The World and Everything in It: May 18, 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!

Today on Legal Docket, unreasonable search and seizure meets the cloud.

The high court considers a case that could expose to government searches nearly everything Americans store online.

UNIKOWSKY: So it seems to me if you’re going to accept that argument, then that is really the end of the fourth amendment for any private document you’re storing with Google.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Also today, the Monday Moneybeat: the economic value of the Trump-Xi summit in Beijing. David Bahnsen is standing by.

Later, the World History Book: how a half-eaten pizza gave rise to a popular video game.

SIMON: He developed the game on one concept, and that was eating.

REICHARD: Today is Monday, May 18th. 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 » A drone struck the United Arab Emirates' only nuclear power plant on Sunday. No one immediately claimed responsibility, nor was anyone blamed right away, but Iran has regularly targeted the UAE as a regional U.S. ally.

That comes amid stalled peace talks between the U.S. and Iran.

President Trump warned—his words—"better get moving, fast or there won't be anything left of them." Tehran fired back, saying its military "fingers are on the trigger."

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told Meet the Press he asked the CIA director if Iran's current leadership is any less committed to destroying Israel and the U.S.:

GRAHAM: I think the answer is no. So weaken them further, and you may get a deal later, but you're not gonna get a deal with this crowd until you hurt them more.

With November midterms approaching, Iranian officials may be betting that political pressure could force Trump to back down. Democrats are hammering the president over the war and rising gas prices.

Trump pressed Chinese leader Xi Jinping last week to lean on Tehran. But Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen says:

VAN HOLLEN: I don't think we need China's support. I think the fastest way to end the war in Iran is just to stop digging a hole even deeper, and that's what we should do right now.

Most Democrats blame Trump for the war and the inflation that's come with it. But Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman has a different target:

FETTERMAN: I blame Iran because Iran is an evil regime. For the last almost five decades, they've been the, the, the world's leading underwriter of, of terrorism.

Israel says it is coordinating with the United States on a possible resumption of strikes.

Cassidy loses Louisiana primary » Louisiana's Republican Senate runoff is set for June and Senator Bill Cassidy did not make the cut.

President Trump backed congresswoman Julia Letlow over Cassidy—calling the incumbent a "disloyal disaster" after he voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial after the Capitol riot.

Cassidy conceded Saturday night in Baton Rouge—and his closing words seemed aimed straight at the president:

CASSIDY: I've had the privilege of representing the state of Louisiana for twelve years. I've been able to participate in democracy, and when, and, and when you participate in democracy, sometimes it doesn't turn out the way you want it to. But you don't pout, you don't whine, you don't claim the election was stolen.

Letlow led the field with 45 percent of the vote and will face state Treasurer John Fleming in a June 27 runoff.

Cassidy becomes the first sitting Republican senator to lose a primary in nearly 15 years.

Ebola outbreak » The World Health Organization has declared a global health emergency in response to an Ebola outbreak in Congo and Uganda.

Officials say more than 300 suspected cases and at least 80 deaths trace back to mining towns in eastern Congo.

The outbreak is a rare strain of Ebola called Bundibugyo—with no approved vaccine or treatment.

But Dr. Jean Kaseya, the head of the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, says Africa cannot wait for Western countries to come to the rescue.

KASEYA:  In Africa, we must manufacture vaccines, medicines that we need. People are dying. I don't have medicines. I don't have vaccines...

The Africa CDC says the outbreak began in late April, but officials didn't catch it until a social media post May 5th, by which point 50 people were already dead.

Prayer rally in Washington » In Washington, thousands gathered on the National Mall Sunday to pray, worship, and reflect on the countries Christian roots.

WORLD's Juliana Chan Erikson was there.

Juliana Chan Erikson: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson led a prayer of repentance and recommitment as part of "Rededicate 250", one of many events celebrating the 250th anniversary of America's founding.

JOHNSON: Today, here Lord, in this 250th year of American independence, we hereby rededicate the United States of America as one nation under God [cheers]

Johnson was one of several political leaders to take the stage at the Christian rally yesterday. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina also addressed the largely Christian audience.

SCOTT: The principles contained in the Declaration of Independence are saving principles—can I get an amen—saving principles! Stand by those principles! Be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes!

Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard gave prepared remarks via pre-recorded video. All made overt references to their faith in God.

Several evangelical leaders also spoke, including Franklin Graham, the son of the late evangelist Bill Graham, and Robert Jeffries, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.

Events commemorating the 250th anniversary continue next week, with a candlelit program honoring veterans and soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery.

For WORLD, I'm Juliana Chan Erikson.

Commuter rail strike » SOUND: [Rail strike]

Striking workers have shut down New York's Long Island Rail Road for a third day this Monday morning.

It's the first walkout in three decades on North America's largest commuter rail, leaving a quarter of a million daily riders scrambling.

Five unions representing half the workforce walked off the jobs before dawn on Saturday— after months of stalled talks with their employer, the MTA or Metropolitan Transit Authority.

AUDIO: They think they can push us around, and we, and we're supposed to just fall in line. All's we're asking for is fair wages. Record inflation the last few years. Our contract goes back three years, it's not going forward. So we went through those record inflationary years and they're trying to lowball us.

But New York's Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul has a different take. She told reporters that a deal is possible, but the MTA needs a partner at the bargaining table.

HOCHUL: The MTA has made multiple generous offers with real wage increases. I urge both sides to come together as soon as possible and resolve this.

But union leaders say no new talks are scheduled.

I'm Kent Covington.

And straight ahead: Unreasonable search and seizure meets the cloud on Legal Docket. 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 18th day of May, 2026. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Mary Reichard.

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

The Fourth Amendment was written at a time when memories of British officers rummaging through homes and papers were still fresh in the minds of Americans.

Now the Supreme Court has to decide what that centuries-old protection against “unreasonable search and seizure” means in the digital age.

The question in this case: when police ask a massive tech firm for location data on every person near a crime scene, is that legitimate police work, or the modern equivalent of handing the Redcoats our phones and passwords?

REICHARD: Here are the facts in Chatrie v US: In 2019, police in Virginia were investigating a bank robbery. They had no suspects, so they started with the phones. Investigators asked Google for data showing which devices were near the bank around the time of the robbery.

EICHER: The search eventually led to a man named Okello Chatrie, who prosecutors say committed the robbery.

But Chatrie argues that search violated the Fourth Amendment, because it swept up the data of everyone within certain constraints of time and place, including innocent people.

His lawyer, Adam Unikowsky:

UNIKOWSKY: The Court should hold that people have a property interest in their data …Additionally, Petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his location history given both its sensitive and revealing nature and the fact that it was stored in his password protected account….the search violated the Fourth Amendment because the warrant gave the police unlimited discretion…while casting Google into the role of magistrate.

REICHARD: The federal government frames the dispute very differently. Solicitor General Eric Feigin:

FEIGIN: Petitioner here is asking for an unprecedented transformation of the Fourth Amendment into an impregnable fortress around records of his public movements …That's a debilitating and counterintuitive reading of the Fourth Amendment that would impede the investigation of kidnappings, robberies, shootings, and other crimes….

At the core is a modern question the Constitution never directly anticipated: when people rely on digital services every day, does storing that data with a tech company amount to consent for government access? Or does the sheer necessity of digital life mean constitutional privacy protections still apply?

Chief Justice John Roberts jumped in with Chatrie’s lawyer:

ROBERTS: If you don't want the government to have your location history, you just flip that off. You don’t have to have that feature on your phone. So what's the --what's the issue?

UNIKOWSKY: I take the point that you can flip it off, but I guess I just don't agree that one should have to flip off one's location history as well as other cloud services to avoid government surveillance. I mean, by the same token, you don't have to send email. You can flick that off as well. But that doesn't imply that you're implicitly consenting to the government searching one's email.

Justice Samuel Alito wondered why this case was even at the high court at this point:

ALITO: Mr. Unikowsky, I'm struggling to understand why we are hearing this case other than the fact that at least four of us voted to take it. (Laughter.) Fourteen of the 15 judges on the en banc Fourth Circuit voted to affirm. Nine relied on the good faith exception. Unless you think that we are going to say that no reasonable officer could believe that this was a valid warrant…. what you're asking for is an advisory opinion….This involves a Google feature that doesn’t exist any longer…

What Alito is saying is, Google no longer stores location history that way. Instead of keeping massive centralized records in the cloud, much of that data is now stored directly on users’ devices. And that makes broad geofence sweeps harder to carry out.

