The United States Constitution on Broadway, and What It Means to Us

Summary

---

The United States Constitution on Broadway, and What It Means To Us

Podcast: The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Date: May 9, 2019
Host: Dorothy Wickenden (Executive Editor, The New Yorker)
Guest: Heidi Schreck (Playwright and Star, "What the Constitution Means to Me")

---

Overview

This episode explores the acclaimed Broadway play "What the Constitution Means to Me" with its creator and star, Heidi Schreck. Through Schreck's personal and generational perspective, the discussion probes the US Constitution's language, its shortfalls regarding women and minorities, and its resonance amid current American political crises. The conversation also examines pivotal Supreme Court cases and constitutional amendments, connecting them to everyday lived experience—underscored by humor and humanity.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

Genesis of the Play and Schreck’s Personal Connection

• Heidi Schreck recounts her origins as a constitutional debater:
  • At 15, she delivered speeches about the Constitution for prize money at American Legion halls, ultimately funding her college education (02:10-02:47).
• The play grew out of a personal exploration:
  • Schreck began writing a decade prior, not anticipating its current political relevance:

    "I never imagined it would become as relevant as it is today. I was really looking at something quite personal and... exploring a story that takes place over four generations." (03:46-04:21)

Constitution Through the Eyes of a Teenage Girl

• Schreck’s initial admiration for the document:
  • As a teenager, she viewed it with "a real sense of fairness and justice" and believed it was the world’s greatest political system (04:33-04:57).
• The idealism of youth is contrasted with later critical awareness.

The 9th Amendment and Unenumerated Rights

• Schreck’s fascination with the 9th Amendment:
  • The amendment’s poetic language provides space for unlisted rights:

    "It means just because a certain right is not listed in the Constitution, it doesn't mean you don't have that right." (05:29-06:02)

  • As a 15-year-old, she was "obsessed with this idea that this document was telling me in essence, that there were rights that I might have that are not listed" (06:02-06:26).
• The 'Penumbra' Concept:
  • Schreck discusses Justice Douglas’s idea of constitutional 'penumbras'—shadowy spaces where unspoken rights reside, such as the right to privacy.

    "Penumbra is a space of sort of half light of shadow, talking about how the ninth Amendment suggests that there might be rights... in the shadows that are not articulated by the Constitution." (06:44-07:55)

Women, the Constitution, and Generational Injustice

• The 14th Amendment’s Role and Limitations:
  • Schreck ties her family’s history of domestic and sexual violence to constitutional ambiguity, especially the 14th Amendment and its equal protection promises.
    • Also notes: "The 14th Amendment was the first time that the word male was explicitly written into the Constitution." (08:26-11:01)
• Historical context with Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s warning:
  • Stanton presciently feared inserting "male" would set back women’s rights for a century:

    "If the word male was inserted into the Constitution, it would take women a century to get it out again." (11:01-11:53)

Supreme Court Cases: Gender, Rights, and Privacy

• Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):
  • The case made birth control legal for married couples, with the majority opinion relying on the 9th Amendment and the concept of a right to privacy (13:01-13:33).
  • An all-male Court debated women’s bodies, revealing incongruities:

    "There were no women's voices in this recording at all... brought home for me how ludicrous it was for this decision... to be made by all men." (14:47-15:12)

• Negative vs. Positive Rights:
  • The US Constitution largely protects from government intrusion ('negative rights') instead of granting entitlements or protections ('positive rights'), unlike other modern constitutions.

    "It was considered... a neutral document. Designed to protect us from the tyranny of... government." (15:33-18:28)

Castle Rock v. Gonzalez and Limits of Constitutional Protection

• Recounting the case:
  • Schreck discusses Castle Rock, where the Supreme Court ruled police weren't obligated to enforce a restraining order after tragedy struck:

    "[Castle Rock v. Gonzalez]... said she was not constitutionally entitled to this police protection." (15:33-18:28)

  • Challenges the neutrality and originalism of the Constitution, highlighting its white, male, property-owning origins.

Resonance in the Trump Era and Audience Reactions

• Schreck avoids direct reference to Trump, preferring broader resonance:
  • The audience's mood shifts based on current events: Kavanaugh hearings intensified emotion; proposed changes to 'birthright citizenship' drew spontaneous applause (19:00-20:52).
  • The play ends with a participatory debate on whether to abolish or keep the Constitution, affected by contemporary sentiment.

