Texas Voters just overwhelmingly approved $20 billion to be spent on improving the state’s water supply, infrastructure and education over the next 20 years. But that funding is just the beginning — and it will only go so far in addressing a crisis that threatens the future of Texas, a state where the powers that be will not acknowledge the effects of climate change.array(3) {
[0]=>
string(20) "https://www.tpr.org/"
[1]=>
string(0) ""
[2]=>
string(1) "0"
}
The longest government shutdown in U.S. history ended a little over two weeks ago. Federal workers are back on the job. But one of the biggest fights that helped fuel that shutdown remains unresolved.
The enhanced subsidies that help millions of people afford health plans on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces are set to expire at the end of this year. Meanwhile, open enrollment for 2026 coverage is underway.
Today we have back our Consultant of War and the Joe House of the podcast, Patrick Hultgren, to talk about Pete Hegseth, the war crime memes, and we go over our favorite new theory about Trump: He’s spending all his time planning his big new fancy ballroom and doesn’t care anymore what happens with the government, which is why all these cabinet dudes are just doing their own agendas and pardoning random drug lords with no comment at all from the White House. Enjoy a day early!
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe
On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Doug DeVos, businessman and chair of the National Constitution Center, joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to analyze the state of the American Dream and discuss what it will take to return to the nation's founding principles.
Read DeVos' book Believe!: A Timeless Endorsement of American Principleshere.
If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.
As a candidate, Trump knew to steer clear of Project 2025. But as president, he embraced its deeply unpopular policy goals and it has been driving down his poll numbers. Meanwhile, what are we doing with Venezuela? No one in the administration has made a remotely convincing case for the intimidation campaign against President Maduro. And the boat bombings are putting members of our military in legal danger under the guidance of Hegseth. Plus, the threats against legislators in Indiana who aren't going along with redistricting, and the broad-based coalition standing up to ICE—including people in costumes and grannies on scooters—has been one of the most successful responses to Trump's immigration agenda.
Today we take up the New York Times and its implicit takedown of the Washington Post story claiming Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a second strike in an attack on a drug-smuggling boat in September. Then we wonder what possible incentive the U.S. can offer Russia to take its "peace deal." And for today's COMMENTARY RECOMMENDS, I choose the actor Tim Blake Nelson's novel Superhero. Give a listen.
Lead is an essential but toxic element of car batteries. The U.S. auto industry promotes the recycling of it as an environmental success story. An investigation by The New York Times and The Examination reveals that the initiative comes at a major human cost, especially abroad.
Peter S. Goodman, who covers the global economy, explains the dirty business of a supposedly clean technology.
Guest: Peter S. Goodman, who covers the global economy for The New York Times.
My colleague Ross Douthat talks to the journalist who exposed Jeffrey Epstein.
This episode of “Interesting Times,” with the Miami Herald investigative journalist Julie K. Brown, came out back in July. But since Epstein has very much stayed in the news, I wanted to share it now. The conversation is such a fascinating and helpful explainer of the whole case, and the questions that remain unanswered — with the woman whose reporting led to Epstein’s re-arrest.
If you haven’t had a chance to check out “Interesting Times” this year, you really should. The team has produced so many great episodes, especially with leading thinkers and activists on the right. You can find them on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.
Most parents know what goes into raising children: the time spent changing diapers in inopportune places; the hours of worrying—about what to feed them, how to educate them, how to protect them and keep them healthy; the countless hours devoted to dance classes, summer camps, pediatricians, and piano lessons—all investments meant to give them the best chance in life.
Most of us would do anything to help our kids become the most successful and happiest versions of themselves.
But what if we could start earlier? At the molecular level. What if we could ensure our babies were healthier, smarter, and stronger, before they even took their first breath?
Right now, several biotech companies are doing just that. They offer embryo screening for couples undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). These companies don’t just score embryos for disease risk, which has become standard practice for anyone undergoing IVF—they go further.
Nucleus Genomics promises “optimization” of traits like heart health and cancer resistance, as well as intelligence, longevity, body mass index, baldness, eye color, hair color, etc. It even suggests it may predict a predisposition to become an alcoholic.
In the future, we may be able to more than just screen and select. We’ll be able to make tweaks to our own embryos in order to “optimize” them. This isn’t something out of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. It’s the very real, and near, future. Some would argue it’s already here.
It all creates profound and critical questions. So we hosted a debate: Is it ethical to design our unborn children? And are we morally obligated to do so when the risks of abstaining include serious diseases? Or does designing babies cross a line? Is it wrong to play God and manipulate humanity’s genetic heritage?
Arguing that designing babies is not only an ethical choice, but indeed a moral imperative, are Jamie Metzl and Dr. Allyson Berent.
Jamie is a technology and healthcare futurist, who was a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Human Genome Editing. He’s also written several best-selling books on this subject, including Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity.
Allyson is a veterinarian who has become an incredible force for genetic research since her daughter, Quincy, was diagnosed with Angelman syndrome. She serves as chief science officer of the Foundation for Angelman Syndrome Therapeutics and chief development officer at a biotechnology company, where she helps accelerate gene therapy programs for Angelman syndrome.
Arguing that designing babies is unethical are O. Carter Snead and Dr. Lydia Dugdale.
Carter is a bioethicist and law professor at Notre Dame. He served as general counsel to the President’s Council on Bioethics under George W. Bush and as an appointed member of UNESCO’s International Bioethics Committee. He is also an appointed member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, which advises the pope on bioethics.
Lydia is a physician, medical ethicist, and professor of medicine at Columbia University, where she serves as director of the Center for Clinical Medical Ethics. She is also Co-Director of Clinical Ethics at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center.
It’s a critical debate you won’t want to miss.
The Free Press is honored to have partnered with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to present this debate. Head to TheFire.org to learn more about this indispensable organization.
The House and Senate Armed Services Committees launch an investigation into Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth after a report that he ordered a second strike on a boat in the Caribbean while survivors were clinging to the wreckage. Was his order a war crime? Jon, Lovett, and Tommy discuss and then jump into the rest of the news, including the White House's reaction to the shooting of two National Guard members in D.C., Trump's pardon of a former Hondoran president convicted of helping drug traffickers bring hundreds of tons of cocaine into the United States, and a special election in Tennessee where the Democrat has a fighting chance to flip a Trump +22 district. Then, Rob Sand, Democratic candidate for governor of Iowa, joins to talk about his race—and how Iowa farmers are reacting to the Trump trade war.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