Still, Chatrie’s lawyer argued the constitutional question remains urgent because police used these warrants thousands of times—and because the Court’s reasoning could affect access to many other kinds of cloud-stored data.

But several justices seemed more interested in the broader constitutional question: when people rely on digital tools every day, how much privacy do they actually surrender?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett took a wider view:

BARRETT: Putting aside that this was a password protected account, taking it that Google had the right to use this for advertising purposes, right? …I mean, he was --this was a few hours and it was a public location. And nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public observable movements.

EICHER: But Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out how embarrassingly modern phones track some people’s lives:

SOTOMAYOR: Regrettably, because people take their phone now everywhere, including, I suspect, some people to the bathroom, you really have no idea what information, private information, because it'll follow you to a brothel, it'll follow you to a cannabis shop, it'll follow you to just about anywhere where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, correct?

UNIKOWSKY: Yes.

Chatrie’s lawyer warned the case reaches beyond location tracking. If simply using digital services wipes away privacy protections, he argued, then nearly everything people store in the cloud could become fair game for government searches.

It was here that the argument really escalated.

If the simple act of sharing data with Google so you can use that technology counts as consent… then what about everything else in the cloud?

Justice Neil Gorsuch:

GORSUCH: So, if we were to rule that there was a voluntary exposure here to Google that allows the government unfettered access to it, that ruling would pertain equally to email?

UNIKOWSKY: That's correct. Essentially, all of your data on the cloud, which is kind of all of your data if you use a computer, would be exposed to government searches without a warrant.

Justice Alito brought things back to personal responsibility:

ALITO: He not only turned it on, but had he read his contract with Google he could see that Google retained the right to turn this information over to law enforcement if it thought that that was appropriate.

UNIKOWSKY: That is the same provision that exists for everything they store in Google servers including email and documents and everything else so it seems to me if you’re going to accept that argument then that is really the end of the fourth amendment for any private document you’re storing with Google.

Justice Elena Kagan posed a hypothetical as a potential fix:

KAGAN: Suppose Google…put that warning in red and it flashed a lot and it was totally noticeable, you know, “we can give this to the government.” Would that make a difference?

REICHARD: Unikowsky said, not necessarily, because privacy expectations cannot just depend upon warnings like that.

As for the government, it argues this was not a dragnet at all. Users opted to use location services. It was a targeted search with only 19 devices identified, and that was narrowed down to 3 from a very short time frame and tiny geographic area.

EICHER: Not only that, but some crimes would go unsolved without geofence warrants, such as the hit and run death of bicyclist Pamela Morehouse in California. The case had little evidence, until Geofence identified a suspect who had lied to police.

In this exchange with the government lawyer, Chief Justice Roberts spotted a downside risk:

ROBERTS: …what's to prevent the government from using this to find out the identities of everybody at a particular church, a particular political organization. What are the restraints that would prevent that from becoming a problem?

FEIGIN: Well, number one, Your Honor, would be the Stored Communications Act.

The Chief wasn’t buying it:

FEIGIN: What really matters here is that people have affirmatively opted in. Only one-third of account Google account holders…

ROBERTS: So, to prevent surveillance of sensitive locations, you have to rely on the fact that people are going to turn off something that many, if not most, people find is an important service?

Yet in this comment to Chatrie’s lawyer, Justice Brett Kavanaugh saw the facts in a different light:

KAVANAUGH: So we have probable cause. You admitted that and it’s just then is it sufficiently particular. And it seems like Detective Hylton here, you know, really went through a lot of the steps that should be applauded in terms of narrowing this down and going through multiple steps. I guess I'm trying to figure out why this was bad police work to get a warrant. A lot of Fourth Amendment cases we say, get a warrant. Well, he got a warrant.

Google is not a party to the lawsuit, but it did file a friend of the court brief that provides additional information. It warns that these warrants can be broad and invasive. Some of the geofence parameters have caught up thousands of people, covered many miles, and lasted for days.

