Podcast
Just Asking Questions
Hosted by Reason · EN
Interrogating current events, challenging assumptions, uncovering facts, and exposing realities that the government and the media would rather not talk about. Reason’s "Just Asking Questions" is a weekly show for honesty and open inquiry. We're skeptics of unexamined power. We don't want to be told what to think. But we do want to know which questions to start asking. Hosted by Liz Wolfe and Zach Weissmueller. Produced by John Osterhoudt. Just Asking Questions is published by the Reason Foundation, a non-profit 501(c)(3) research and educational organization based in Los Angeles.
15episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Freddie deBoer: Charlie Kirk's Murder Reveals a Cultural Sickness
Sep 1801:17:16Tap to summarizeWhy must all good things come to an end? Just asking questions. This will be the final episode of the Just Asking Questions podcast. This discussion with Freddie deBoer about the assassination of Charlie Kirk and its aftermath felt like the kind of sincere, analytical, deeply meaningful conversation across an ideological divide that would be appropriate to call our last. Liz Wolfe and Zach Weissmueller offer their final thoughts and reflections on the series at the end of the episode, so if you've been with us on this journey, please stay after the final question to hear our closing statements. You can continue to read Liz's work every weekday by subscribing to the Reason Roundup. Zach will continue to produce documentaries, video essays, and interviews for Reason TV. You can also follow Liz and Zach on X for updates on their work, and the full Just Asking Questions archive will remain available here, on YouTube, and podcatchers. Freddie deBoer joins us in today's episode to unpack the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk. On his Substack, he wrote a remarkable piece attempting to make sense of what he calls "spectacular acts of public violence." The motive of Kirk's alleged killer has become clearer as text messages and family statements released by law enforcement reveal a young man in a relationship with a transgender partner, enraged by Kirk's supposed "hatred." But from deBoer's perspective, it's not ideology primarily spurring these public acts of political violence. A profound lack of meaning and wallowing in nihilistic online irony continually leads young men—often egged on by internet friends they barely know in real life—to desperately graft a semi-coherent grievance onto their final violent act in a doomed attempt to make it meaningful. DeBoer is a proud man of the left, and we ask him whether the pathology that led to Kirk's assassination is particularly characteristic of the left in an era where unapologetic celebrations of this murder and the murder of United Healthcare executive Brian Thompson late last year have appeared on social media with disturbing frequency. It's a conversation that we hope inspires you as it did us to reflect on what it is that's meaningful to you, what the effect of an increasingly digital and disembodied world has on that meaning, and how to avoid pushing our culture any further in the direction of one that produces rampant celebration and dehumanization of a father and husband who was killed for the words he spoke. Sources referenced in this conversation: Utah County Attorney: Charges against Tyler Robinson Ken Klippenstein: Leaked Messages from Charlie Kirk Assassin How acceptable are the following activities in response to a campus speaker? 2024 College Free Speech Rankings | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression Institute for Economics and Peace: People who feel political violence is justified The post Freddie deBoer: Charlie Kirk's Murder Reveals a Cultural Sickness appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →Michael Tracey: Cutting Through the Jeffrey Epstein Fog
Sep 1202:50:55Tap to summarizeWhat is the Jeffrey Epstein story, and what does it mean? Just asking questions. Today's conversation is with journalist Michael Tracey, who has been picking apart what he calls the "Epstein mythology" for the past several weeks over at his Substack. In short, he thinks 90 percent of what most people believe about this case is false, and that this is mostly the fault of credulous establishment journalists who chose to uncritically publish alleged victims' narratives and ignore inconvenient facts, as well as opportunistic alternative media figures who spun the story into a sprawling conspiracy for political and personal gain. Tracey has been attacked and on the attack, and you'll hear him air his many grievances with other journalists, lawyers, and politicians in this conversation, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.), whom he calls out as his "enemy" because she instructed