The World and Everything in It: May 25, 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.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: Good morning!

Two decades ago, the Supreme Court banned the death penalty for the intellectually disabled.

STEVENS: They do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct.

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

Also, today the Monday Moneybeat: How the AI boom may run into an old American problem—“not in my backyard.”

And the World History Book: Ten years ago, the shooting of a gorilla in a zoo sparked online outrage.

HANNA: If that was your child or grandchild, would you want to wait for a tranquilizer with a 450, 500 pound gorilla?

ROUGH: It’s Memorial Day 20-26. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Jenny Rough.

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

ROUGH: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Iran peace talks latest » President Trump is telling his negotiators not to rush into a potential peace deal with Iran. Trump posted Sunday that “time is on our side.”

That added a note of caution to his earlier weekend declaration that an agreement had been “largely negotiated.”

And it came shortly after Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters in India:

RUBIO: Some progress has been made, significant progress, although not final progress has been made.

Regional officials say the potential deal would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and require Iran to give up its highly enriched uranium. In exchange — sanctions relief, and the U.S. would lift its blockade of Iranian ports.

But Iran is pushing back publicly. Tehran says the Strait stays under its control — and nuclear issues aren't even on the table.

Rubio, while meeting with his Indian counterpart, reiterated President Trump’s red line.

RUBIO: Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon. The president has been clear about that. They will never possess a nuclear weapon, certainly not as long as Donald Trump is President of the United States.

A ceasefire in the conflict has largely held up since early April. President Trump last week warned that time is running out for Iran to strike a deal before the bombs start falling once again.

White House gunman » The Secret Service is investigating its second shooting near President Trump in just a month. A 21-year-old Maryland man opened fire at a White House checkpoint Saturday evening before officers fatally shot him.

The president was inside the White House and was never in danger. But gunfire wounded a bystander — who's reportedly in serious condition - but stable.

Republican Congressman Jeff Van Drew said, following a string of political violence incidents that it’s one more reminder that it’s time to cool it with overheated political rhetoric:

VAN DREW: You can have a thorough, robust debate about ideas and, and about vision, but you shouldn't be debating, uh, whether we should behave in a normal way.

The shooter — Nasire Best — was arrested last year for trying to push past another White House checkpoint. He had a history of mental health treatment, and at least one online post about harming the president.

Congo ebola » Eighteen suspected Ebola patients are missing in eastern Congo this morning, after an angry crowd torched their treatment center. The arson attack at the clinic in Mongbwalu was the second such attack in a week. The patients fled in the chaos and have not been seen since.

The Ebola outbreak has killed at least 175 people — with, by some estimates, nearly a thousand suspected cases.

The World Health Organization issued a new warning Friday. Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus:

GHEBREYESUS: We are now revising our risk assessment to very high at the national level, high at the regional level, and low at global level.

There is no vaccine for the particular strain of the disease now spreading in Africa.

The Trump administration has restricted visas for travelers from the affected countries.

California chemical tank explosion » Some 50-thousand people in Southern California are still away from their homes this Memorial Day. They were forced to evacuate as a damaged chemical tank in the LA area threatened to explode.

Residents in Garden Grove have been evacuated since Thursday, when the tank at an aerospace parts plant started overheating.

Interim Orange County fire chief TJ McGovern:

MCGOVERN: Your protection, your life safety is our paramount responsibility right now. We know you're out of your homes. We want to get you back, but we cannot do that until it's deemed safe.

That damaged tank contains methyl methacrylate— flammable, and toxic if inhaled. Crews evaluating the tank Sunday spotted a possible crack which could be relieving some pressure inside.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has declared a state of emergency. If the tank does fail, fire officials say their best hope is a slow leak … not an explosion.

Box office » At the weekend box office, Star Wars is back in theaters once again.

CLIP [Mandalorian trailer]: I can use some information. Whoa, for this price, I’ll tell you whatever you want. I’m looking for a hut. Closed for the night. Thank you.

The Mandalorian and Grogu debuts in the top spot.

