The World and Everything in It: November 10, 2025

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

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

Two cases at the U.S. Supreme Court challenge the president’s authority on tariffs:

TRUMP: If this country is not allowed to have the President of the United States negotiate on behalf of it with tariffs we’re going to be a third-world country.

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

Also today, the Monday Moneybeat: America’s financial capital facing a socialist mayor with a mandate.

And the WORLD History Book: 50 years ago today, the gales of November remembered.

NBC NEWSCAST: A freighter carrying a crew of 29 disappeared on Lake Superior during a severe storm last night and so far no survivors have been found...

REICHARD: It’s Monday, November 10th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

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

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

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Government funding vote » The government shutdown could soon come to an end … after the Senate did something last night that it has failed to do for nearly six weeks …

AUDIO (vote count):  On this vote, the yays are 60 and the nays are 40 three-fifths of the Senate having voted in the affirmative. The motion upon reconsideration is agreed to.

The Senate, in a rare Sunday session, voted yes on a test vote … that is the first in a series of procedural maneuvers … to reopen and fund the government into late January.

A group of several Democratic Senators broke a stalemate and agreed to vote to advance the spending package.

That does not mean the shutdown will end immediately. Final passage could be several days away if Democrats object and delay the process.

But eight Democrats on Sunday joined 52 Republicans in approving the measure. The Senate’s top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, however … was not among them.

SCHUMER:  I must vote no. This healthcare crisis is so severe, so urgent, so devastating for families back home that I cannot in good faith, support this CR.

The funding package does not guarantee the extension of Obamacare tax credits as most Democrats have demanded. But it did come with a guarantee of mid-December vote on that matter on the Senate floor.

Airline cancelations » The shutdown continues to wreak havoc on airport passengers.

U.S. airlines canceled well over 2,000 flights Sunday — and more than 7,000 others were reportedly delayed.

That following the FAA’s order to reduce air traffic to ensure safety.

Transportation Sec. Sean Duffy says each day, more and more air traffic controllers are not showing up for work … as they’re being asked to work without a paycheck for now.

DUFFY:  We have done all we can to make sure we minimize disruption, that we keep the airspace safe. 

The slowdown at 40 of the nation’s busiest airports is now in its fourth day and beginning to cause more widespread disruptions.

SCOTUS blocks lower court SNAP order » The Trump administration is telling states to roll back full SNAP payments for November, as the shutdown continues.

Several states began issuing full benefits after a federal court ordered the administration to find the funds.

But the Supreme Court put that order on hold after the USDA argued that the money isn’t authorized and paying it could strain other programs.

The stay gives the First Circuit Court of Appeals time to revisit the case, possibly as soon as today.

UPS crash update » The death toll from last week’s crash involving a UPS cargo plane has risen once more.

Louisville, Kentucky Mayor Craig Greenberg:

GREENBERG:  Combined with the individual who passed at U of L Hospital, that brings the number of victims as a result of the crash to 14. We pray that there are no more victims.

Only three of those killed were aboard the plane, the rest were in the impact zone when the plane crashed on takeoff from Louisville’s international airport.

No word yet on what caused an engine to fall off the plane.

The FAA has ordered the grounding and inspection of all planes of the same model … a McDonald Douglas M-D 11.

Israel: No Turkish forces in Gaza » Israel says Turkish troops will not be a part of any stabilization force in the post-war Gaza Strip.

Israeli government spokeswoman Shosh Bedrosian says the White House has been pressuring Israel to include Turkey in such a global force … which would be charged with keeping the peace in Gaza.

BEDROSIAN:  There will be no Turkish boots on the ground in the present, in the future, specifically in the international stabilization force.

She notes that Turkey has issued arrest warrants for numerous Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayahu.

The Turkish government has accused Israeli leaders of war crimes during the war in Gaza against the Hamas terrorist group.

Nigeria’s army chief promises to step up anti-terror ops » Nigeria’s new army chief has promised to intensify operations against terrorists in the north. This announcement comes less than a week after President Trump threatened U.S. military action if Nigeria didn't stop attacks on Christians.

Republican Congressman Riley Moore also had a message for the Nigerian government over the weekend:

MOORE:  Help us protect the Christians in your country and we will help you. This doesn't have to be all sticks. It can also be carrots here, or we do have these kinetic military options on the table, which the president has made very clear. He will consider.

Lt. Gen. Waidi Shaibu, speaking to troops in northeastern Nigeria, emphasized that the new counter-terrorism push must succeed.