The Play’s Purpose: Solace, Community, and Reflection

• Schreck refrains from delivering a didactic message:
  • She hopes the play gives solace, provokes questions, and creates a space for community and reflection:

    "The only thing I hope for people is that it one gives them solace if they're grappling with something similar and also maybe awakens in them the same questions that I've been grappling with." (21:02-22:34)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On searching for personal meaning in the Constitution:

  "Our Constitution doesn't tell you all the rights that you have because it doesn't know." – Heidi Schreck (06:26)

• On the absence of women in constitutional adjudication:

  "There were no women's voices in this recording at all... how ludicrous it was for this decision... to be made by all [men]." – Heidi Schreck (14:47)

• On the flaw of originalism:

  "If you don't take steps to create positive protections... then that document will keep drifting toward its original intent..." – Heidi Schreck (17:50)

• On audience reactions in times of political crisis:

  "The subtext of the play changes every night, and what people are bringing into the play changes." – Heidi Schreck (20:40)

• On the play’s enduring goal:

  "Just like the ability to show up in a room every night and think through what's going on in our country... it's made me a much happier person than I was two years ago when I was just scrolling through Twitter in despair on my sofa." – Heidi Schreck (22:19)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Heidi Schreck’s teenage constitutional contest origins: 02:10-02:47
• Personal roots and intentions for the play: 03:34-04:21
• The 9th Amendment and unenumerated rights: 05:19-07:55
• The 14th Amendment and women’s rights history: 08:26-11:01
• Schreck on Griswold v. Connecticut and the right to privacy: 13:01-15:12
• Negative vs. positive rights; Castle Rock case: 15:33-18:28
• Audience reactions and political context: 19:00-20:52
• Schreck on community, solace, and reflection: 21:02-22:34

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a rich exploration of "What the Constitution Means to Me," tying together constitutional history, Supreme Court case law, and deeply personal and generational experiences. Schreck delivers incisive commentary on the document’s poetic ambiguities, foundational exclusions, and its very real impact on American lives—especially women’s. The play and the episode together prompt listeners to reconsider the Constitution, its evolution, and what justice means in today’s America.

---

Transcript

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a [e-mail] New Yorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

This is the Political Scene, a weekly conversation with New Yorker writers and editors about politics. It's Thursday, May 9th. I'm Dorothy Wickenden, executive editor of the New Yorker, the sleeper hit of Broadway this season, written by and starring Heidi Schreck, addresses head on the subject consuming.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

Everyone in Washington, D.C. and New York.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

For that matter, the powers of the executive branch and Congress. What the Constitution Means to Me has been nominated for two Tony Awards for Best Play and Best Actress in a Leading Role, and its run was just extended to August 24th. One critic, Jesse Green of the New.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

York Times, wrote that the show is one of the things we always say.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

We want theater to be an act of civic engagement. It restarts an argument many of us forgot we even needed to have.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

It.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Also, believe it or not, is very funny.

[Heidi Schreck (Younger Self / Narrator)]

When I was 15 years old, I would travel the country giving speeches about the Constitution at American Legion halls for prize money. This was a scheme invented by my mom to help me pay for college. I would travel to big cities like Denver and Fresno. I would give a speech, win a whole bunch of money and then bring it back to put my little safety deposit box for later. I was actually able to pay for my entire college education this way. Thank you. Thank you. It was 30 years ago and it was a state school, but thank you.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

I visited Heidi Schreck backstage at the Hays Theater to discuss her show and how Americans lives continue to be affected by what the Constitution does and does not say about our rights and abuses of power.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

Hi, Heidi.

[Heidi Schreck]

Hi.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

Thank you so much for joining me on a day where you should be sort of kicking back and relaxing before your show tonight.

[Heidi Schreck]

Thank you. I'm very excited to talk with you.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

So I saw the play last week and I really haven't been able to stop thinking about it. We here on the podcast we talk about political news every week, usually about the grotesque real life theater, political theater unfolding every day in Washington. But you found such an unlikely way to shed light on the constitutional crisis of the moment. And I wonder if you could talk a little bit about that.

[Heidi Schreck]

Sure. Well, first of all, I didn't intend, when I first began writing this play, I didn't intend to shed light on the constitutional crisis of the moment because.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

That was some years ago.

[Heidi Schreck]

And it was about 10 years ago I started exploring the Constitution in relationship to my own family history. I had done this contest as a teenage girl where I would travel the country giving speeches about the Constitution for prize money. And I thought it would be interesting to go back and tell a personal story in relationship to this document that has really shaped our lives and our country. I never imagined it would become as relevant as it is today. I was really looking at something quite personal and, and exploring a story that takes place over four generations.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

It's about as unlikely as a rap musical about Alexander Hamilton.

[Heidi Schreck (Younger Self / Narrator)]

Exactly.

[Heidi Schreck]

Indeed.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

What, as you recall, what did your 15 year old self love about the Constitution?

[Heidi Schreck]

I was a very idealistic teenager, like many of us are, and I had a real sense of fairness and justice. And I guess I really just, I believed we had the greatest Constitution in the world and that we had the greatest political system in the world. I grew up with my dad teaching me that and I believed it was a tool of justice.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

One of your fans is the constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe. He told the New Yorker's Michael Shulman that you are extremely on target with your constitutional analysis. That must have thrilled you.

[Heidi Schreck]

It was a relief.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

Yes. I bet he singled out your view of the ninth Amendment, which he says many contemporary scholars don't understand. Maybe you could give us a little riff about your view of the ninth Amendment.

[Heidi Schreck]

Sure, I would love to. So I became fascinated with the 9th amendment actually as a teenager, and then again when I was older, because it's the most poetic of the amendments.

[Heidi Schreck (Younger Self / Narrator)]

Amendment 9 says, the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Do you know what this means? It means just because a certain right is not listed in the Constitution, it doesn't mean you don't have that right. The fact is, there was no way for the framers to put down every single right we have. I mean, the right to brush your teeth. Yes, you've got it. But how long do we want this document to be?

[Heidi Schreck]

And I remember seizing on this Amendment as a 15 year old and becoming obsessed with this idea that this document was telling me in essence, that there were rights that I might have that are not listed in this document, are not enumerated in this document.

[Heidi Schreck (Younger Self / Narrator)]

Think about it for a moment. Our Constitution doesn't tell you all the rights that you have because it doesn't know.

[Heidi Schreck]

I think I related it to my own sense of like, what are the things inside of me that I don't, that I don't know about yet?

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

And you learned the meaning of the word penumbra.

[Heidi Schreck]

I learned the meaning of the word penumbra. So Justice William O. Douglas, when he talked about the ninth Amendment, he used this word penumbra. Penumbra is a space of sort of half light of shadow, talking about how the ninth Amendment sort of suggests that there might be rights that sort of live there in the shadows that are not articulated by the Constitution. And of course, one of these rights happened to be the right to privacy, which came to be used in a lot of Supreme Court decisions that were related to women's bodies. So I think for me, this idea that this document which so explicitly left women out, which didn't include me or my body from the beginning, the idea that, that this ninth Amendment made a space where I might find myself, where I might exist, was powerful to me, even though I don't think I could have articulated that as a 15 year old. I think that's sort of what I came to understand by making the play.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

And I think that's one of the things that audiences are clearly responding to that it just comes from such a different perspective from what most people learned in their history classes and everything else, which was of course, the, the male perspective of the founders. And you know, you also, you've got a longish section in the play about Castle Rock versus Gonzalez and this Supreme Court case that dovetails with your discussion of the 14th Amendment and your family's history. And I thought maybe you could just sketch out that connection.

[Heidi Schreck]

Sure.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

For us.

[Heidi Schreck]

Sure. I stumbled upon the 14th Amendment a little bit by accident. I never had to give a speech about the 14th Amendment when I was a teenager, maybe because it is so dense and so enormous. So, I mean, the 14th Amendment was one of the Reconstruction Amendments ratified after the Civil War in order to basically protect the rights of the newly freed slaves. So the 14th amendment in particular, part of it is birthright citizenship. So saying that any person born on US Soil is considered a United States citizen. That was to overturn Dred Scott v. Sanford, which in 1857 declared that no person of African ancestry could ever become an American citizen. It protected their right to vote, and it also guaranteed them, and ideally everyone, equal protection under the law. And then the third amendment, 14, section 1, clause 3 is the due process clause, which guarantees that the government cannot seize our property or lock us up or kill us without a fair trial. So when I decided that the guiding principle of the show was that I was going to take the prompt of the contest seriously and try to draw a personal connection between my own life and the Constitution, which was impossible for me to do at 15 because I didn't know enough about myself or my family or history or the Constitution. When I decided to do that as a, you know, a 40 year old, I suddenly realized that so many of the things that had deeply affected my life had a relationship to the 14th Amendment. So those things include birth control, they include abortion, Roe v. Wade, and then I have this history of domestic and sexual violence in my family. And so when I began to look at the Supreme Court cases that were related to physical and sexual violence toward women, I realized that the 14th Amendment had played a vital role in those cases as well. I also learned while studying it that the 14th Amendment was the first time that the word male was explicitly written into the Constitution. So while the 14th Amendment asserted equal protection under the law for everyone, it also made it clear that only male citizens were guaranteed the right to vote.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