The big screen adaptation of the Disney Plus series will haul in an estimated $102 million domestically for the holiday weekend. Box office analysts are mixed on whether that qualifies as a success. Anything over $100 million is a big debut. On the other hand, that is a 4-day estimate, and adjusted for inflation, it’s the weakest wide-release ever for a Star Wars film.

I'm Kent Covington.

The Supreme Court changes its mind about tackling a thorny capital punishment question. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat with David Bahnsen.

This is The World and Everything in It.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: It’s Monday the 25th of May.

Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Jenny Rough.

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

Time now for Legal Docket. It’s opinion season at the Supreme Court. The justices have 30 decisions still to hand down before they wrap up the merits cases from the current term, covering everything from women’s sports to gun restrictions.

ROUGH: But today, we start with a fundamental question about the death penalty: Does the government have the right to execute a convicted murderer who lacks normal intelligence?

The current legal landscape dates back almost 25 years: In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that executing an intellectually disabled person violates the Constitution. Specifically the 8th Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

EICHER: Here is the late Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announcing the decision in Atkins versus Virginia. You’ll hear Justice Stevens using a term that has since fallen out of common use.

STEVENS: We now hold that the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment categorically forbids the execution of the mentally retarded.

In deciding this case, the court agreed with this notion:

STEVENS: The imposition of the sentence of death upon a criminal defendant who has the mental age of a child between the ages of 9 and 12 is excessive.

Justice Stevens explained why it’s excessive.

STEVENS: Because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct.

He noted that the states were in broad agreement.

STEVENS: Today our society views mentally retarded offenders as categorically less culpable than the average criminal.

ROUGH: And that brings us to today’s case: Hamm versus Smith, a case out of Alabama.

Joseph Smith is a state inmate whose lawyers claim his low IQ should spare his life under the Atkins ruling. But look at what Smith is convicted of having done: Back in 1997 he killed a man by beating him to death with a hammer and power saw.

EICHER: That’s the stark conflict: Smith’s mind may operate at a deficit, but his crime required brutal capability. Alabama points to his horrific actions and demands the death sentence be carried out.

But because of the timing of the case, the law left a massive knot:

BELANGER: The thing about this case was that the defendant, when he was originally sentenced, Atkins had not yet been decided. So it was a significant change in the law.

ROUGH: Jim Belanger is a capital defense lawyer. He didn’t participate in Smith’s case, but—

BELANGER: I’ve been lead counsel in 19 death penalty cases since 1991. I have nobody on death row.

Belanger says there’re a couple of important things to know about the Atkins case. First, the Supreme Court did not write a uniform rule for the whole country. Local officials have the final say on deciding a defendant’s intellectual disability.

BELANGER: And that’s a state court process. We’re going to let the states develop their own processes. And frankly they have, and there hasn’t been much in the way of controversy.

Second, an intellectual disability historically means an IQ of 70 or below.

BELANGER: I don’t want to say it’s a bright line rule, but it’s a bright line consideration.

EICHER: In the years since, the Supreme Court has refined Atkins. In one case, it held that states must account for a margin of error, which could swing an IQ score up or down by as many as five points. And states also must consider adaptive functioning. That means, a defendant’s ability to navigate the demands of everyday life. In other words, if a defendant cannot prove an IQ of 70 or below, but can prove intellectual disability by other factors, he cannot be executed.

BELANGER: I had a case recently where … the school records showed that this individual couldn’t tie his shoes. … Spelling tests for example, spelled cat K-A-T. And then if it got to be a four letter word, “I can’t do this.” Those were his records. So that’s corroborating information that some state statutes allow you to bring in to support a finding of intellectual disability.

ROUGH: Back to the current case: Lawyers for the convicted killer Joseph Smith argue his low IQ means his death sentence must be tossed out. Lower courts agreed, but Alabama appealed, insisting Smith does not qualify for protection.

EICHER: The debate comes down to a numbers game: Over the years, Smith took five separate IQ tests. His scores fell between 72 and 78.

Past Supreme Court rulings dealt only with a single test score. This case is different, in that it forces the justices to look at the whole range of scores.

ROUGH: And that brings us to the core issue:

BELANGER: How do we actually apply Atkins when there are multiple IQ tests? … That’s the first time it’s been in front of the court.