police to remove him from an Epstein-related press conference after he asked a question about an accusers' credibility in Washington D.C. this week. The goal of this episode was to move beyond the personality clashes and egos and wild speculation and drill down into what it is we actually know and don't know about Jeffrey Epstein. But as we talked, it became clear that this kind of detached analysis just wasn't going to be possible, that the egos and the clashes and the agendas remain intricately tied up with how this story has unfolded. The incentives faced by establishment journalists, podcasters, accusers, and politicians have shaped this story and our understanding of it, mostly for the worse. But in the marketplace of ideas, there is also a countervailing incentive to move against the herd and correct the record. And maybe a turbulent and confrontational personality like Michael Tracey–who admits in this interview that he's "wired differently"–was exactly what was needed to break taboos, ask uncomfortable questions, and push for real disclosure about the nature of the story that has loomed over American politics for at least a decade. Regardless of how one feels about Tracey's tone or the soundness of his analysis, anyone who purports to care about this story should at least engage with the questions he's asking and start asking their own questions about what the Epstein story really means. This conversation has been edited for time and clarity. Mentioned in the podcast: U.S. v. Jeffrey Epstein Epstein "provided information" to the FBI: FBI Records: The Vault — Jeffrey Epstein Part 06 "Jeffrey Epstein's Sick Story Played Out for Years in Plain Sight," by Vicky Ward 2020 Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility Report on Epstein Justice Department interview of Ghislaine Maxwell "A Look Inside Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan Lair," by David Enrich, Matthew Goldstein, Jessica Silver-Greenberg, and Steve Eder "Jeffrey Epstein Appeared to Threaten Bill Gates Over Microsoft Co-Founder's Affair With Russian Bridge Player," by Khadeeja Safdar and Emily Glazer "THE MEDIA BUSINESS; Maxwell Is Buried In Jerusalem," by Clyde Haberman "Inside Jeffrey Epstein's Spy Industry Connections," by Matthew Petti Donald Trump retweets #ClintonBodyCount conspiracy Trump on Truth Social: "Nobody cares about" Jeffrey Epstein Justice Department/FBI Memo on "Epstein Files," July 2025 Virginia Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell "The Billionaire's Play Club," by Virginia Roberts July 24, 2025, proffer by Ghislaine Maxwell Labor Secretary Alex Acosta's July 2019 press conference "Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal: The Newsnight Interview," by BBC News Security camera footage from Jeffrey Epstein's prison block Michael Tracey booted from Epstein presser, September 3, 2025. The post Michael Tracey: Cutting Through the Jeffrey Epstein Fog appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →Bob Murphy: Are We Flirting with Fascism?
Aug 2801:12:13Tap to summarizeWhat do you call it when the state takes partial ownership of a private company? Just asking questions. Ten percent of Intel now belongs to the U.S. government. Today's guest says it's time to start using the "F word." Economist Bob Murphy is no anti–Donald Trump #resistance fighter quick to shriek "fascism." In fact, he says he was relieved when Trump won the last election. But the Austrian school economist and host of the Human Action Podcast and The Bob Murphy Show tells us he's alarmed by the Intel news and the hints from Trump's chief economist that more companies are next. This didn't start with Trump. Remember the bank bailouts? Ever heard of Fannie Mae? What about the G.M. takeover? This moment has been a longtime coming, and Murphy says one surprising culprit is another institution the president is now trying to exert control over: the Federal Reserve. Watch or listen above as we discuss America's troubling lurch toward China-style "state capitalism," the bipartisan enthusiasm for consolidating state power over private industry, and why it's finally time to end the Federal Reserve and how to actually do it. 00:00 Intro monologue 00:01:30 Government ownership and capitalism 00:05:17 Historical context of government intervention 00:09:24 Sovereign wealth funds: pros and cons 00:13:20 The role of AI in government policy 00:17:13 Concerns over nationalization and corporate influence 00:21:09 The future of corporate partnerships with government 00:36:13 Trump's war on the Federal Reserve 00:39:25 The Federal Reserve's independence and accountability 00:46:05 Critique of the Federal Reserve's effectiveness 00:55:20 The case against the Federal Reserve 01:06:14 Navigating the current economic landscape Mentioned in the podcast: "Masa