Churches, hospitals, and schools…and oftentimes nobody even knows about the requests for information.

REICHARD: Unikowsky closed his argument on an ominous note, referencing the lower court’s finding that the police acted in good faith, even if there probably was a constitutional violation:

UNIKOWSKY: If the Court says the good-faith exception applies here, it'll apply in every single case….The reason the outcry doesn’t exist is that no one knows that thousands of times per year their accounts are being searched…..And this is a good vehicle to decide the case because there's an extensive evidentiary record. …You'll never have a case with a more detailed account of the technical aspects of the case than this one. And so that's why I think the Court should decide the Fourth Amendment question in this case.

EICHER: Okay, on to case two: Federal Communications Commission v AT&T and Verizon. This one asks whether a federal agency can publicly accuse companies of major wrongdoing and announce huge penalties before those companies ever get a jury trial.

It started when the FCC proposed more than one hundred million dollars in fines against the carriers for mismanaging consumer location data. 

But the FCC handed down the penalties through its internal administrative process. No hearing.

REICHARD: So the telecoms are striking back, arguing the move bypasses the courts and violates the Seventh amendment right to a jury trial.

Representing the telecoms Jeffrey Wall argued that being branded as an “egregious lawbreaker” by a federal regulator leaves companies no choice but to protect their reputations:

WALL: That's a straightforward violation of the Seventh Amendment. The government’s only answer is that the penalties weren’t binding; they were just invitations to pay.

They want these forfeiture orders because they know that legitimate parties pay 100 percent of the time. If your main regulator says that you are violating the law, you can't let that hang over your head indefinitely.

EICHER: But the justices pushed back. FCC forfeiture orders are technically nonbinding. There’s no immediate legal obligation to pay.

The Chief Justice seemed to lean that way:

ROBERTS: Counsel, I wonder if, though, at the end of the day, you're really just talking about a PR problem, right? You're just saying they're big letters, the language said we did something bad…-so everybody has to pay so they don't get, you know, bad PR. And I'm just wondering, in terms of the substantive legal issue, though, you are not obligated to pay until you get a jury.

WALL: Well, Mr. Chief Justice, I think we have to separate whether you owe something from when you have to pay it. If I get a parking ticket from the government, I can ignore it and make them come after me, but I still owe it….

REICHARD: The government’s lawyer argued reputation isn’t a big deal, and that if the carriers don’t pay, then the DOJ sues in federal court where a full jury trial will take place.

Several justices sounded skeptical of the telecoms’ argument, because the companies can still force the fight.

Based on the questions, I think it gives the FCC the upper hand because the relevant law favors it.

EICHER: The Supreme Court handed down two opinions last week which we’ll briefly summarize.

First, in Montgomery v Caribe Transport, a unanimous court ruled that a man injured in a truck crash can continue his lawsuit against the freight broker that hired the trucking company.

Shawn Montgomery was injured in a truck crash. He argued the broker hired an unsafe trucking company with a poor safety record.

Lower courts threw out the lawsuit. But the justices said a federal transportation law includes a safety exception that allows states to regulate motor vehicles, including negligent hiring claims.

REICHARD: And another unanimous decision in Jules v Andre Balazs Properties. The Supreme Court said that if a case starts in federal court and is paused for arbitration, the court still has power afterward to confirm or cancel the arbitration result.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

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

The Money 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, a big summit week in Beijing. President Trump coming home and saying: fantastic trade deals, a lot of good imagery, good feelings, nice meals, I assume. When you strip it all away, though, what do you think was actually accomplished?

BAHSNEN: Well, I think two things. I think, number one, that we don’t really know, because if there were certain geopolitical things, as it pertains to China’s efforts with Strait of Hormuz and Iran, and including ongoing issues with Russia and Ukraine, I don’t think that we are going to hear about that.

Then I think that the other side of it is more or less the press accounts, that it doesn’t appear there was much done on the economic side. Announcing that if I have a nickel for every time I’ve heard they’re going to buy more soybeans, I don’t know how many soybeans a country needs and how many we have to sell, but I’ve been hearing this for 10 years. I get it, because it is certainly one of the few agricultural commodities we have that we can sell to them.