The justices heard oral arguments in the case last December. Alabama’s lawyer argued that Smith did not come close to proving an IQ score of 70 or below. He said states have the power to handle multiple test scores however they want — for example, by averaging them or by giving more weight to the highest score.

EICHER: But during oral argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out a procedural flaw. She noted that Alabama never actually raised that specific argument in the lower courts. Here she is questioning Alabama’s attorney:

SOTOMAYOR: I’m having a really hard time with this case because I don’t think you’re wrong. States can define this the way they want. The problem here is … you didn’t argue this below. …  Tell me where in the trial record you argued that somehow aggregating scores, that somehow median scores, that somehow there was one perfect IQ score that states could require. Just show it to me. Point me to the record.

ROUGH: That’s key. Because in the end, even though the court accepted this case this term, it declined to decide it. Last week, it issued a DIG, an acronym for dismissed as improvidently granted. In the legal context, it means the court believes it should never have agreed to hear the case in the first place.

Here’s Belanger again:

BELANGER: So improvidently granted means they granted review but then on further consideration they decided for whatever reasons that it was not ripe to be decided, the issues weren’t fully developed. … They can make that decision at any point, prior to a decision on the merits.

Usually when the court DIGs a case, it issues a one sentence order without stating a reason. But this case was different. Justice Sotomayor spent 22 pages laying out her agreement. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined that concurrence.

EICHER: In it, Justice Sotomayor homed in on two points: First, the lack of an evidentiary record about how to analyze multiple IQ scores.

BELANGER: I agree with Justice Sotomayor that there has not been a split in the circuits below and therefore the question isn’t something the circuit courts need further guidance on. Since Atkins was decided 20 years ago, plus or minus, the courts have been dealing with Atkins just fine.

ROUGH: Even so, this case brought out two strong dissents. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a solo dissent where he argued that Atkins should be overruled. He believes the Eighth Amendment’s original meaning is only about methods of punishment.

EICHER: Finally, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a 24-page dissent in which Justice Thomas joined in full, and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch joined largely in part. Alito does believe the lower courts need a clear rule on how to assess multiple IQ scores. He highlighted three approaches states could take: one, a composite score; two, the median value of the scores; or three, have an expert witness make a judgment call.

BELANGER: I understand what Alito is saying in the sense of it would be great to have an objective test. Like, we can figure out whether you’re AB negative or O positive bloodwise, right? So if you’re AB negative you should never get the death penalty, right? Well, that’s easily verifiable. … IQ is a relatively accurate test, but there is a margin of error.

ROUGH: Because IQ tests have a margin of error … states ought to allow defendants to introduce evidence about their background. But Alito doubted that.

BELANGER:What Alito doesn’t want is … what he would consider to be fudge factors. You can’t use that to get somebody’s IQ below 70 if their test scores don’t show that.

Belanger says Alito might also be wary of the slippery slope.

BELANGER: Atkins theoretically opened the door for other intellectual disabilities. For example autism. … So I think what Alito is afraid of is that there are other mental syndromes that are physically based, like autism, that will now open the door to more ineligible death penalties.

EICHER: Where does this leave things? Because it’s a DIG, the court has not decided the merits. It sets no precedent. The justices’ writings are purely illustrative, and there’s no need for lower courts to follow anything that’s said.

ROUGH: Right, so that means the case is done. The lower court’s decision that Smith is intellectually disabled stands.

BELANGER: He will not be executed.

EICHER: Quickly, The court also issued decisions in two cases last week.

First, Havana Docks Corporation versus Royal Caribbean Cruise. This involves an American business that operated docks in Cuba until the communist takeover, when the regime seized the property.

ROUGH: The cruise lines later used those same docks without paying the original company. In an 8 to 1 decision, the court held that Havana Docks can move forward with a lawsuit against the cruise lines under federal law

EICHER: Second, M & K Employee Solutions versus Trustees of IAM National Pension Fund. In a unanimous decision, the court sided with an employer in a dispute over pension fund math. The justices held that when a company pulls out of a multiemployer pension plan, the law does not force them to use outdated financial assumptions to calculate what they owe.

ROUGH: And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

JENNY ROUGH, 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, stocks seemed pretty optimistic, or did, as we went into the holiday weekend. At the same time, there was a story last week I wanted to get your thoughts on: long-term bond yields and the fact that they have climbed to levels we have not really seen since before the financial crisis. Can you talk about the significance of that story?

BAHNSEN: Well, it’s a big deal for investors if it were to stay, just in the sense that a higher bond yield means that risk-asset valuations have to come down.

The reason why there’s a lot of reason to believe these higher bond yields are not going to hold is that risk assets have not been dropping; they’ve been going higher. That’s very different than what you’d historically see, and it gives at least some prima facie evidence that the more likely reason bond yields are moving higher is the short-term phenomenon of higher oil prices.

Bond yields and oil prices have been very, very correlated directionally for the last two, two-and-a-half months.

We don’t issue 30-year bonds anymore, so these are all older. There’s a lot less volume of the 30-year to get a market signal from.

The 10-year is the most important price in the world. Basically almost every asset on earth, globally and domestically, is priced off of the 10-year bond.

It is the number that I think indicates expectations for nominal GDP growth in the U.S. The 10-year’s moved up. It’s at four-and-a-half, but it’s been above four-and-a-half four different times in the last few years.

Four-and-a-half is a very minimal number. It’s around the level I’d like to see. I’d like to see inflation down to one-and-a-half to 2 percent, and I’d like to see real growth at two-and-a-half to 3 percent. So those two put together get us to about four-and-a-half.

Before the war started, it was a little over four, and it moved up to about four-and-a-quarter. In the last couple of weeks it’s gone from four-and-a-quarter to four-and-a-half.

We have a lot of data coming in the months ahead, and some of this is good, Nick, in that the employment data has been a little bit better than expected.

If you get bond yields dropping, that is a much bigger question, and it usually means that there’s an economic weakening. Right now I don’t think bond yields are going higher because of economic strengthening. I think they’re going higher because of oil prices.

That’s a more short-term phenomenon, presumably around the Strait of Hormuz, and therefore we need a little more time to digest this.

EICHER: All right, David, your Dividend Cafe this week really turned data centers into an infrastructure story and away from simply a technology story.

Communities all over the country are starting to push back, and push back really hard against these projects, and I wonder whether there’s a risk that AI development is going to start running into the same sort of not-in-my-backyard, NIMBY resistance that we have seen with oil pipelines or even things like nuclear power plants.

BAHNSEN: Well, there’s two different things there, Nick. Forgive me, but I want to parse this out the right way for our listeners, because people could resist data centers for stuff that has nothing to do with AI at all. It could literally be about the data center.

I think so far the resistance to data centers has almost entirely been immaterial to what is happening inside the data center.

It’s mostly that people don’t want the power depletion that it represents, the water resources, and then the eyesore of a massive digital warehouse—a huge physical facility that has a lot of digital infrastructure inside of it.

There may end up being a second tier, which is people resisting data centers because they’re resisting AI and what AI could end up doing to jobs, or what AI is doing in terms of deep fakes and other sinister activity.

I would love to say that all of this can be tackled all at once, but I don’t think it can be. I think each community has to deal with what they want their relationship to be with huge new warehouse facilities independently around their own zoning laws, their own entitlement, and their own voter preferences.

What I do not want, Nick, is the federal government to come in and intervene as to what different cities, counties, and localities ought to be doing.

I also think the data-center conversation and the AI conversation need to be separate, because if we end up getting a fair acceptance—I’m not a NIMBY guy whatsoever—if the only hostility to data centers were, "I am old and retired and don’t want this thing around me," that’s not good enough.

It’s all going so fast that I don’t feel society is wrestling with it the right way. The political side of it is totally confused.

We need to go about this one step at a time with first principles, and that should be attached to data centers as much as it should be attached to AI technology.

EICHER: David, there was another story last week that caught my attention, and it had to do with the coming SpaceX IPO.

For all of the futuristic technology involved in something like this, I was struck in the Wall Street Journal story about how the actual process of an initial public offering really sounds very old school—bankers on phones deciding who gets shares and who does not.