Son Pitches $1 Trillion US AI Hub to TSMC, Trump Team," by Min-Jeong Lee, Mackenzie Hawkins, and Anto Antony "Decoding the Structure of the Federal Reserve System," by TradingView U.S. Core Inflation Rate, according to Trading Economics Economic volatlity pre– and post–Federal Reserve, by the Heritage Foundation Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) on Truth Social: "The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately. There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem!" Acyn on X: "Lutnick: Intel agreed to give us 10% of their company—It is not socialism. This is capitalism." "NEC Director Kevin Hassett on Intel deal: It's possible government will take stake in more companies," by CNBC "Trump announces $500 billion 'Stargate' AI infrastructure project," by LiveNOW from FOX Bob Murphy on X: "maga rn" "A Comprehensive Case for Ending the Fed," by Bob Murphy on The Human Action Podcast Has the Fed been a failure? by George Selgin, William D. Lastrapes, and Lawrence White "ZEROHEDGE DEBATE! Should We End the Fed? Bob Murphy vs David Beckworth (George Gammon moderates)," by Robert Murphy "Kelsey Piper: The AI Race is Accelerating," by Just Asking Questions podcast The post Bob Murphy: Are We Flirting with Fascism? appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →Megan McArdle: Trump's D.C. Takeover Is Just the Beginning
Aug 2101:14:59Tap to summarizeHow bad is crime and disorder in Washington, D.C.? Just asking questions. Local crime became a national issue following the assault of Edward Coristine—a former staffer at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) who is also known as "Big Balls"—during an alleged carjacking. Trump reacted on Truth Social, saying, "Crime in Washington, D.C., is totally out of control" and promised to "exert my powers, and FEDERALIZE this City" following the assault. The capital is now occupied by members of the National Guard, and Trump has said that although they are starting with D.C., "this will go further" and named other cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Baltimore. Some Democrats, like Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D–Md.), have said Trump is exaggerating. Megan McArdle, a D.C. resident and Washington Post columnist, says Democrats are wrong to downplay the city's crime problem and general public disorder. She thinks the failures of Democratic governance and the police pullback following the 2020 George Floyd protests have created an atmosphere of public support for Trump's actions, and she fears that the appetite for more federal intervention that pushes the limits of the Constitution will only grow stronger if politicians fail to confront these problems in their cities. It's a challenging conversation between three people who care about civil liberties and rule of law, as well as safety and the protection of property. We don't want to demonize police, nor do we want to let them abuse their power. We don't want criminals to wreck our cities, nor do we want to lock up delinquent teens—like the ones who allegedly assaulted Big Balls—and throw away the key. We don't want lawlessness, nor militarized police operating under permanent emergency powers. How to properly balance all of these concerns is, perhaps, the political question of our time. And we hope this discussion is a step toward providing some answers to it. 0:00—Introduction 1:31—Martial law in D.C. 01:52—The assault that sparked a national conversation 02:33—Crime trends in Washington, D.C. 06:50—The impact of crime on quality of life 10:04—Comparative crime rates: D.C. vs. other cities 13:56—The role of disorder in urban crime 17:41—The complexities of policing and community trust 22:00—Federal intervention in local policing 27:59—The challenges of D.C.'s criminal justice system 36:17—Gun ownership and legal barriers 40:10—The disconnect in gun legislation and crime rates 43:18—Federal law enforcement and military policing 47:05—The governance structure of D.C. and its implications 51:07—Public perception of crime and political responses 56:59—The need for a balanced approach to crime 01:11:18—Cognitive biases and self-reflection Mentioned in the podcast: Trump's post on Truth Social: "Crime in Washington, D.C., is totally out of control" "D.C. Has a Real Crime Problem. Federal Control Won't Solve It," by Meghan McArdle Violent crime in D.C. Hits 30 Year Low, by the U.S. Attorney's Office Department of Homeland Security memo, obtained by The New Republic The Injustice of Policing in America, by Christoper Lewis and Adaner Usmani "What everyone is getting wrong about crime in DC," by Charles Fain Lehman The post Megan McArdle: Trump's D.C. Takeover Is Just the Beginning appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →Deb Fillman: Why Do We Send Kids to School?