According to the Nigeria-based group Intersociety, from January through August of this year … militants killed 7,000 Christians and kidnapped roughly 8,000 others.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: Legal Docket and the Monday Moneybeat. Plus, remembering the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 10th day of November, 2025. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

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

COMMERCIAL: Learning! (music plays) Learning to build, learning 1s, 2s, and 3s. [fades sharply] Learning about science...

That’s an ad for a company called Learning Resources. It sells hands-on, “experiential” learning toys. A family owned business based in Chicago.

But, most of the company’s products are manufactured overseas and imported to the U.S.

EICHER: President Trump campaigned on imposing tariffs on foreign made products. And Learning Resources had planned for a Trump victory along with a higher cost of doing business.

But the company underestimated how big a bite tariffs would take. They were not prepared for this announcement from April 2nd this year.

TRUMP: My fellow Americans, this is liberation day. ….Our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for more than fifty years. But it is not going to happen anymore. It’s not gonna happen. (Cheers)

EICHER: The president had already placed tariffs on imported goods from Mexico, Canada, and China. This time he announced “reciprocal” tariffs —starting at 10 percent for all countries… and higher for those whose companies sell more in the U.S. than what they buy from the U.S.

REICHARD: For Learning Resources the cost was too high. Last year, tariffs cost the company a manageable 2.3 million dollars.

The new tariffs would increase costs almost 50-fold, to 100 million dollars. More than the value of the product itself. So, the company sued.

EICHER: As did a wine importer called V.O.S. Selections in New York. Twelve states joined that lawsuit.

Each dispute reached the Supreme Court in different ways. Along the way, the president lost in every lower court, but no ruling stopped the tariffs, so they remain in effect today.

REICHARD: The Supreme Court combined the cases into one and fast-tracked them for argument. Both deal with the same issue. President Trump relied on a 1977 law known by the acronym IEEPA… the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Past presidents have used IEEPA’s powers. President Carter, for example, used it to freeze Iranian assets during the hostage crisis.

EICHER: No president has used IEEPA for tariffs. Until President Trump, in his second term. So the question is this: Does IEEPA give a president the power on his own to impose tariffs?

REICHARD: WORLD correspondent Jeff Palomino covered these cases for us. Good morning, Jeff.

JEFF PALOMINO: Good morning!

REICHARD: A long argument, more than two and a half hours. What themes arose during that time?

PALOMINO: Several, actually. First, the text of IEEPA. It doesn’t mention tariffs at all, but it does say the President can “regulate…importation.” So, does the word “regulate” include tariffs?

REICHARD: Okay. So once again, the meanings of words. Very common at the Supreme Court. That’s one theme. What another theme that came up?

PALOMINO: It’s called the major questions doctrine. That means Congress must explicitly say “Yes, the president can do that” when it passes laws that have major effects on our economy or political life. The President or agencies cannot just assume they have that power.

REICHARD: Alright, so far, themes of words - regulate and tax - and the major questions doctrine. Anything else?

PALOMINO: A lot of questions from the Court about something called the non-delegation doctrine. This is a long-held rule that says if Congress passes a law that - in some way - gives its constitutional power to another branch it has to do so with "intelligible principles" meaning the law has to have “a floor and a ceiling”. Only with this can the Court provide meaningful checks and balances.

REICHARD: Alright. Let’s hear what U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued for the administration.

SAUER: On April 2, President Trump determined that our exploding trade deficits had brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe. The phrase "regulate ... importation" plainly embraces tariffs, which are among the most traditional and direct methods of regulating importation.

PALOMINO: The President’s lawyer then made a crucial distinction which was critical to the President’s argument:

SAUER: We don't contend that what's being exercised here is the power to tax. It's the power to regulate foreign commerce. These are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental.

REICHARD: He’s saying these tariffs aren’t even taxes. They’re outward facing and regulate imports. And IEEPA allows the President to regulate imports subject to a declared emergency. Ergo, it’s legal.

What did the justices think of that argument?

PALOMINO: I’d say most weren’t buying it. Liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all said tariffs are taxes and that only for Congress to do.

But Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to lean that way, especially as it relates to the Major Questions Doctrine we mentioned earlier. Here he is posing a question to Sauer.

ROBERTS: You have claimed a source in IEEPA that had never before been used to justify tariffs… but the vehicle is imposition of taxes on -- on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress. So to have the President’s foreign affairs power trump that basic power for Congress seems to me to kind of at least neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power.