Could you take this opportunity, with that coming sometime in June with SpaceX, to walk us through how an IPO works and what it says about how markets really function?

BAHNSEN: Well, there are a lot of things about this that will be similar to other IPOs because they have to be, but there’s plenty that’s very, very different.

For one thing, this will be the largest size of an IPO in history and the smallest amount being given to the public in history. It’s set up in a way to create an imbalance between supply and demand, which makes prices jump higher and unfortunately leaves some people holding the bag.

I think when you’re talking about a company that they want to value between one-and-a-half and $2 trillion, and they’re going to bring to market $50 to $70 billion, there’s just going to be a very limited float, which is what it’s called—the amount available for the public to buy.

With very high demand and very low supply, it pushes the numbers up, and I think this is not always going to be the most sophisticated buyers dealing with that supply-demand imbalance.

That said, you’re certainly right. Investment bankers have to get on the phone and secure orders, because even if the percentage of the float is very, very small, $50 to $70 billion is still a lot.

Remember, when Amazon went public they brought $25 million—with an M.

Now that was a long time ago, but the largest IPO in history was Saudi Arabia bringing Aramco, their national oil company, and it was a fraction of this.

A typical IPO is usually dealing with a billion dollars, not $50 billion or $70 billion.

You’re going to have big hedge funds and big institutional investors having to take a lot of the size down, and that requires a lot of bankers.

This is not just one company leading it. You’re going to have almost every investment bank on Wall Street talking to a lot of investors, and not just U.S. investors. There’s going to be heavy foreign ownership of this as well.

It’s going to be a big, elaborate process.

I should disclose, just for the sake of disclosure, that I’m a shareholder and have been for a number of years, and a lot of our clients are.

My opinion on the process is that it’s Elon doing it the way he wishes he had done Tesla to begin with. He’s going to be fully in charge of everything.

Anyone buying in the IPO is not going to have any of the traditional shareholder rights. He’s going to have ten-times voting shares. He can’t be fired. There’s all kinds of stuff they’re doing, but that’s fully disclosed. Any investor buying it will know that.

They’ve incorporated in Texas, which is a little different than what Tesla was in Delaware.

Let’s remember, SpaceX is no longer just SpaceX. They merged with xAI, and so you have basically Twitter and Grok and SpaceX all together.

SpaceX itself owns Starlink, which is where most of the revenues come from.

So you have a telecom, satellite, social media, AI, data-center-in-space, rocket-ship play all merged together.

At the end of the day, investors either want to own Elon’s conglomerate of companies or they don’t.

EICHER: All right. David Bahnsen is 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. Hope you have a great holiday-shortened week, David.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Jenny Rough.

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

Ten years ago, a toddler fell into the gorilla exhibit at the Cincinnati Zoo. Cell phone cameras captured the ordeal in a video that soon went mega-viral, bringing international attention to zoo safety, ‘animal rights’, and one 450-pound silverback gorilla who quickly became a household name.

ROUGH: The death of “Harambe” soon turned into that strange internet phenomenon: a meme.

WORLD’s Maria Baer reports.

MARIA BAER: It’s nearly 4 pm at the Cincinnati Zoo on Saturday, May 28th, 2016. The sunny day has brought one of the biggest crowds of the year to the zoo. Visitors are ooh-ing and aah-ing at the Western Lowland Gorillas. Their open exhibit sits at the bottom of a steep slope, bordered by a three-foot railing and a few cables.

SOUND: [CROWD]

Suddenly a woman screams. A three-year-old boy has scrambled over the short barrier and into the exhibit.

SOUND: [Screaming]

Isaiah Dickerson stumbles through a small copse of bushes and then falls roughly 15 feet into the moat that winds through the gorilla habitat.

In seconds, the gorilla troop’s dominant male, a 450-pound silverback named Harambe, approaches the boy. In a video that will soon go viral, Harambe is seen dragging Dickerson by the ankle through the stream.

AUDIO: Mommy’s right here!

The boy doesn’t cry out — but his mother, watching from above, does.

AUDIO: Mommy loves you! I’m right here!

Quickly, nearby zookeepers blast a special call to lure the gorillas back into their inner enclosure. The females comply immediately. But Harambe, distracted and agitated by Dickerson and the yells of the crowd, does not. Zookeepers call the fire department.

ABC: And a three-year-old child has fallen into the gorilla cage.

For ten minutes, Harambe violently drags Dickerson around the exhibit. Responders begin ushering onlookers out of the area. When the zoo’s Dangerous Animal Response Team arrives, they make what will prove to be a deeply controversial decision.

ABC: A zoo under fire for shooting and killing an endangered gorilla instead of tranquilizing him after the animal dragged a child around its enclosure…

Zoo officials shoot and kill Harambe with a shotgun, reasoning that a tranquilizer dart would have taken too long to kick in — and might have agitated him further. Rescue workers retrieve Dickerson. He’s taken to a nearby hospital where he’s diagnosed with a concussion before being sent home that night with his family.

The next day, zoo director Thane Maynard defends the decision.

MAYNARD: That child’s life was in danger. People who question that, who are our Monday morning quarterbacks, or second-guessers don’t understand that you can’t take a risk with a silverback… we’re talking about an animal that can with one hand, that I’ve seen, take a coconut and crush it.

Animal rights groups are outraged. PETA releases a statement suggesting Harambe was actually protecting the child, “the same way any human would.” They say the incident proves animals shouldn’t be kept in zoos.

ANCHOR: Dozens of people gathered here on the street corner, the entrance to the Cincinnati Zoo in remembrance of Harambe, who they say died too soon.

The tension highlights the worldview differences between those who believe animals have the same moral value, and should have the same rights, as humans — and those who believe in the unique sanctity of human life.

Jane Goodall, the world’s foremost primate expert, says it’s possible Harambe was protecting the child. But she defends the zoo’s decision to kill the gorilla.

So does Jack Hanna, Director Emeritus of the nearby Columbus Zoo.

HANNA: Ask anybody viewing this right now. If that was your child or grandchild, would you want to wait for a tranquilizer with a 450, 500 pound gorilla? No.

Soon the national media picks up the story.

ANCHOR: Visited by more than a million people during his lifetime, Harambe’s name is now known around the world, after a video of his final moments, this dramatic encounter with a toddler, exploded online.

Even the women of The View weigh in — and blame spreads.

GOLDBERG: I’m sorry, you know, when you have animals…there should not be a way for a kid to climb up and over, slide in and under, there just should not be a way.

Commentators and protestors begin criticizing the zoo’s low barrier to the gorilla exhibit. The U.S. Department of Agriculture sends inspectors. They declare the barrier around Harambe’s exhibit “outdated” and “inadequate.” So the zoo tears it down and builds a new, taller one. They also install security cameras. The exhibit reopens ten days after the incident.

AUDIO: And of course today’s a big day. Cincinnati’s ready to see gorillas again.

Meanwhile, backlash also mounts against Dickerson’s mother. The local county prosecutor announces an investigation into whether she was criminally negligent. After a home visit from children’s services, the investigation is short-lived.

DETERS: After total review of the evidence, witness statements, we have concluded that no charges will be filed against the mother…

In the summer following the incident, Harambe’s death becomes a catalyst of change for online discourse. Intense disagreement over the incident turns the whole thing into one of the earliest examples of a meme. That’s a viral incident that becomes an ironic shorthand on social media and the subject of countless jokes and song parodies.

PARODY: I’m here without Harambe, and he’s still on my lonely mind…

Ten years later, the meme survives, with at least one TikTok user recently posting “want to feel old? The Harambe kid is now a teenager.”

Experts estimate there are 175,000 western lowland gorillas left in the world, with around 765 living in zoos. Before Harambe died, he was being groomed to breed. But in 2023, The Cincinnati Zoo announced it had brought three more male gorillas into its habitat, hoping they’ll take up the mantle.

That’s this week’s World History Book, I’m Maria Baer.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: The U.S. turns up the heat on Cuba. We’ll have a report. And, how rapid bird population decline is motivating action by conservationists…and ordinary people. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: And I’m Jenny Rough.

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, “How much better to get wisdom than gold! To get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver.” —Proverbs 16:16

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.