But the Boeing airplane thing seems to have been a disappointment. I think people thought they were going to commit to buying more. I think it was mostly a setup, Nick, for when President Xi comes to the U.S. I believe that’s in September. I think that’s probably going to end up being the more substantive summit, and this seems to have been mostly relational.

People can say, no, no, we really wanted to decouple from China, and I think that’s fine, but that isn’t happening. What the president clearly has backed off of is decoupling. They’re looking to sell more and buy more, not decouple, and this appears to have been a positive meeting.

EICHER: Yeah, okay, and so that was my followup. What do you think the expectations really were going in, and could it be that maybe because the summit didn’t blow up or the two of them didn’t get into an argument, at least that we know about, that just by itself is a good thing?

BAHNSEN: Well, I think that the whole relationship right now centers around the fact that we are basically trying to figure out what the trading partnership is going to look like for the decade ahead, and that there is a desire for the U.S. to not alienate China, and yet for us to somehow be able to get a little more sovereignty over our critical minerals and other critical infrastructure components, including semiconductors.

I do the economic side. The geopolitical side is very hard for me, because I am fascinated by it. I study it, and I talk to a lot of people I trust, but I want to stay humble, because I know what I know, and I don’t know what I don’t know.

But I will say this: I don’t think that the current administration is as concerned with Taiwanese independence as they are with making sure that the U.S. semiconductor interests are protected before whatever happens with China and Taiwan happens. In other words, I think that our strategic imperative right now is more focused on us getting more domestic control over semiconductor manufacturing than it is whatever is going to end up happening.

I don’t want to be cynical and say, let us get our semiconductors out, and then you can go have Taiwan. I don’t think that’s the case. I also am not one who believes it’s true that China wants to go imminently take Taiwan either. I think China’s benefiting a great deal from having stabilized their bond market and their currency. The U.S. would have done very well to have had China’s bond market and China’s currency over the last 10 years. I hate to say it.

So why China would disrupt that with a globally frowned-upon invasion of Taiwan, I’m not certain that’s the case. But those are the things that matter into the future right now. It’s hard to think about stuff that’s five and 10 years out when we’ve got to get the Strait of Hormuz open. My guess is that’s where President Trump is angling, to see where China can agree to be an ally in that cause.

EICHER: What is your sense on that? Can you gauge from way over here how China is weathering this closed strait? I mean, this is where they get their energy. They don’t produce energy. Are they hurting?

BAHNSEN: Well, I don’t think it’s where they get all their energy, but it’s where they get a significant amount. They do get an awful lot, obviously, out of the Persian Gulf, but not all of it has to come through Strait of Hormuz.

I think about this ideologically, because I’m a worldview-oriented guy. Communists are not my friend, and jihadists are not my friend, but that doesn’t mean that communists and jihadists are each other’s friends either. I think that China’s relationship with Iran is entirely transactional. I don’t think it is in any way ideologically sympathetic.

To the degree that the U.S. can become pragmatically more beneficial to China than Iran, I think China would leave Iran in the dust in a second. So, yeah, China’s hurting from this, but there’s no question that a lot of oil got shipped in the early stages of this, and I think there was a lot in storage that’s been able to keep things going.

But no, I think that everybody involved on the buy side and sell side right now—and you see even U.S. oil prices this week and bond yields as well—we’re at the point now where we’re continuing to say wink wink, nod nod, we got this. But people need to see this strait opened up.

EICHER: I want to touch on interest rates, but before we leave China, is there one final takeaway to add on the Summit?

BAHNSEN: The last thing I’d say, Nick, is that you look back a year ago, we were threatening 145% tariffs, and now they’ve got children dancing, and they’re talking about how beautiful the flowers are and stuff. Things have moved a lot.

I think a lot of that is what I refer to as market discipline. China is well aware that markets—both U.S. stock, bond, currency, and financial markets—discipline the president, and some of his threats of a year ago are a little less efficacious now than they were. I think China knows that.

We’ll see where final deals end up going, but as I said before, I think it’s going to result in more trade with China, not less.

EICHER: So Kevin Warsh is taking over at the Fed, and I peek over at the CME FedWatch, and if there’s any change to the interest rate indicated, it appears that it’s going in the other direction—up, not down. Does that come as a surprise to you?