REICHARD: What else jumped out to you during arguments on behalf of the President?

PALOMINO: Well, some court-watchers see Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a swing vote in this case, so many listened closely to her questions. 

When the President’s lawyer, Sauer, argued the phrase “regulate…importation” is rooted in history to always have include the authority to tariff, Justice Barrett asked this:

BARRETT: Can you point to any other place in the Code or any other time in history where that phrase together, "regulate ... importation," has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?

Sauer cited just two examples: a lower-court case - meaning not a Supreme court case - from the ‘70s that Justice Barrett dismissed as quote “a contested application.” Sauer also cited IEEPA itself. So, not a strong answer.

Then came Justice Neil Gorsuch. He really grilled the government on its claim that because IEEPA involves foreign commerce, Congress - when it passed the law - was simply affirming the power the Constitution already gives the President over foreign affairs.

Justice Gorsuch - he was struggling to hear any limiting principle in that.

GORSUCH: So Congress, as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the President. It's a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives.

REICHARD: Alright, let’s turn to the arguments on the other side, for the businesses and states who sued to stop these tariffs.

PALOMINO: Well, the lawyer for the small businesses, Neil Katyal, said the word “regulate” is specific and it prohibits the president from imposing taxes or raising revenue. That prompted Justice Samuel Alito to pose a hypothetical in this exchange with, edited for flow:

ALITO: Do you think all tariffs are revenue-raising? Suppose that instead of imposing these across-the-board tariffs, suppose that an executive order imposed a tariff on one particular country and provided that this would take effect in 90 days. Would that be a revenue-raising tariff?

KATYAL: I think that would.

ALITO: Look, I don’t doubt that there are edge cases. That is what this court’s confronted just recently….and you said, look, what is a tax is sometimes very hard, what is revenue-raising. This is obviously revenue-raising. Their own brief to the Court says it's going to raise 4 trillion dollars.

Now, both lawyers for the businesses and states conceded that the words of IEEPA allow the President to take all sorts of actions. For example, he could put quotas on imports. But they argued that doesn’t mean tariffs.
Listen to this exchange between Justice Brett Kavanaugh and lawyer for Oregon, Benjamin Gutman:

KAVANAUGH: Your interpretation of the statute, …would allow the President to shut down all trade with every other country in the world or to impose some significant quota on imports from every other country in the world, but would not allow a 1 percent tariff. And that leaves, in the government's words, in its brief, an odd donut hole in the statute. Why would a rational Congress say, yeah, we’re gonna give the president power to shut down trade. I mean, think about the effects. But you’re admitting that power’s in there. But can’t do a 1% tariff. …That doesn't seem… to have a lot of common sense behind it.

GUTMAN: I think it absolutely does because it's a fundamentally different power. It's --it's not a donut hole; it's a different kind of pastry. (Laughter.)

KAVANAUGH: And on that --on that power --that's a good one. 

REICHARD: (laughs) All right, Jeff, want to make a prediction?

PALOMINO: You know that’s risky! The court heard this case on a fast track - so I predict the court will also rule quickly on this. Now, on the question of tariffs, I do think the votes appear to be there to overturn them.

No doubt they’re a key negotiating tool for President Trump. But no doubt either they’ve put a strain on U.S. businesses and in turn consumers.

It’s worthwhile to pause and consider how much power the President really should have. As lawyer Katyal for the businesses pointed out, the power given to one is power given to all.

KAYTAL: It’s simply implausible that in enacting IEEPA Congress handed the President the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process… If the government wins, another president could declare a climate emergency and impose huge tariffs …without floors or ceilings, as Justice Gorsuch said…..This administration would declare it a hoax. The next president may not quite say that.

REICHARD: Well, that’s where those pesky limiting principles do come in. Alright, Jeff, thanks so much! Good job.

PALOMINO: You bet, Mary.

REICHARD: 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: Good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

EICHER: Well, New York City has a new mayor-elect, Zoran Mamdani. He’s a self-described democratic socialist, and even in a three-way race for mayor, Mamdani was able to pull out a decisive win last Tuesday night. Anticipating that victory—this was just days before that election—Bloomberg carried a long feature titled New York’s Golden Handcuffs.

And David, you were right in the middle of it—or I guess I really should say you were right at the beginning of it—a conservative wealth manager who calls the city’s taxes contemptible yet insists he’s staying put.