Aug 1401:34:39Tap to summarizeIt's back-to-school season, and the very meaning of a proper education seems to be more up for grabs than ever before. K-12 education is still bobbing in the long, tumultuous wake of pandemic lockdowns that invited unprecedented parental scrutiny of what happens in the classroom, resulted in years of learning loss, and catapulted schools into the political and cultural arena. We've invited on Deb Fillman, creator of the fascinating Substack The Reason We Learn, because she offers sharp, critical analysis of the current state of American schools informed by a blend of her real-world experience as a teacher, tutor, and homeschool parent and her philosophical commitment to individualism and free and critical thought, all of which she believes are under sustained attack. We also debate whether Fillman is correct in her opposition to school choice programs. 0:00—Introduction 2:48—Defining a good school 6:01—The literacy crisis in education 8:55—Teaching methods and their impact 12:00—The importance of the Western canon 14:47—Digital age and reading habits 21:09—Socioeconomic disparities in education 24:05—The future of education and equity 37:05—Ideological capture in education 41:29—The role of ethnic studies in schools 48:58—The complexity of historical narratives 54:50—The shift in educational focus 01:01:08—The rise of collectivism in education 01:07:55—The evolution of identity politics 01:10:56—Fillman's critique of school choice programs 01:30:54—A question Fillman thinks more people should be asking Mentioned in the podcast: "Not-so-great expectations: Students are reading fewer books in English class," by Sharon Lurye "Teaching Teens to Think in a World That Doesn't Want Them To," by Deb Fillman Voices: An ethnic studies curriculum "American Kids Are Functionally Illiterate, and Only Their Parents Can Fix It," by Tim White The post Deb Fillman: Why Do We Send Kids to School? appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →Rob Henderson: Why Elites Still Worship Socialism
Aug 701:28:59Tap to summarizeIs Brooklyn-style socialism a "luxury belief"? Just asking questions. Today's guest coined that memorable phrase, and we're eager to talk with him today about how it applies to the triumph of socialist Zohran Mamdani in the New York Democratic mayoral primary and to discuss the odd, enduring allure of socialism for America's most highly educated class despite a history of repeated bloody and catastrophic 20th century communist experiments. I also want to ask him if any of my political beliefs are a luxury for which others are bearing the cost. Rob Henderson is the author of Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class, which is a must-read account of life on the bottom rungs of the social ladder in the late '90s and a frankly inspiring tale of his improbable ascent of that ladder. His Substack commenting on current events and culture through a social psych lens is Rob Henderson's Newsletter. He's also a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and you can also often catch his work in City Journal, where he's a contributing editor. Chapters: 0:00—Introduction 3:02—Zoran Mamdani: The luxury belief politician? 6:01—Intra-elite conflict and class dynamics 8:58—Cultural expectations vs. economic realities 12:00—The role of marriage in economic success 15:12—Education, class, and economic outcomes 18:00—Expectations vs. reality in elite aspirations 20:47—Demystifying elite institutions and talent identification 29:17—The value of education and elite institutions 35:34—Ignorance of historical lessons on communism 40:28—The rise of socialism in modern politics 44:21—Normalization of radical rhetoric 48:15—Luxury beliefs and their societal impact 52:26—Drug decriminalization: a complex debate 59:21—The intersection of personal beliefs and public policy 01:04:53—Cultural shifts in family structures 01:11:41—The consequences of discarding traditional norms 01:20:24—Birth rates and societal concerns 01:24:50—Political polarization and relationship dynamics 01:27:50—Final question: questioning our beliefs Mentioned in the podcast: "When Progressive Ideals Become a Luxury," by Rob Henderson "Zohran Mamdani's Luxury Beliefs," by Rob Henderson "In Defense of 'Luxury Beliefs,'" by Katherine Mangu-Ward The Most Detailed Map of the N.Y.C. Mayoral Primary The post Rob Henderson: Why Elites Still Worship Socialism appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →Patrick Eddington: How to 'Tyranny-Proof' America