And I get. Maybe one of the reasons I particularly like this part of the play is because I've been writing a book about three women who fought for years for abolition and women's rights during the 1800s, in the years leading up to an end to the Civil War. And I came across a letter just a couple days before I saw the show from that Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote to Susan B. Anthony, in 1866 about the 14th Amendment, they were incensed by the. They knew what the conversation was underway in Congress, and she said if the word male was inserted into the Constitution, it would take women a century to get it out again. Now, that was a bit of an exaggeration, but it did take, as you say in the play, 54 years. So they went on. They unsuccessfully petitioned Congress to demand that the 14th Amendment prohibit disenfranchisement on account of sex as well as race. And of course, they failed.

[Heidi Schreck]

Yes, they failed. And as you know, I'm sure what was fascinating about that is that there were states where women were enfranchised, where women could vote, and progress was being made in terms of women's right to vote. And then that word went in the Constitution, and suddenly it felt like everything was moving backwards.

[Katie Drummond]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's global editorial director.

[Michael Colory]

I'm Michael Colory, Wired's Director of Consumer Tech and Culture.

[Lauren Good]

And I'm Lauren Good. I'm senior correspondent at Wired. And our show, Uncanny Valley, is all about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley.

[Katie Drummond]

At Wired, we're constantly reporting on how technology is changing every aspect of our lives. So each week on the show, we get together to talk about one of the biggest stories in tech.

[Michael Colory]

Right. So whether we're talking about privacy, AI, social media, or a major tech figure, we will always explain the Silicon Valley forces behind these stories and how they affect you.

[Katie Drummond]

Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

You also talk about the 1965 Supreme Court case Griswold versus Connecticut.

[Heidi Schreck]

Yes.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

So Estelle Griswold was arrested for dispensing birth control at a clinic in New Haven. And Justice William O. Douglas wrote the majority opinion drawing on the first and the Ninth Amendments. I now know to construe a right to privacy between husband and wife. This would make contraception legal for married couples and set a precedent for Roe in the recording. And maybe you could talk a little bit about this, how you got the idea to play it and what happens.

[Heidi Schreck]

Sure. So I was listening. So, first of all, I've listened to hundreds and hundreds of hours of Supreme Court cases, and I decided to listen to Griswold versus Connecticut so that I could educate myself about birth control, the right to birth control in this country. And the first thing I noticed when I started listening to the case is how uncomfortable all the men were talking about birth control and about women's bodies. And about women's health.

[Supreme Court Audio / Unidentified Male Speaker]

Is this true about all of these devices that are covered, that each of them has the potential dual function of acting in contraceptive capacity and as a prevention of disease or only with respect to some of them? It's probably only true with respect to some, but some get by under the term feminine hygiene and others I just don't know about. But they are, they are all sold in Connecticut drugstores on one theory or another.

[Heidi Schreck]

And of course, the Supreme Court was nine men at that time. It was 1965. All the lawyers, all the attorneys were men. There were no women's voices in this recording at all. And I just thought it really brought home for me how ludicrous it was for this decision about women's health, about women's reproduction, about birth control, the fact that it was being made by all.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

By nine justices, by nine male justices. How many whom were having.

[Heidi Schreck]

Well, so we know that William O. Douglas was having an affair with a 22 year old college student because he later married her. The other three justices I only can get people to talk to me about off the record and then tell.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

This also plays into your account of negative rights versus positive rights.

[Heidi Schreck]

Yes. Yeah. So, I mean, one of the things, the biggest revelations for me over the course of the last decade, like one of the biggest things I learned was the difference between positive and negative rights, which again, not a constitutional scholar didn't know what that meant. So I was trying to understand why. In Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez, the court decided that Jessica Gonzalez was not entitled to protection from the police. So she had gotten a restraining order against her husband. The state of Colorado required police to arrest a person who had violated a restraining order. She went to the police, they did nothing. Her husband murdered her daughters, and she sued the police, police department of Castle Rock for failing to protect her and her kids. She won her case. But then the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and said she was not constitutionally entitled to this police protection. And I just couldn't understand this decision. And I finally just ended up talking to a constitutional scholar named William Areza and just said, can you explain this case to me? Most constitutions written in the 20th and 21st centuries have what are called positive rights, which are explicit protections, you know, on the basis of race, on the basis of gender. Most of them have explicit protections, environmental protections. So that's when I learned that our document was primarily a negative rights document. Right. It was considered, it was a neutral document. Designed to protect us from the tyranny of. The possible tyranny of government. And like the idea was, you want the government to stay out of your lives, so you don't have a lot of things that the government must do for its citizens. And it's tricky to have a neutral document that was created by white property owning men for white property owning men. To say that that document is neutral, it seems to me false. Like, that document contains deep assumptions about who holds power in this country. And so if you don't take steps to create positive protections, for example, an equal Rights Amendment, then, then it seems to me that that document will keep drifting toward its original intent, if that.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

Makes sense, which, of course, conservatives think it should.

[Heidi Schreck]

Conservatives do think it should, yes. And as someone who was left out of it from the beginning, I just, I don't believe an originalist viewpoint that says originalism means that we have to stick to somehow the literal version of this document that existed in the beginning. I just think that is going to always work in favor of the people who are like the people who made this document.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

You never utter the word Trump in the show.

[Heidi Schreck]

I don't know.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

And you don't need to. And so just on my way up here from downtown, I was compulsively checking my phone for the news, as people tend to do these days. And the newest headline is White House Asserts Executive Privilege over the Mueller Report. So for the umpteenth time since the election of 2016, people are again talking about a constitutional crisis.

[Heidi Schreck]

Yes.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

And the night I was there, in the audience, there was this palpable sense that a cathartic experience was underway. What does it feel like for you on stage as you relate to your audience's reactions to the play?

[Heidi Schreck]

It changes dramatically every night depending on what is happening that day. For example, I performed the show during the Kavanaugh hearings. Those shows were. The audience was very emotional. There were just audible sounds of grief. Strangely, during that time period, people voted to abolish the Constitution a lot. Maybe because it felt like for some people, the Supreme Court and the way it operates wasn't working. Although, as you know, you're referring to.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

The scene at the end of the play.

[Heidi Schreck]

Yes. Yeah. We debate at the end of the play whether to abolish or keep the Constitution. And during that time period, people were voting to abolish a lot. The day that the AP reported that Trump had said he was going to get rid of birthright citizenship, which of course, he can't do that night, the audience broke into applause when I just simply read the birthright citizenship clause. So I don't change the language of the play very much from night to night, and I never really refer to anything that's happening on that day. But the subtext of the play changes every night, and what people are bringing into the play changes. So right now, people are always voting to keep the Constitution. And I understand, I understand why.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

You know, the show does offer a warning and a call to action. And I wonder, when you're looking back on it, say a year or two from now, what do you hope it will have accomplished?

[Heidi Schreck]

So I don't create things hoping for any particular response from an audience. I don't want to tell anyone what to think, and I don't have any sort of message to impart. I really made this play because I was grappling with my own family history and with my own relationship to this country and the history of this country and the way it had shaped the lives of the women in my family. Like, that was a very personal thing I was trying to work out. So the fact that it's sort of expanded into this thing that reaches so many people is exciting for me. And I think the only thing I hope for people is that it one gives them solace if they're grappling with something similar and also maybe awakens in them the same questions that I've been grappling with. I feel, well, and I guess finally, that it brings people who maybe are suffering through this moment the way many people are, a sense of community. I mean, that's been true for me. Just like the ability to show up in a room every night and think through what's going on in our country and have space to have feelings about it and to grieve about it and to also find ways to find hope for our future. It's made me a much happier person than I was two years ago when I was just scrolling through Twitter in despair on my sofa.

[Interviewer (New Yorker Podcast Host)]

Thank you so much, Heidi. Break a leg tonight.

[Heidi Schreck]

Thank you so much.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Heidi Schreck is a playwright and actor. Her play what the Constitution Means to Me is on Broadway. Until August 24th, this has been the political scene. You can subscribe to this and other New Yorker podcasts by searching for the New Yorker in your podcast app and find more political analysis and commentary on new yorker.com feel free to rate and review the political scene on Apple Podcast. Our theme music is by Russell Gillespie. This program is produced by Alex barron for new yorker.com with assistance from Kylie Warner. I'm Dorothy Wickenden.

[Katie Drummond]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's Global Editorial director.

[Michael Colory]

I'm Michael Colory, Wired's Director of Consumer, Tech and Culture.

[Lauren Good]

And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show, Uncanny Valley is about the people, power, and influence of Silicon Valley.

[Katie Drummond]

And right now, Silicon Valley and Washington have never been more intertwined. So each week we get together to talk about a big story, often at the intersection of tech and politics.

[Michael Colory]

Right. So whether we're talking about Trump, Coin Doge, or Elon Musk, we will always explain how these Silicon Valley forces are.

[Heidi Schreck]

Affecting Washington and how they affect you.

[Katie Drummond]

Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.

[Heidi Schreck]

From prx.