaming disruption, was wildly changing, was becoming incredibly expensive.

And the factors that were pushing prices higher were in early innings. They were going to make the creation of content even more expensive, while the cable model that he had, of course, accumulated a lot of wealth from and built an unbelievable business in the ’80s and ’90s from, was being totally disrupted.

And so his decision to move that Fox entertainment content to Disney for a wild premium—that was made even wilder because Comcast came in and bid for it, so it pushed prices up. And Disney was never one to be a cheap bidder. They were always willing to come in quite high, and they did.

I think it was a prescient move.

And I think, as I point out in Dividend Cafe, Nick, this is true of a lot of us in our businesses. Sometimes the best decisions are in the things that we sell, but they’re also in the things that we don’t sell.

And in keeping the Fox sports programming and in keeping Fox News, he held on to the elements that were least likely to be disrupted by streaming and sold off the things that were most likely.

And almost immediately he was vindicated, that what happened was a massive price war, huge amounts of competition. The streaming companies continue to have a lot of success in building new scripted content, but then they have to put out a lot of other shows that don’t succeed to get to the ones that do.

And that model is incredibly capital intensive. And we’re living in a time where that capital intensity is not being rewarded in markets. It creates a lot of uncertainty.

And you put a lot of money into an investment and you say, okay, well, it’s capital intense now, but it pays off down the line. Well, that could very well be true in a lot of cases, but what it also does is expose your investment to whatever changes come along the way.

The more time that goes by, the more things that can come up and disrupt that thesis.

So as I studied this transaction, it occurred to me that so many people have talked about it because they don’t like Rupert Murdoch and they don’t like Fox News and they don’t like conservative media, and they focused on it in that framework as opposed to the business element.

Disney made a big decision that has not been rewarded and, in fact, looks right now to be very unlikely to ever be rewarded.

They’re going to be okay. They’re going to get through it. And they did buy some real trophy assets with Avatar and Marvel and some of these things.

But at the end of the day, I found it to be an instructive business lesson for all of us in one way or the other.

And Murdoch—look, he’s a polarizing figure. You can say good things and bad things, personal life, business life, whatever. But this was a fascinating transaction, and so I enjoyed studying it a bit further.

EICHER: All right. David Bahnsen—founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. He writes at DividendCafe.com and at WORLD Opinions. David, hope you have a great week.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: 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 story behind a chocolate empire.

Hershey’s chocolate recipe has stood for decades. You change it, people notice. That was evident recently when complaints about the use of artificial ingredients in the brand’s Reese’s peanut butter cups led to a public company promise to revert to the real thing.

EICHER: The company’s long history began 150 years ago next month, when Founder Milton Hershey opened his first confectionery store. The chocolatier ultimately employed and contracted with thousands of workers and dairy farmers in a township in Pennsylvania. The town was later named in honor of him and his many contributions to the community.

WORLD’s Emma Eicher paid a visit to the town now known as Hershey, PA, to get a glimpse (and, I am reliably told, a taste) of how chocolate made life sweeter for the workers, and the world.

EMMA EICHER: Milton Hershey was born in 1857 into a poor family, the son of a failed entrepreneur. They often moved around, so Hershey’s schooling was inconsistent.

JENNIFER HENDERSON: Later in life, he said he had about the equivalent of a fourth grade education.

That’s Jennifer Henderson, a senior archivist for the Hershey Community Archives.

She says Hershey had the same entrepreneurial spirit as his father. At fourteen, he apprenticed for a candymaker in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He then borrowed money to open his first candy store in Philadelphia.

But the store failed, and he declared bankruptcy. A second store in New York City also closed.

Henderson says Hershey’s parents influenced their son to keep going.

HENDERSON: He had two failed businesses, but that didn't stop him.

While his father was an idealist, his mother was a hardworking and devout Mennonite.

HENDERSON: We always think that Milton Hershey got the best of both of his parents in that he was a dreamer, but he kept persevering to realize that dream.

In 1900, Hershey’s dream came true when he sold his first chocolate bar. He opened a new factory in Derry Township five years later and set a goal to produce chocolate bars everyone could afford.

Hershey’s chocolate was unlike any other on the market. Gallons of fresh milk, cocoa beans, and sugar were mixed into a warm liquid called “chocolate liquor,” though it didn’t contain alcohol.

Then the liquor was rolled and rotated for better flavor. The Hershey museum shows the process of using a machine to churn the mixture:

NARRATOR: But in the end, it makes Hershey's chocolate super smooth …

SOUND: [Machine revving, mixing]

The result was silky, rich chocolate used in the company’s most iconic candy:

NARRATOR: For the big taste you can't resist. It's the big taste of chocolate in a little Hershey's kiss.

In 1907, Hershey began selling the Hershey’s Kiss.

HENDERSON: The kisses at the time were all wrapped by hand. You would have your piece of foil, put the kiss tissue down, and then put the kiss on top of it, and then wrap it all up.

Since the Kiss was so popular, there were a lot of imitations. When packaging became automated, Hershey added a “plume” at the top of each Kiss. That was so shoppers could tell it was the real deal.

HENDERSON: And so you could now see, without having to open the Kiss, that it was a Hershey's product.

Underneath the museum is a huge collection of artifacts, including original candy packaging.

Henderson pointed out one of her personal favorites in the collection.

HENDERSON: So, this is the Kiss tissue. It's tiny, but that's the little baby in the cocoa bean. That was their trademark for the company until 1968.

Hershey’s factory attracted dairy farmers and workers. He paid fair wages and invested in the community. He built homes for his employees, established public transportation, parks, and a hospital.

And of course, he created what we now know as the Hershey amusement Park.

HENDERSON: It started out as beautiful green space with the little playground for the kids, and over time, he kept adding new attractions to it.

Henderson says Hershey’s philosophy was simple. Happy workers are more efficient and create a better product.

But Hershey’s generosity also stemmed from his mother’s religious upbringing, and his own childhood poverty. He followed biblical values, though he did not claim a formal religion.

Hershey once said that his hands on earth do God’s work.

HENDERSON: The community and the world has been blessed with what he was able to do for us.

Those blessings extended far beyond running a company. Nine years after Hershey sold his first chocolate bar, he started a school for orphan boys. Anthony Haubert is the PR manager for the museum.

HAUBERT: He has helped probably hundreds of thousands of underprivileged children since its creation in 1909. So he just really had a, just a wonderfully generous heart.

Later, the Milton Hershey School changed from providing for orphans to offering services to any child in need. Today, it provides housing, clothing, food, and medical care to K-12 students.

One of those students eventually became the CEO of the company, fulfilling Milton Hershey’s dream of having a Hershey school graduate run his business.

Hershey died in 1945, at 88 years old. He and his wife donated their fortune to the school, which still uses the money to operate.

Here’s Henderson again.

HENDERSON: I don't know if there's anyone still living who actually met him, but we still hold him in very high regard, and we want to do what's right by him.

These days, the Hershey Company is one of the biggest chocolate manufacturers in the world. But its greatest legacy is a thriving community that loves to tell the Hershey story.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Emma Eicher in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Tomorrow: an update on the war with Iran. And, how parents can give reluctant teen drivers the courage to take the wheel. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Mary Reichard.

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

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

The Bible says, “‘Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.’

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.’” —Acts 2:36-39

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.