Jul 3101:13:05Tap to summarizeDo you ever feel like you're being watched? Just asking questions. We're told modern surveillance tech will track criminals, illegal aliens, and terrorists while protecting the privacy of innocent Americans. You've got nothing to worry about if you've got nothing bad to hide. Today's guest says that's not true. His latest book, The Triumph of Fear, documents the history of the modern surveillance state and the ways in which it's been leveraged since its inception to target not just terrorists and criminals, but political dissidents. Patrick Eddington was a CIA analyst from 1988 to 1996, but resigned and wrote Gassed in the Gulf, a book alleging that the agency helped cover up the existence of Gulf War syndrome, caused by exposure to chemical weapons. He joins Just Asking Questions today to talk about the power and reach of the modern surveillance state, the growing influence of the AI-powered data firm Palantir—cofounded by Peter Thiel—in the Trump administration, and what can be done to "tyranny-proof" America. Mentioned in this episode: "Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos," The White House Palantir contract modification with ICE "The Scouring of the Shire," an open letter by a Palantir ex-employee "Palantir Is Not a Data Company," by Palantir "American Big Brother," by the Cato Institute "The Triumph of Fear: Domestic Surveillance and Political Repression From McKinley to Eisenhower," by Patrick Eddington Alex Karp, director of Palantir, address to the Economic Club of Chicago on May 22, 2025 "Why This Palantir Cofounder Left California for Texas," The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie "Purpose-Based Access Controls at Palantir (Part 1)," by Palantir Davos 2023: A conversation with Palantir's Alex Karp Chapters: 0:00—Introduction 2:20—President Donald Trump's executive order "eliminating information silos" is paving the way for a national, unified surveillance database 3:58—Did the Department of Government Efficiency have a "hidden motive"? 12:08—Why the surveillance bureaucracy keeps expanding with little resistance 14:04—Ex-employees have signed an open letter against Palantir. What does it mean? 25:34—What does Palantir actually do? 27:55—Could Palantir actually protect civil liberties? 29:02—What could happen if Palantir's tools fall into the wrong hands? 37:52—Why creating a centralized database is a civil liberties nightmare 42:53—Palantir's CEO Alex Karp on why they defend the West 47:00—Why Eddington wants to take federal law enforcement out of the executive branch 50:32 - Why federal law enforcement has always been politicized 55:17 - The lessons of COINTELPRO's surveillance of activists 55:17 - What was "total information awareness"? 1:10:28 - What is a question Patrick Eddington thinks more people should be asking? Transcript: This is an AI-generated transcript. Check against the original before quoting. Zach Weissmueller: Do you ever feel like you're being watched? Just Asking Questions. The ostensible purpose of DOGE was to cut waste, fraud, and abuse in government. But what if there was also another purpose hidden in plain sight—to make it easier to track your every move? Of course, our government would never outright say that. We're told modern surveillance tech will track criminals, illegal aliens, and terrorists while protecting the privacy of innocent Americans. You've got nothing to worry about if you've got something bad to hide. Today's guest says that's not quite true. His latest book, The Triumph of Fear, documents the history of the modern surveillance state and the ways in which it's been leveraged since its inception to target not just terrorists and criminals, but political dissidents. Patrick G. Eddington was a CIA analyst from 1988 to 1996 but resigned and wrote another book, Gassed in the Gulf, alleging the agency helped cover up the existence of Gulf War Syndrome caused by exposure to chemical weapons. He joins us today to talk about the power and reach of the modern surveillance state, the increasingly prominent role that AI-powered data management firm Palantir, co-founded by Peter Thiel, is playing in the Trump administration, and to offer some ideas about what should be done to tyranny-proof America. Patrick, thank you for coming on the show. Patrick Eddington: It's my pleasure. Zach Weissmueller: Trump issued a curious executive order, and I'm gonna read a little bit about that. The aim seems to be to create a kind of unified national database. It says here that the goal, the purpose, is removing unnecessary barriers to federal employees accessing government data and promoting inter-agency data sharing. The name of this executive order was Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos. It goes on to say about these information silos, "agency heads should take all necessary steps to ensure federal officials have full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, data, software systems, and information technology systems. This includes authorizing and facilitating both the intra- and inter-agency sharing and consolidation of unclassified agency records." It says that, "this is to ensure the federal government has unfettered access to comprehensive data from all state programs." So it also is kind of going into the states and saying that the federal government should have unfettered access to state programs that receive federal funding. So I'm trying to put all this disparate data in one place. What kind of problems do you foresee with this approach? Patrick Eddington: "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them." I'm a big Tolkien guy, in addition to being a big <a href...