Now, with Mamdani about to take office, the issue about New York City’s wealthy job-creator tax base voting with their feet is not a hypothetical anymore. You’ve got a socialist mayor coming in with a mandate to soak the rich and test whether the city’s wealthiest residents take off before he does that.

Columnist Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal, warns that Mamdani ought to be taken both literally and seriously, and she predicts in her column that he will start cautiously but become, in her words, an inch-by-inch bulldozer.

So let’s start at that point. David, you warned in that Bloomberg piece that a Mamdani victory could do a lot of damage in four years, and now that he’s actually mayor-elect, what is your biggest concern?

BAHNSEN: My biggest concern is what it means for the national picture—that there is a growing embrace among younger voters around the idea of the government doing more in the economy. I wrote a piece at Fox News right after he won the nomination, when I was certain he was going to be elected mayor, that this was really an indication of populism, where politicians promise a lot of things to young people who want to hear it.

They’re frustrated with affordability, and they don’t know the history of what solutions have already been proven not to work. And my fear was right-wing populism—that we can’t combat left-wing populism with right-wing populism.

That’s my biggest concern: that we get into this game of which side believes the government can play a bigger role in administration of the economy. I believe, of course, in a high value of freedom to drive prosperity, and Mamdani very much does not.

So that’s really my biggest concern—what it means to the overall national debate. Localized to New York City, it means a lot less. I mean, he says, “I want to raise taxes.” He can’t raise taxes—the governor’s office has to do that. He says he wants to start grocery stores in New York—well, he can’t really do that.

Now, they have a lot of regulatory power. De Blasio used a lot of regulatory power very negatively. But most of the time when mayors are bad, it’s because they let crime and punishment go awry. That’s the area where mayors can either do good or do bad. I expect he’s going to do bad in that arena.

But those who predict that this is going to bring the demise of New York City—they ought to study the history a little bit themselves.

EICHER: David, what if that movement that Bloomberg hints at there—the idea of wealthy New Yorkers voting with their feet—what happens when ideology meets math? When that same 1 percent that funds 40 percent of the city’s income-tax revenues decides to leave town? Is it that you just don’t take that concern all that seriously?

BAHSNEN: What the article points out is it’s been happening for 50 years, marginally. The tax base of New York City has changed. There have been a lot of people who’ve left, and then there’s been a heck of a lot of new people who’ve come in.

Even going to church in New York City—anyone who’s pastored there long enough knows one of the pastoral frustrations is you get a whole new congregation every few years. A lot of wealthy people left during COVID; a lot said they were going to leave and didn’t.

But there’s a mix-and-match of these things that’s been going on for a long time. A lot of big companies—you know, when I first moved to New York, Nick, it was confusing because you’d walk by and people would say, “Oh, there’s the Exxon Building.” And I would say, “Exxon’s there?” They’d go, “No, no, they were there back in the ’60s.”

You know, the GM Building has an Apple Store at the bottom of it down on Fifth Avenue by Central Park. GM hasn’t been in that building since before I was born.

You know, this is another thing that has to be said: the only demographic that he got over half of the vote with are people who’ve been in New York for less than four years. It’s new people who’ve come to New York.

Everyone who was predicting New York was dead back in 2020 and ’21—and then the city has been more crowded than I’ve ever seen it for the last couple of years. So there’s a bunch of bad things going on here.

The demographics as to how young college students—a lot of people thought it was kind of more disenfranchised voters in the Bronx and in Queens of lower income and lower education who were voting for welfare benefits. That’s not really the case. A lot of this is college graduates who believe Mamdani is going to go deliver this sort of socialistic paradise.

That, to me, is the problem. And I’m sorry, but that’s not limited to New York City right now. That’s not even limited to the Democrat Party.

EICHER: Last week I asked for a snap judgment on that meeting in South Korea between President Trump and President Xi of China—the one that produced what the White House called a breakthrough, what others called a pause in the trade war.

Since that time, you devoted your Dividend Café to that topic. Where do things stand with China? So now that you’ve had an additional week to think about it, David, where do things stand between the United States and China on trade?

You did write that the real danger is not China beating us at industrial policy, but America imitating China. What are you seeing that makes you say that?

BAHNSEN: Well, the idea of trying to control what can be exported and what can be imported and set prices around it—it’s what we call tariffs—and having these various policies of national administration of the economy of trade being run in China by the CCP and in the U.S. by the White House—it limits economic growth.

China’s suffered from it for a long time, and China has sort of manipulated its way to a very export-focused economy that is very limited in its domestic-consumption capacity. And yet, of course, they export cheap goods pretty well, but then that has caused their economy not to diversify and not to grow to its natural capacity—but that was all by central planning.

I think the U.S. seeking to imitate industrial policy with good motives in certain places—no one could doubt that China’s were deemed to be in their own national interest too “good motives”—but I don’t think it works.

It’s very obvious to me—this is the number-one biggest takeaway—that the entire objective has nothing to do with limiting trade with China. That is a big sigh of relief for a lot of people, but it’s a big frustration for others who really believed in this idea that we needed to decouple from China.

So we will be buying more rare-earth minerals than ever, and we will be engaged in more semiconductor trade with them than ever. It’s funny that the first week we had, Nick, in which this deal was done and set, was the worst week for markets since all the Liberation Day hubbub back in early April.

That’s not because of this deal—it’s more the fact that, you know, “buy the rumor, sell the news.” It’s been known in markets for a long time that some deal like this was coming, and a lot of the big companies involved—the Apples and Nvidias—they’d been carved out and waived and exempted this whole time anyway.

But some tariffs have stuck, and certainly tariffs with a lot of other countries have stuck. It’s a few hundred billion dollars more than it was at the beginning of the year, and the vast majority of that is being paid by small business.

So this isn’t really a stock-market story. It’s a story of small- and middle-sized companies that are having to figure out how to deal with the tariffs.

Although I do think the next 10 percent—if you recall, the administration put on a 20 percent tariff with China for fentanyl-related issues—they cut that in half and indicated they’re going to get rid of the other side. I think that’ll be in April, so that’ll provide some relief to American business as well.

EICHER: Well, David, before we go, we were supposed to have a jobs report last Friday to look at and analyze, but for the second month in a row, we did not—and that’s thanks to the longest government shutdown on record. So no official read on employment.

The New York Times reports that private-payroll data show a labor market that’s cooled but not collapsed. It’s kind of, as the Times put it, a low-hire, low-fire limbo. So, David, how do you read what information we do have?

BAHNSEN: Well, the Challenger Gray & Christmas report did have the highest amount of layoffs for October of any other October—not of any other month—but, you know, just to do a seasonal comparison, in a long, long time. So there were more layoffs in these private-sector numbers.

But I think you’re right that the ADP number for new hires in October ticked up a little. It’s still very low, but it had been negative the month before.

So, yeah, all of us are relying heavily on private-sector data right now because that’s all we have, and it’s indicating a slowing but not collapsing jobs market.

All the data—public and private—had been indicating that for several months before the shutdown too. But I thought that Challenger Gray & Christmas report of a real big pickup in layoffs was significant, and we’ll have to kind of wait for more governmental affirmation around these things.

But no, it’s not a great environment for jobs right now, and it’s not a collapsing one. And then how that is distributed—what segments?

Because on one hand, you keep hearing Microsoft’s laying off 10,000 and IBM’s laying off 2,000 and Amazon is cutting back 7,000—but then all the data seem to indicate that most of the job layoffs are in smaller businesses.

Companies with less than 50 employees are the highest percentage, and companies with less than 500 are the second-highest percentage of layoffs. So the data are tough to wrap our arms around, but I don’t think it’s great. I just don’t think it’s yet anything close to recessionary.

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. Good to be with you.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Today is Monday, November 10th. 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. Up next, the WORLD History Book.

MUSIC: Does anyone know where the love of God goes / when the waves turn the minutes to hours? / … the church bell chimed / ’til it rang 29 times for each man on the Edmund Fitzgerald.

Singer songwriter Gordon Lightfoot singing of the very picture of the proverbial “perfect storm:” a long ship loaded with 26,000 tons of iron ore, facing hurricane strength winds and waves taller than a three-story building, leading to the Great Lakes’ most famous shipwreck, 50 years ago today.

Here’s WORLD’s Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER: November 10th, 1975. The National Weather Service has issued a Storm Warning for Lake Superior, with winds greater than 55 miles per hour. Gales this strong often produce waves of 25 feet or more.

It’s a weather pattern known regionally as The Witch of November, appearing with very little warning. When it blows in, no one wants to be caught out on the water, just ask sailor John Lufkins. During the November 10th storm he had to rescue fishermen floundering in the sheltered Whitefish Bay in Eastern Michigan.

LUFKINS: I’ve seen a lot of bad storms…but nothing like that. I mean its hard to describe…the wind just came up horrifically,

The Coast Guard tells all vessels to find safe anchorage until the storm is past, announcing the locks into Lake Huron have been closed.

More than 40 miles to the north, the captain of the Edmund Fitzgerald is struggling to maintain his course. Captain Ernest McSorley is navigating without radar, in blowing snow and rough seas. He decides to try to reach Whitefish Bay.

Not far away, captain Bernie Cooper is piloting the SS Arthur M Anderson. Another huge freighter. The Fitzgerald’s sister ship. It's more than 10 miles behind on the same route. Cooper checks in with McSorley by radio throughout the day.

CAPT. COOPER: And he said, I've got a little problem. He said my fence rail is down. He said, I've got two vents missing, and I've taken a starboard list now…I asked him if he had his pumps on. He said, Yes.

McSorley says he’s going to slow the Fitzgerald down so that Cooper can catch up—hoping they can continue on to the harbor together. About an hour later, Cooper checks back in.

CAPT. COOPER: I said, How you doing? He said, we're holding our own. That was at 7:10, that was the last transmission we had from him, and he showed no signs of panic. I mean, he was calm. So I like, I firmly believe, I think that he thought that ship was going to get him through.

The Edmund Fitzgerald disappears from Cooper’s radar at 7:15pm. No mayday. No SOS. It’s there one moment, and gone the next.

CAPT. COOPER: I think they were going under, and they thought it was a big wave, and I think they just kept going, just plunged.

About an hour later, the Coast Guard calls for a search and rescue. The problem is, the storm is still raging, and no one except Cooper is anywhere close to the Canadian waters. The Coast Guard asks him to turn around and check. Time is of the essence. No one can survive in the frigid water for more than 45 minutes.

COAST GUARD: We have no other vessels in that vicinity right now… We're talking now about a matter of life and death and looking for survivors that might be in life rafts or in the in the water and uh we can only ask the masters to do the best without hazarding their vessel.

COOPER: I’ll turn around. I don’t know…I’ll give it a try.

COAST GUARD: But do the best you can and see if you could find any sign of any lights in the water or any debris or any life rafts or anything that might indicate survivors…

Captain Cooper makes it back to the last known location of the Fitzgerald and finds an oil slick, life jackets, and wood that seems to be from a life boat…but nothing more.

TOM BROKAW: A freighter carrying a crew of 29 disappeared on Lake Superior during a severe storm last night and so far no survivors have been found…

Theories of what happened to the Edmund Fitzgerald begin almost immediately, audio here from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

CBC: We don't know whether the 729 foot carrier the Edmund Fitzgerald broke in half, capsized, or nose dived into Lake Superior but its disappearance last night was sudden.

In 1977 the U.S. Coast Guard concludes that water crashing on the deck and leaking through cracked and poorly sealed hatch covers is the most likely cause of the disaster. It’s the explanation Gordon Lightfoot includes in his musical retelling of the wreck.

SONG LYRIC: At seven p.m., a main hatchway caved in, he said "Fellas, it's been good to know ya" The captain wired in he had water comin' in And the good ship and crew was in peril

But in 1995 a Discovery documentary unveils new findings suggesting the Edmund Fitzgerald likely broke apart suddenly—sinking rapidly. Leading Lightfoot to change the lyric of his famous song:

LIGHTFOOT: So I…changed to a lyric… There's no more broken hatch covers. There was a couple of mothers who were really really happy about that…Ruth Hudson I mean she's like what 80 years old now it kind of made her year knowing that her kid wasn't the guy who didn't seal the hatch cover…

The sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald leads to significant safety changes for all ships on the Great Lakes. including mandatory immersion suits to protect crews against extreme cold water, a depth sounder for a constant read out of just how much water is below the ship, and improved construction techniques for the large ships caught by the gales of November.

The bell from the Edmund Fitzgerald was recovered on July 4th, 1995. It is now on permanent display at the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum on Whitefish Point. Later today it’ll be tolled 30 times. once for each of the 29 crew members who lost their life. and an additional time for the estimated 30,000 mariners lost on the Great Lakes over the last 300 years.

SOUND: [TOLLING THE BELL OF THE EDMUND FITZGERALD]

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Paul Butler.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Tomorrow: The EU and the U.S. are storing the biometric data of travelers. We have a report on the privacy concerns. And, a Pennsylvania airport’s novel solution to an air-traffic control problem that has nothing to do with the government shutdown. 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: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.” II Corinthians 1:3-5

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.