BAHNSEN: Well, it’s not a surprise at this point. It will be a surprise if it actually happens. I don’t think there’s any scenario by which this Fed is going to be raising rates, but I think in a way you could argue Kevin Warsh might be benefiting from this situation and the amount of dissenters at the Federal Open Market Committee, because he does have the ability to try to vote for a rate cut now and not get one, and say, “Mr. President, I’m sorry that there’s four other people voting against it,” or five other people voting against it, or what have you.

There’s just enough kind of disarray going on.

Let’s talk about interest rates in two ways real quick. The long end of the bond curve skyrocketed this week, and not just in the U.S., but globally. That’s Strait of Hormuz-oriented. That’s global disruption. In the U.K., E.U., and Japan, you saw bond yields going up at the long end everywhere. Then it happened in the U.S. and, for the first time in a while, got well above four and a half percent. Nothing brutally high, but it moved 20 basis points on the week.

The short end you’re referring to, about what the Fed funds rate can control, you’re exactly right that the futures market at CME is buying contracts based on no cuts and even a small possibility of a hike.

I think that the markets now have to get Kevin Warsh in and hear him talk. He’s only been talking as a candidate and doing the highly politically sanitized Senate confirmation rhetoric. Once he gets in with his colleagues and makes an argument and makes a vote and does a press conference, then markets can see what his posture is.

It’s not really about the very next meeting, but the meeting or two after that. Everyone can look at it the way it is now, but if you get one bad unemployment number, that’s going to change the narrative significantly.

Right now everyone’s saying, hey, the jobs thing has gotten a little bit better, and the price issue has gotten worse. Why would you be talking about cutting rates? But the data tweaks in this stuff can turn very quickly.

I am not at all convinced that we won’t be getting another rate cut by the end of the year, but let’s put it this way: I’m not buying Fed funds futures contracts saying so.

EICHER: All right. David Bahnsen—founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. He’s a writer for WORLD Opinions and he writes each week at Dividend Cafe. His current Dividend Cafe expands on the conversation we had last week on the U.S. debt. So if you wanted a deeper dive on that, we’ve got a link in today’s program transcript—or just sign up and have it sent to your inbox. That’s the easy way.

David, hope you have a great week.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much Nick.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Coming next: The World History Book.

Over forty-five years ago, a new video game captured the hearts of kids around the world. And not just little boys. This game didn’t focus on shooting aliens, racing cars, or playing sports.

REICHARD: No, it didn’t. The cute characters, colorful screens, and simple rules appealed to just as many girls as guys. WORLD’s Jenny Rough reports.

AUDIO: [Pac-Man arcade music]

ROUGH: Step inside the “45 Years of Pac-Man” exhibit at the Paley Center for Media in New York City, and it’s as if you’re living inside the iconic video game.

TERESA BRADY: When we walk in it feels like you’re going through the Pac-Man maze.

Paley center spokesperson Teresa Brady says the exhibit celebrates the game that debuted in Japan on May 22, 1980.

RON SIMON: Pac-Man was invented by a Japanese game designer in his mid-20s.

That’s Ron Simon, head curator for the Paley Center.

SIMON: His name was Tōru Iwatani. He wanted to create a game that everyone could play and would make people happy at the end.

Iwatani came up with the idea of Pac-Man after he saw a pizza with a single slice missing from the pie. That image inspired the main character: a yellow disk with an open mouth.

SIMON: He developed the game on one concept, and that was eating. Pac-Man, to keep living, had to keep on eating these pellets and escape the ghosts.

Iwatani originally named his video game Puck-Man. A play on the Japanese word paku-paku which means flapping one’s mouth open and closed quickly, like when eating fast. But Puck-Man was not going to fly in America due to the fear teenagers would alter the word to something less innocent.

The game is simple. Players move Pac-Man through a maze where he gobbles up the pellets, a bunch of small white dots. Pac-Man must avoid four ghosts nicknamed Blinky, Pinky, Inky, and Clyde. If a ghost catches Pac-Man—

AUDIO: [Ghost killing Pac-Man]

—he shrinks and dies. Iwatani wanted the ghosts to be cheery, not scary. And he gave each one an individual personality and movement.

John Riggs runs a YouTube channel on retro video games.

RIGGS: One of them will kind of play it safe, but if you get closer to where they are, then they will kind of creep up on you.

AUDIO: [Pac-Man eating power pellet and ghost]

For Riggs, and many other American kids of the 80s, their first experience with Pac-Man was through the at-home Atari console. Riggs was four years old the day his dad came home with it.

RIGGS: And I remember thinking, oh, do I have to put quarters into it to play it at home?

AUDIO: [Atari Pac-Man]

RIGGS: The Atari version, it was like microwaving leftovers to play the at-home version of these great arcade games. They still had the four ghosts. And it’s still the same premise, you’re running around the maze to eat all these, I think the Atari called them wafers because they were flat.

Still, a best-seller. Another secret of Pac-Man’s appeal: no need to use buttons or tracker balls. Just a flexible wrist.

RIGGS: Here’s this cute, fun, lovable approachable character in Pac-Man that you can play a very fun game, and it just uses one joystick. There’s no other buttons involved.

Pac-Man has expanded into a bunch of variations. At the Paley Center exhibit, Brady encourages visitors to experience the game of their choice hands-on.

BRADY: Come over here. So you can scroll down.

Like Ms. Pac-Man.

ROUGH: Oh, Ms. Pac-Man. I love Ms. Pac-Man!

SOUND: [Ms. Pac Man intro music]

Though it’s been awhile since I played.

ROUGH: Oh, shoot.

AUDIO: [Ms. Pac-Man caught by a ghost]

ROUGH: Alright, we can move on.

Brady also liked Ms. PacMan when she was young.

BRADY: You know what it is? I liked the opening music better.

AUDIO: [Ms. Pac-Man opening music]

BRADY: I think it was more charming. And of course, you know, I was a girl, and she was a girl.

Ms. Pac-Man has a bow on her head and starts the game in a pink-colored maze, instead of the original blue. A group of college dropouts created the unauthorized spinoff, and Pac-Man’s original publisher Namco acquired some of the rights in a complicated legal battle.

Pac-Man turned into a cultural phenomenon.

AUDIO: [Opening of Hanna Barbera’s Pac-Man]

The animation studio Hanna-Barbera had a huge hit in 1982 with its series Pac-Man. In the cartoon, Pac-Man had a wife, a baby, and even a dog named Chomp-Chomp. Paley Center curator Simon again:

SIMON: And that sort gave the possibility of having a family and traveling and not just locked in a maze like Pac-Man originally was in 1980.

Once Pac-Man burst out of that maze, he took off. The variety of games include Super Pac-Man, Baby Pac-Man, and even the little known Professor Pac-Man.

AUDIO: [Professor Pac-Man]

Pac-Man merchandise ranged from metal lunch boxes to packets of trading cards complete with a stick of pink bubble gum. It inspired cereal, board games, and a hit song.

LYRICS: I got a pocket full of quarters and I’m heading to the arcade. I got Pac Man fever. It’s driving me crazy.

“Pac Man Fever” by the musical duo Buckner & Garcia sold over two and a half million copies.

Some say Pac-Man carries a hidden message, like a warning against the dangers of consumerism. Riggs again:

RIGGS: Yeah, you have to eat all the dots. I’ve heard all the stories where— I think people find something. You can twist it any way you want. I don’t believe in any of those things.

Neither does Simon.

SIMON: Well, I think it’s just a fun game where you just have to continue to eat to stay alive. It’s almost very much like what it means to be a human. Any person, young, old. You just have to eat, and continue to move, watch out for the obstacles and then you thrive for another day. At its core, it does have something very human about this game.

Pac-Man may be one of the more fun reminders that everyone needs their daily bread.

AUDIO: [Pac-Man gameplay]

That’s this week’s History Book. I’m Jenny Rough.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Tomorrow: will the President’s visit to China affect U.S. objectives in Iran? We’ll talk to an expert. And, a baptismal pool plays a historic as well as spiritual part in the surrounding community. 

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, “You have dealt well with your servant, O LORD, according to your word. Teach me good judgment and knowledge, for I believe in your commandments. Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep your word. You are good and do good; teach me your statutes. —Psalm 119:65-68

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.