Transcribe →Gary Taubes: MAHA, Ultra-Processed Foods, and Bad Science
Jul 2401:20:58Tap to summarizeCan Robert F. Kennedy Jr. put the country on a diet and Make America Healthy Again? Just asking questions. The MAHA Report is a 73-page document put out by a government commission headed by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary RFJ Jr. Its goal is to "study the scope of the chronic childhood disease crisis and any potential causes including the American diet." The report points out that childhood obesity rates in the U.S. remain higher than in other G7 countries. We invited Gary Taubes to join us today because he's a science journalist and researcher who has spent more than two decades studying the American diet. His books include Good Calories, Bad Calories, Why We Get Fat, and The Case Against Sugar. He writes about nutrition science in his Substack, Uncertainty Principles, where he has tackled the question of whether ultra-processed foods are the likely culprit driving America's obesity problem. We also discuss whether RFK Jr. is more likely to improve or derail U.S. health and nutrition research, the recent resignation of one of the National Institutes of Health's top nutrition researchers, and a challenge to Taubes' "sugar hypothesis" from the pseudonymous blogger Cremieux Recueil. Mentioned in the podcast: "The MAHA Report," by the White House Spectrum of processing of foods based on the NOVA classification "Are Ultra-Processed Foods the Problem?" by Gary Taubes "Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025," by the U.S. Department of Agriculture" "Nutrition Beliefs Are Just-So Stories," by Cremieux Recueil "Why Conventional Wisdom on Health Care Is Wrong (a Primer)," by Random Critical Analysis "Top NIH scientist speaks out, says research was 'censored' under RFK Jr.," NIH researcher Kevin Hall on MSNBC's All-In with Chris Hayes Chapters: 0:00—What does Gary Taubes think of the MAHA agenda? 2:10—What is wrong with the "American diet"? 6:48—Why is nutrition science so sloppy? 10:22—What's in the MAHA Report? 12:25—Have childhood diseases and disorders really been increasing? 17:02—How bad are "ultra-processed" foods? 27:42—Using "Occam's Razor" to figure out what's making Americans unhealthy 33:15—Taubes replies to Cremieux's criticism of his "sugar hypothesis" 40:42—Critiquing the "definitive" NIH study on ultra-processed foods 52:43—How much does willpower or self-control matter in controlling obesity? 1:03:14—Why a leading NIH nutrition researcher resigned from RFK Jr.'s HHS 1:08:22—Why Taubes thinks Jay Bhattacharya might make the NIH more functional 1:18:54—What's a question Taubes thinks more people should be asking? Transcript: This is an AI-generated transcript. Check against the original before quoting. Zach Weissmueller: Can RFK Jr. put the country on a diet and Make America Healthy Again? Just Asking Questions. The MAHA Report is a 73-page document put out by a government commission headed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which aims to, quote, "Study the scope of the chronic childhood disease crisis and any potential causes, including the American diet." The report points out that childhood obesity remains higher in the U.S. versus other G7 countries. And we've invited Gary Taubes to talk about this today because he's a science journalist and a researcher who's written about and studied the American diet for more than two decades with books like Good Calories, Bad Calories, Why We Get Fat, and The Case Against Sugar. He writes about nutrition science at his Substack, Uncertainty Principles. Gary, thank you for coming on the show. Gary Taubes: Thank you for having me, Zach. Liz Wolfe: However you feel about him, you can't exactly deny that RFK Jr. is a pretty major disrupter to the medical establishment. What has your reaction been so far to what he's done at HHS, but also the broader MAHA agenda? Gary Taubes: I mean, he is a major disrupter to the medical establishment. I have it fall kind of in the mid-range here in that all my research has been about nutrition and chronic disease, and I think that the medical establishment has made some significant mistakes that have led us to where we are today. And yet I tend to trust them more on other issues like vaccines than I do RFK Jr. and his colleagues. So I can comment on the nutrition. The many other ways in which he's disrupting the major medical establishment probably scare me as much as they scare anyone else. Zach Weissmueller: So yeah, what is your take then on the nutrition aspect? Before we get into the specifics of this report, just your overview, your early impressions of what they're pursuing. Gary Taubes: Clearly we have a problem in this country that's nutrition-related, a problem around the world, which are obesity and diabetes epidemics that begin to appear when populations Westernize their diets. So anywhere you look, from the Arctic on down, you'll find populations growing obese and diabetic in association with eating Western diets. And then the question is: What aspect of the diet is to blame? And everybody's got an opinion on that. And I think everybody has an opinion because the science has been so bad for the last century that it hasn't nailed anything down the way you would hope that science would give you unambiguous conclusions. So we have a problem. RFK Jr. admits we have a problem. The previous administration's approach to this was to push for personalized nutrition—the idea that we could somehow identify in advance what everyone's ideal diet would be. <span style="font-weight: 40...
Transcribe →Scott Lincicome: How Much Will You Pay To 'Buy American'?
Jul 1801:26:27Tap to summarizeHow much are you willing to pay to "buy American"? Just asking questions. In April, President Donald Trump unilaterally unleashed a series of so-called reciprocal tariffs, using emergency powers to punish countries with a trade imbalance, meaning they export more to the U.S. than they import from the U.S. Markets panicked, and Trump pulled back, setting a new deadline that he's now pushed back multiple times. It's now set to expire on August 1. But those aren't the only tariffs Trump has implemented, and there are some signs they may be already driving up prices. The administration says the stock market is strong, tariffs are bringing in billions in revenue, and American manufacturing is back, baby. To help us figure out what tariffs might do to the U.S. economy, analyze how Trump is using trade as a foreign policy tool, and discuss the ultimate political aims of economic nationalism is Scott Lincicome. He's vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute and writes the Capitolism newsletter at The Dispatch. Chapters: 00:00—What are the current tariff levels? 02:21—Examples of tariff carve-outs 14:20—Political dynamics of tariffs 19:01—Tariff impacts on consumers 33:32—Tariffs as a foreign policy tool 34:00—Can tariffs lead to freer trade? 36:24—How tariffs affect foreign exporters 37:21—Global trade agreements excluding the U.S. 38:27—Trump's Brazil tariff threats 40:34—Consumer goods and tariff costs 52:30—Tariffs and price increase 57:06—Treasury revenue from tariffs 59:58—Tax cuts vs. tariff hikes 01:01:14—Tariffs as a regressive tax 01:05:19—Are tariffs less harmful than feared? 01:16:03—Manufacturing and tariff challenges 01:19:45—Economic growth and tariff effects Mentioned in the podcast: Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for June 2025 Trading Economics: United States Core Inflation Rate "Wholesale prices are flat in June, PPI shows, and point to muted effect of tariffs on inflation," by Jeffry Bartash at MarketWatch "US customs duties top $100 billion for first time in a fiscal year," by David Lawder Transcript: This is an AI-generated transcript. Check against the original before quoting. Zach Weissmueller: How much are you willing to pay to buy American? Just Asking Questions. In April, Donald Trump unilaterally unleashed a series of so-called reciprocal tariffs using emergency powers to punish countries with a trade imbalance, meaning they export more to the U.S. than they import from the U.S. And markets panicked. Trump pulled back, set a new deadline that he's now pushed multiple times. It's now set to expire August 1st. But those aren't the only tariffs Trump has implemented, and there are some signs they may already be driving up some prices. The administration, on the other hand, says the stock market's pretty strong and tariffs are bringing in billions of revenue. American manufacturing is coming back, baby. So, to help us figure out what tariffs might actually do to the U.S. economy, analyze how Trump is using trade as a foreign policy tool, and discuss the ultimate political aims of economic nationalism is Scott Lincicome, VP of Economics and Trade at the Cato Institute and writer of the Capitolism Newsletter at The Dispatch. Scott, thank you for coming on the show. Scott Lincicome: My pleasure, thanks for having me. Liz Wolfe: So what are the actual current tariff levels that we have with our major trading partners? Scott Lincicome: Nobody knows. Liz Wolfe: Least of all us. Scott Lincicome: Well, in all seriousness, the reality is that I think you would be really hard-pressed to get a consensus from people who study this every day on the exact tariff levels that we have. And in fact, if you look at the various experts, whether it is the Tax Foundation or Yale Budget Lab, or the guys at Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan, they all have slightly different tariff rates for the average tariff that's in effect. First of all, it changes constantly. Second, there are all sorts of carve-outs and exclusions and special rules. There's also— Liz Wolfe: Hold on. Really fast, can you give us a few examples of what those might be? Scott Lincicome: Of the carve-outs? Sure. So the big reciprocal tariffs had a huge carve-out for consumer electronics. They also have carve-outs for semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. The theory of the case there is the Trump administration has initiated separate investigations of those products under national security under a different law, Section 232, and so they're going to apply the 232 tariffs eventually to those things. Trump has threatened 200 percent pharmaceutical tariffs and those things. So you have a lot of these carve-outs, but you also have additions. The steel and aluminum tariffs have what's called a derivatives rider. Which means that products that are made with a lot of steel and aluminum can also face tariffs based on the amount of steel and aluminum they have in them. You can petition the government to have your product included on this list of derivatives. Just recently, home appliances were included on the list. Suddenly, those appliances are getting hit with tariffs based on their steel and aluminum content. If you combine that with some of the rules for automotive goods—what qualifies as a USMCA product and what doesn't—because Trump has these tariffs on fentanyl-related goods from Canada, Mexico, and China, but there's a carve-out for Canada and Mexico related to goods that comply with the trade agreement that Trump himself signed, the USMCA. Demonstrating that compliance—I had two customs lawyers giving me two different opinions on what's covered, how easy it is to cover. I get somewhat hilarious—I mean, morbidly hilarious—emails from customs law firms talking to clients, trying to get all of this paperwork straight. It's halcyon days—that means boom days—for the lawyers and accountants out there. But it's really hard to nail all this down. This is frustrating for guys like me, but it's also economically important. The reality is that if you are in business—importing, exporting, whatever—if you're involved with this s...
Transcribe →Curt Mills: Is Trump Still 'America First'?
Jul 1100:52:34Tap to summarizeWhat is the "Trump doctrine"? Just asking questions. President Donald Trump won his first term in office after breaking with the Republican establishment on a few fronts. One notable example: On the debate stage in 2016, he embarrassed Jeb Bush for his family's role in the disastrous Iraq War. Trump didn't start any new wars in his first term, though he didn't end any either. This time around, he joined Israel's attack on Iran by dropping bombs on its uranium enrichment facilities. Although his vice president has said he does "not think that it is in America's interest to continue to fund an effectively never-ending war in Ukraine," Trump announced this week that the U.S. will ship more weapons to Ukraine, with his Defense Department describing the move as "integral to our America First defense priorities." Curt Mills, executive director of The American Conservative, understands the contours of the foreign policy landscape on the right better than most, and he joined the show today to discuss Trump's latest foreign policy moves, the growing schism within the MAGA movement over the continued support for Israel and Ukraine, Trump's hostile dismissal of a question about the Jeffrey Epstein case, and what Trump's foreign policy "grand strategy" might be. Timecodes: 0:00 - Trump ran against the Iraq War, and Vance against funding Ukraine 2:00 - What is the 'Trump doctrine'? 6:57 - What does Curt think of Netanyahu nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize? 8:58 - Are Netanyahu's demands reasonable? 11:40 - What do Trump and Netanyahu plan for the Palestinians? 15:58 - Were the Iran strikes a success? 25:59 - Can Iran rebuild its nuclear program? 26:30 - What is JD Vance's role in Trump's foreign policy? 30:10 - Why is Trump giving more weapons to Ukraine? 41:06 - Why doesn't Trump want to talk about Jeffrey Epstein anymore? The post Curt Mills: Is Trump Still 'America First'? appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →