1.26.26 The legal limits of presidential power, the global economy, and the history of the March for Life

Summary

Podcast Summary: "The World and Everything In It"

Episode: 1.26.26 - The legal limits of presidential power, the global economy, and the history of the March for Life
Date: January 26, 2026
Host: WORLD Radio (Jenny Ruff & Nick Iger)

---

Overview

This episode explores three major themes: the legal boundaries of presidential power over independent government agencies (with the focus on the Supreme Court case Trump v. Cook), expert analysis of current economic events and implications, and a historical and contemporary look at the March for Life, featuring on-the-ground voices from participants. Throughout, the show provides detailed reporting and thoughtful interviews reflecting on issues at the heart of American law, economics, and culture.

---

Key Sections and Insights

1. Legal Docket: The President and the Federal Reserve

(07:46 – 19:05)

• Main Issue:
  The Supreme Court hears Trump v. Cook, a case probing whether the president can remove a Federal Reserve governor "for cause" and what due process that requires.

• Background:
  In August 2025, President Trump publicly demanded the resignation of Fed Governor Lisa Cook over alleged mortgage fraud, later issuing a removal letter when she refused. Cook sued to keep her position, resulting in a temporary court order preventing her removal, and the Supreme Court took the case on emergency appeal.

• Legal Arguments:

  • Solicitor General John Sauer for Trump:
    Argues Cook’s allegedly conflicting mortgage applications constitute “cause” for dismissal.

    “The American people should not have their interest rates determined by someone who was at best grossly negligent…” (10:25)

  • Cook’s Defense:
    Claims no intent to defraud, that any errors were inadvertent, and due process was denied.

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: “What is the evidence that has been presented and considered with respect to Ms. Cook’s alleged misconduct?” (12:52)

• Key Legal Questions:

  • What level of due process is owed for such a removal?
  • Does “for cause” align with traditional standards (inefficiency, neglect, malfeasance)?
  • Can alleged misconduct before taking office serve as grounds for removal?

• Notable Quotes:

  • Justice Clarence Thomas and Paul Clement, Cook’s attorney:

    “[President Taft] gave the removed officials the full Taft… notice, opportunity for a hearing before an impartial tribunal.” (13:50)

  • Justice Brett Kavanaugh:

    “Would [this] weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve?” (17:33)

  • Paul Clement:

    "It incentivizes kind of the search and destroy and find something and just put that on a piece of paper. No judicial review, no process, nothing. You’re done." (17:48)

• Context:
  The Fed is designed to be independent, with staggered, lengthy terms for governors. The show emphasizes the core issue: How insulated should monetary policy-makers be from presidential or partisan influence?

---

2. Economic Analysis: The Monday Money Beat

(19:48 – 29:31)

• Guest:
  David Bonson, economist and founder of The Bonson Group.

• Tariff Authority Decision Delayed:

  • Uncertainty from the Supreme Court’s delay in ruling on presidential tariff powers disrupts business decisions and investments.

    "The main issue is not what it does to those already paying [tariffs], but… a lot of people are waiting and then you suspend certain activity." (20:55)

  • Even if tariffs are found unconstitutional, refunding already-collected funds may be chaotic and unfairly burdensome to smaller businesses.

• On Firing Fed Governors and Central Bank Independence:

  • Bonson’s View: While not a supporter of Lisa Cook’s appointment, he stresses that due process matters, and protecting Fed independence is vital:

    "We've never had a president who, all things being equal, wouldn't love a central bank to goose the economy to their favor..." (25:35)
    “I also don’t believe that anything should be done pretextually... That also undermines due process and truth in the court system.” (24:58)

• Takeaway:
  True separation between political cycles and monetary policy is essential to stable markets and economic health.

• World Economic Forum (Davos):

  • No substantive economic developments this year; more geopolitics than market-moving policy.

    “The next speech we'll get with any economic meat on the bone is likely to be the State of the Union.” (29:09)

---

3. World History Book: The March for Life, Past and Present

(30:00 – 36:49)

• Origin Story:

  • The March for Life began in 1974, organized by Nellie Gray and others in response to Roe v. Wade.

    Nellie Gray: “Those same people who were seasoned pro-lifers said America could not let January 22nd go by without memorializing that infamous date in American history.” (30:30)

    • The first march saw about 20,000 participants.

• Enduring Legacy:

  • The event has continued annually, adapting post-Dobbs to focus on state-level legislative advocacy as abortion law returns to states.

• Voices from the March:

  • Broad spectrum of attendees (young, old, first-timers, veterans) share motivations:
    • Isaac Kudrowski: “I’m here because I believe in the right to life from conception until natural death…”
    • Ben Keech: “My sign says my clump of cells is 15 years old and she’s standing right next to me.”
    • Several Attendees: Marching for siblings lost to abortion, for current unborn children, for acquaintances spared by their mothers’ choices.

• State-Level Battles:

  • Attendees discuss challenges and strategies in their home states, reflecting diverse political climates and ongoing legislative fights.

    “The fight for life has to happen in each state. And so that means in our state… fighting for legislation on the ground that’s going to protect life.” (35:10) “The President has recently said that the pro-life movement has to flex on the Hyde amendment and we are opposed to federal funds going to abortions and we think that that’s wrong.” (33:21)

• Memorable Exchanges:

  • Repeated affirmation of enduring commitment despite weather and obstacles.

    Participant: “So excited. And I don't care if we're gonna have a snowstorm." (33:47)

  • Sense of movement facing both victories (Roe overturned) and persistent setbacks.

    “I think I’m discouraged just that there’s not more political movement... When we’re really fighting for equal rights for the unborn, oftentimes... our side can kind of feel like we’re getting lost in the news cycles. But obviously we’re here. So it keeps me coming back, keeps me feeling invigorated.” (35:57)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• David Bonson on Reversing Tariffs:
  “I think it’s a lot better for the economy for the government to give money back to the businesses than for the businesses to give money to the government.” (24:18)

• Paul Clement (SCOTUS oral argument):
  “It incentivizes a president to come up with trivial or inconsequential or old allegations… no judicial review, no process, nothing. You’re done.” (17:33–18:01)

• March for Life Attendee:
  “My sign says, ‘If I am worth something later, I am worth something now.’” (32:29)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• ICE shooting & news roundup: 01:01 – 07:38
• SCOTUS: Trump v. Cook (Legal Docket): 07:46 – 19:05
• Supreme Court opinions in other cases: 18:01 – 19:05
• Economy: Money Beat with David Bonson: 19:48 – 29:31
• History: March for Life origins and interviews: 30:00 – 36:49

---

Conclusion

This episode provides an in-depth, multifaceted examination of core issues shaping current American life—presidential power over independent agencies, the practical and legal implications for the economy, and the endurance of a major social movement. The reporting is richly textured, including legal experts, economists, historical recounting, and impassioned voices from the field, offering listeners both information and perspective rarely found elsewhere.

Transcript

[Jenny Ruff]

Good morning. Today on LegalDocket, how much power does a president have over independent government agencies like our central bank, the Fed?

[Nick Iger]

Also today, the Monday money beat the economic side of that question. Economist David Bonson is standing by. And later, the world history book.

[David Bonson]

How many marches for life have you been to?

[Paul Clement]

This is my first one.

[David Bonson]

So excited. And I don't care if we're gonna have a snowstorm.

[Paul Clement]

This is my first martial life here.

[David Bonson]

In D.C. maybe 10. I've coming almost every year since college.

[Nick Iger]

The largest annual human rights march begun in the 1970s and continuing on to this day.

[Jenny Ruff]

It's Monday, January 26th. This is the world and everything in it. From listener supported World Radio, I'm Jenny Ruff.

[Nick Iger]

And I'm Nick Iger. Good morning.

[Jenny Ruff]

Up next, Mark Mellinger with today's news.

[Paul Clement]

The tension is reaching a boiling point in Minneapolis after ICE agents fatally shot a protester during a confrontation this weekend. The second fatal shooting involving ICE there this month. Leading Democrats responded by doubling down on opposing the Trump administration's immigration enforcement raids. In Minneapolis, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. This is an inflection point, America. If we cannot all agree.

[David Bonson]

That the.

[Paul Clement]

Smearing of an American citizen and besmirching everything they stood for and asking us not to believe what we saw, I don't know what else to tell you. The man killed was Alex Preddy, a 37 year old. The Department of Homeland Security or DHS, says he was armed and agents fearing for their lives fired defensive shots as he approached them. Both Border Patrol commander at large Gregory Bevino, the suspect put himself in that situation. The victims are the Border Patrol agents there. But critics say videos shot by bystanders and reviewed by news organizations like the Wall Street Journal and Associated Press do not clearly back up DHS's version of events, though that doesn't necessarily undercut agents claims they felt they were in mortal danger. Those videos appear to show Preddy with a phone in his hand as he steps between an ICE agent and a woman on the street. Then show agents apparently disarm him of his 9 millimeter handgun during an ensuing scuffle before shots ring out. Democrats across the country are demanding ICE leave Minnesota. least half a dozen Republican lawmakers in Congress are calling for a deeper investigation of the tactics being used there in the wake of this weekend's ICE involved shooting. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer now says Democrats won't support more funding for dhs. The Senate needs to pass funding for government agencies, including DHS this week to avoid a partial shutdown. Schumer's urging Republicans to drop that part of the funding and overhaul ice. Maryland Democratic Governor Wes Moore says a shutdown would hit his state hard. We've had over 25,000 people Marylanders fired federal workers just in the process of this past year, and so the impact of the federal government decisions has significant impact. More on Fox News Channel's the Sunday Briefing with Peter Doocy. If the Senate doesn't pass a series of funding measures this week, another partial government shutdown would happen Friday. Sleet, heavy snow, freezing rain and ice from New Mexico to New England. A massive winter storm walloped the US this weekend, and it's not over yet. Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves Things are bad.

[David Bonson]

In a lot of areas across our.

[Nick Iger]

State, and with the temperatures not likely.

[Paul Clement]

To get above freezing, it's more likely that things are going to get worse before they get better. The storm affected more than 213 million people with thick ice, leaving hundreds of thousands without power in southeast states like Mississippi and Tennessee. Other states got blasted with a foot or more of snow. The storm forced more than 11,500 flight cancellations and another 16,000 flight delays Sunday. Some states are still seeing fresh ice and snow today, along with a bitter cold front moving in. That front could hinder efforts to restore power in some spots. President Trump has approved disaster declarations for at least a dozen states. Another round of trilateral peace talks between the U.S. russia and Ukraine is set for next weekend after the three countries held face to face negotiations. Negotiations in the United Arab Emirates this past weekend. No agreement so far, but Moscow and Kyiv both say they're open to further dialogue. US Diplomats say real progress has been made in reaching a possible agreement to end Russia's war on Ukraine, though Russia's public posture has been more skeptical. The main sticking point is the eastern Donbas region, which Russia wants Ukraine to surrender. Ukraine is refusing. The leader of Iran's Revolutionary Guard says his force is more ready than ever. Finger on the trigger. As US Warships head to the Middle East, President Trump says he's moving the ships in case he wants to take action against Iran's dictatorship for its recent crackdown on protesters, which resulted in thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of arrests. Iran opposition figure Reza Pahlavi says action from the US could inspire Iranian citizens to take down the oppressive regime.

[David Bonson]

If indeed, as President Trump announced, there will be some retaliation for them doing what they did to the people. That would give people another opportunity to then finish the job at the end.

[Paul Clement]

Trump had said the killing of peaceful protesters or mass execution of people arrested could draw a US military response. So far, he's held back, saying Iran halted the executions of 800 people to detained in the protests. When you've just completed what many sportscasters consider the greatest story in college football history, it takes more than a winter chill to keep you from celebrating. Tens of thousands of fans braved the bitter cold this weekend to see their title winning team in person one last time, making their way to Memorial Stadium in Bloomington to celebrate the Indiana Hoosiers National College football Championship in front of a TV audience of more than 30 million. The Hoosiers knocked off Miami last week to win IU's first ever national title and complete college football's first 160 season in more than 130 years. Just two years ago, before the arrival of coach Kurt Signetti, the Hoosiers were best known for their long history of mediocrity, racking up more games lost than any other program. I'm Mark Mellinger, proud IU alum. Straight ahead, the Supreme Court weighs President Trump's ability to fire a Federal Reserve governor. And later, how the march for life began and why it endures. This is the World and everything in It.

[Nick Iger]

It's Monday, 26th January. Glad to have you along for today's edition of the World and Everything In It. Good morning. I'm Nick Iger.

[Jenny Ruff]

And I'm Jenny Ruff. Time now for legal docket. Once again, a major case at the U.S. supreme Court involving President Donald Trump. This time, Trump versus Cook. And this one goes back just five months to August 20, 2025, when the president posted a message on social media, cook must resign now. Three exclamation points. He meant economist Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Trump cited allegations that Cook had committed mortgage fraud. Two days later, reporters asked him about it. Audio from CNBC While all this is.

[Paul Clement]

Happening, the president spoke to the media this morning in Washington about the controversy surrounding Governor Cook. Take a listen. You're going to fire Lisa Cook, the Fed governor, over her mortgage photo? She doesn't resign.

[David Bonson]

Yeah, she's she, what she did was bad.

[Paul Clement]

So I'll fire her if she doesn't resign.

[Nick Iger]

Three days later, August 25, the president again takes to social media. This time, he posts a formal letter addressed to Cook. He says he's removing her from office under his authority in the Constitution and the Federal Reserve Act. He thanks her for her attention to this matter. That move raises a basic question, can a president fire a Federal Reserve governor like that? The Fed is designed to be independent Congress established it more than a century ago, and its seven governors serve long, staggered 14 year terms, so no single president can easily remake the board. Cook was first appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022 and confirmed to a full term the following year. Under the Federal Reserve Act, a president can remove a Fed governor, but only for cause, and that is what Trump is attempting here.

[Jenny Ruff]

Cook sued to stop him and save her job, and it's already on the Supreme Court's docket. Here's Solicitor General John Sauer defending Trump during his opening statement at oral argument.

[Paul Clement]

Deceit or gross negligence by a financial regulator in financial transactions is cause for removal in a two week period in 2021, Lisa Cook submitted mortgage applications for two properties in Michigan and Georgia. In both, she told the lender that within 60 days she would occupy that property for one year as her principal residence.

[Jenny Ruff]

A borrower like Cook will get a cheaper interest rate on a primary residence than a second one, but a person cannot have two of them simultaneously, sauer said. To represent the both properties to lenders as her primary residence was grounds for her removal.

[Paul Clement]

The American people should not have their interest rates determined by someone who was at best grossly negligent in obtaining favorable interest rates for herself.

[Nick Iger]

Cook disputes that. About three months after the president said he was firing her, Cook's lawyer sent a letter to the Department of Justice. The letter explained she had no intent to defraud the lender. It said her Michigan home was her primary residence. And as far as her Georgia property is concerned, she said the line on the mortgage application naming it primary was inadvertent. A second document to the same lender correctly identified it as a summer home.

[Jenny Ruff]

Here's Chief Justice John Roberts asking the Solicitor General about the facts still in dispute.

[David Bonson]

You began by talking about deceit, is what you said after that apply in the case of an inadvertent mistake contradicted by other documents in the record?

[Paul Clement]

Even if it was inadvertent or mistake, it's a quite a big mistake, so to speak, in a key financial representation made in the context of interest.

[David Bonson]

Well, I mean, I suppose we can debate that with how significant it is in a stack of papers you have.

[Paul Clement]

To fill out when you're buying real estate.

[Jenny Ruff]

Now let me pause for a moment because if you think things sound a bit unusual right now, you're right about that. The Supreme Court generally reviews questions of law, not questions of fact. The trial court typically sorts out the facts by the time a case reaches the Supreme Court. The factual record is often set, but this case came to the Supreme Court on an emergency appeal because Cook's lawsuit had not gone to trial. The factual record is still underdeveloped.

[Nick Iger]

After Cook sued, the trial court granted Cook's request for a temporary order to block Trump from removing her while the case is pending. In other words, she gets to stay in her job in the meantime. At this stage, the Supreme Court is not deciding whether Cook did anything wrong. It's deciding whether to reverse that order order. And if it's reversed, Cook is off the Fed during that lawsuit.

[Jenny Ruff]

Eventually, the oral arguments did turn to the law and tackled a range of questions. Let's start with due process. Cook argues Trump violated her rights under the due process clause of the Constitution and the Federal Reserve act by denying her fair notice in a hearing. Trump's lawyer, Sauer, said what the president did was adequate, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed back.

[David Bonson]

Traditionally, when an allegation is made about.

[Paul Clement]

Someone'S misconduct or whatnot, there's an opportunity.

[David Bonson]

For that person to present evidence, for the other side to present evidence. So what I'm trying to understand is what is the evidence that has been presented and considered with respect to Ms. Cook's alleged misconduct?

[Paul Clement]

Well, the removal order addresses that because it's.

[David Bonson]

What is the removal order that the truth Social Post.

[Paul Clement]

No, it's the August 25th letter. The evidence is you have mortgage applications within two weeks of each other that make clearly conflicting representations.

[David Bonson]

Was Ms. Cook given the opportunity in some sort of formal proceeding to contest.

[Jenny Ruff]

That evidence or explain it?

[Paul Clement]

Not a formal proceeding. She was given an opportunity in public because in the world, like she was.

[David Bonson]

Supposed to post about it, and that was the opportunity to be heard.

[Jenny Ruff]

That if social media was was the wrong way to handle fair notice in a hearing, what would be the right way? Here's Justice Clarence Thomas and Cook's lawyer, Paul Clement.

[David Bonson]

What would the review look like?

[Paul Clement]

I mean, one example we have historically.

[David Bonson]

Is President Taft, and he sort of.

[Paul Clement]

Gave the removed officials the full Taft, and it was notice opportunity for a hearing before an impartial tribunal. That, I mean, so that's kind of.

[David Bonson]

The maximum that the President could give.

[Jenny Ruff]

At a minimum, Clement said she should get at least three notice, the opportunity to present evidence.

[David Bonson]

And then the third thing is some.

[Paul Clement]

Effort to keep the final decision maker from prejudging the issue. And the president can be the final decision maker. Then, you know, he needs to be a little bit careful and say these are the allegations. He can't start by prejudging the issue by saying resign.

[Jenny Ruff]

But Chief Justice Roberts sounded unconvinced a hearing would be of much help here, given what's already played out.

[Paul Clement]

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you want a hearing for.

[Nick Iger]

If your argument is.

[Paul Clement]

Inadvertence, it doesn't seem to me that there's much you can say factually other than that you don't have anything. You have one sentence to say it was inadvertent mistake.

[Jenny Ruff]

Trump's lawyer, Sauer, agreed. What's happened is enough. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett saw no harm in doing more.

[David Bonson]

Sit down across the table in the Roosevelt Room, where The President provides Ms. Cook, Governor Cook with the evidence and waits to hear what her response is. Gives her a chance to defend herself.

[Jenny Ruff]

I mean, that just wouldn't be that.

[Paul Clement]

Big a deal, it seems.

[Nick Iger]

If that's enough, Sauer insisted, the text of the statute says nothing about a formal or informal hearing. It simply says the president can fire for a cause, and that's what he did. Courts often treat for a cause as shorthand for serious on the job wrongdoing, but Congress didn't define it that way. Here, leaving the question unanswered, what is the meaning of the term for cause? Cook's attorney wants the court to adopt a standard known as inm I for inefficiency, N for neglect of duty, M for malfeasance. That standard is found in other statutes that allow firing for cause. But as Justice Barrett pointed out, it.

[David Bonson]

Doesn'T say in M. And so I mean, I appreciate your argument that INM and for cause are one and the same. I mean, so it doesn't say inm.

[Nick Iger]

Another issue. Cook's conduct happened before she took office. Justice Sonia Sotomayor it's not as if.

[David Bonson]

She'S been incompetent, negligent, or committed malfeasance while in office. This is something pre office, so keeping her in office is not causing an immediate harm to the agency.

[Nick Iger]

But Solicitor General Sauer argued that for cause gives the president broad discretion. The court's own precedent distinguishes between the president's political actions that are discretionary in nature, and in those cases, courts do not have the authority to review them. That's left to the political process and the voting booth.

[Jenny Ruff]

The propriety of Cook's interim relief is technically the main issue in this case. The court will consider whether leaving the status quo causes Trump irreparable harm and what best serves the public interest.

[Nick Iger]

Now, just last month, the court heard a similar case involving government agencies, Trump v. Slaughter. There, the president took the position that requiring him to fire a federal trade commissioner for a cause was unconstitutional. Here he concedes that he can only fire a Fed governor for a cause.

[Jenny Ruff]

There's lots to unpack there. But for better or worse, the Fed is treated differently than other agencies. The idea is to separate monetary policy from politics. Justice Brett Kavanaugh thought giving the president too much control over the Fed, that.

[Paul Clement]

Would weaken, if not shatter, the independence.

[David Bonson]

Of the Federal Reserve.

[Paul Clement]

It incentivizes a president to come up with trivial or inconsequential or old allegations.

[David Bonson]

That are very difficult to disprove.

[Paul Clement]

It incentivizes kind of the search and destroy and find something and just put that on a piece of paper. No judicial review, no process, nothing.

[David Bonson]

You're done.

[Jenny Ruff]

Along with the Cook case, the Supreme Court handed down three opinions last week. All were short, all were unanimous. All turned on the same idea. When a law is written plainly and constitutionally that dictates the result, judges don't get a say.

[Nick Iger]

In Burke v. Choi, the court said federal, not state, procedural rules govern medical malpractice cases. In federal court, that matters because it determines how hard it is for patients to sue and for doctors to defend themselves, depending upon where a case is filed. In Ellingburg v. United States, the court held that forcing certain defendants to pay money to the victims counts as criminal punishment, not a civil remedy. That means Congress cannot apply those penalties retroactively, and that protects defendants from being punished under rules that didn't exist when they acted. And finally, in Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton, the court enforced a time limit on challenging an alleged void judgment that brings closure to cases that might otherwise keep the doors open.

[Jenny Ruff]

And that's this week's legal docket.

[Paul Clement]

Additional support comes from Dort University's online.

[Nick Iger]

Master of Education program, equipping students with.

[Paul Clement]

Knowledge and skills in their specialization. Dort Eduardo.

[Jenny Ruff]

Coming up next on THE WORLD and everything in it, the Monday Money beat.

[Nick Iger]

Time now to talk business, markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bonson. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bonson Group, and he is here now. Good morning to you, David.

[David Bonson]

Good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

[Nick Iger]

Well, David, following up on our thorough coverage of the Supreme Court and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and the president's legal authority to fire her or any Fed officials for that matter. I do want to get into the economic side of that, and we'll do that in just a moment. But first, something the Supreme Court did not do. We were expecting that it would do. We'd been looking for a decision last week on the scope of the president's tariff authority. Instead, the court left the case unresolved and pushed a decision into at least mid February. But David, from an economic standpoint, what is the effect of that kind of delay, especially for businesses and markets that were counting on clarity sooner and not later?

[David Bonson]

Well, I actually understand it's going to be the very end of February, and it's mostly just mysterious. I mean, yeah, the delayed ability to get some sort of certainty and clarity is problematic for an awful lot of businesses, especially those that are waiting to place orders or make capital investments on their belief, or at least their hope that there will be a pushback on this particular rationale of the tariffs, which does not cover all of them, but covers a pretty good portion of them. And so the main issue is not what it does to those already paying them, because I'm not totally convinced that even if the Supreme Court does rule that this rationale is unconstitutional, which I believe it is, the issue of whether or not they're going to require refunds and rebates to those who've already paid, I'm not sure that will happen. The issue is that a lot of people are waiting and then you suspend certain activity. And I think markets would like to just sort of get this done. And by the way, I think the administration would like to get it done even if there's an unfavorable ruling. They already have contingency plans for how they plan to move around different rationales, and they would rather just get to it than kind of have this continued limbo. So I just really can't imagine why they've chosen to delay it.

[Nick Iger]

Well, you know, David, you had started to answer the question I was going to follow up with about clawing back that tariff money, but I do want to stay on this. If the court does ultimately rule, the president lacks authority to impose these tariffs under the legal theory the White House was using. I am curious about the specifics of what would happen next. So, David, is there a realistic scenario where tariff revenues already collected would have to be refunded, and what would be the economic consequences of that?

[David Bonson]

Well, the effect would be wonderful. It would be great for businesses to get hard earned money back in their pocket. But the question that you ask about mechanics is just as unknown as whether or not there will be a ruling for rebates, because there's a ton of different ways they could do it as well. What I do believe is that it would end up requiring some type of protocol that an awful lot of smaller businesses are not going to be able to do the complexity, the resources, the access to the people to sort of navigate the process. So I think that's going to be kind of a mess. And it's one of the reasons I'm disappointed that the appeals court made a ruling that this is just overtly unconstitutional, and yet they've allowed to continue collecting the tariffs through this appeal process to the high court. I think it would have been far better for everyone to do the opposite, say, fine, if the White House wants to appeal to the Supreme Court, we can do it. But the appellate court ruling stands in the meantime. Because now what you've done is you've allowed a lot of these collections to take place, and it represents a very arduous process to get it undone. But it is very interesting. I have people ask me, like, oh, what a mess it would be if they have to give the money back. And I've never understood that. I think it's a lot better for the economy for the government to give money back to the businesses than for the businesses to give money to the government.

[Nick Iger]

Right. Well, David, now onto Lisa Cook. Not the legal issues, but the economic ones. You were not in favor of Lisa Cook being appointed in the first place when President Biden appointed her. But you've also said that there is some benefit to an independent Fed versus a central bank that simply carries out the wishes of the President, regardless of who the president is. But why is that? So? Why is it important?

[David Bonson]

Okay, let me make this real simple. I do not believe Lisa Cook should have been appointed to the Fed, just in my own assessment of her qualifications. But she was legally appointed by a President confirmed by the Senate. I do not believe that it is clear she broke any law on a mortgage application. It is absolutely clear that she hasn't even been indicted or arrested or accused of such a. That were only allegedly in the middle of some preliminary investigation. So nobody could even come close to claiming with a straight face that there's been the due process. I am totally open to the idea that people do not believe the Fed's personnel should be immune from being fired by the executive branch. That a lot of people believe, no, they should be allowed to be fired without cause at the discretion of the President. But that is not the way it is set up now. And so there would have to be legal adjustments and clarity to this part of the way the Federal Reserve act works. But with all that said, I also don't believe that anything should be done pretextually. In other words, if the reason it's being done is just merely because she's voting a way we don't like. And so we go find a rationale like, oh, she called a vacation home a primary, allegedly, then that also undermines due process and truth in the court system. And of course, President Trump was a victim of such things. And so the sort of disingenuity and lawfare of it is troublesome to me. But your question is the important one economically is why is that independent Fed issue important to begin with? And the high level answer there is just that in theory. And we've never had a president who, all things being equal, wouldn't love a central bank to goose the economy to their favor, that there are long term things that bad monetary policy does, but short term benefits from monetary policy and presidents do four year terms. And so President Clinton was livid with Alan Greenspan for raising rates in 1994 and President Nixon was livid with Arthur Burns in 1971. And no one's really taken it as far as President Trump in terms of public critique. But the notion of a not even a pretense of separation between fiscal and monetary policy is where you get Japan, where the bank of Japan and the President of Japan are kind of one and the same. And I believe that in America it isn't totally separated now. But regardless, I think that there's a real benefit in not going all the way. That's why this issue is important, even though Lisa Cook's situation is kind of a small part of the whole story.

[Nick Iger]

Well, David, before we go, I do want to ask about the World Economic Forum in Davos. There was plenty of drama, obviously no shortage of headlines on it, filtering out all of the political geopolitical noise. Do you think Davos actually delivered any meaningful economic signal this year, or was it mostly just a showcase of elite anxiety, disconnected from what the markets are doing?

[David Bonson]

No, not substantively economic. There were a lot of things said and I think some of the more significant parts of the week were primarily geopolitical and just speaking to various shifts in the rules based order. But on the economic side, because President Trump kind of pivoted away from what he had announced he was going to speak on which he was going to use Davos to release a lot of a housing plan is what had been sort of leaked from the White House, and then it ended up being all about Greenland and this other stuff, I think that more than likely the next speech we'll get with any economic meat on the bone is likely to be the State of the Union.

[Nick Iger]

All right. David Bonson is founder, managing partner and chief investment officer of the Bonson Group. He [e-mail] and at World Opinions. David hey, I'm glad you're able to duck the weather out there in California, so we'll just slog through it here on our own and I hope you have a great and productive week. We will talk to you next time, Lord willing.

[David Bonson]

Thanks so much, Nick.

[Jenny Ruff]

Today is Monday, January 26th. Thank you for turning to World Radio to help start your day. Good morning. I'm Jenny Ruff.

[Nick Iger]

And I'm Nick Eicher. Next up on the WORLD and everything in it, the world history book, the March for Life, past and present. Here is World's Lindsay Mast.

[Jenny Ruff]

In late 1973, just months after the U.S. supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, a group of pro life advocates gathered at the Washington, D.C. home of Attorney Nellie Gray. The group included New Yorkers who had been fighting abortion legislation there and who now wanted to take the cause to Congress.

[David Bonson]

Those same people who were seasoned pro lifers said that America could not let January 22nd go by without memorializing that infamous date in American history. Audio from the Conservative Roundtable was involved by sheer geography. I live in Washington and they wanted to meet in Washington. They met in my home on one evening and I put together the very.

[Jenny Ruff]

First March for Life, Gray said some 20,000 people joined the first march, but the group soon realized Congress had other priorities, so they decided to march again the next year and the next.

[David Bonson]

After we had the very first march, we saw that we were going to have to have more marches. And since I was the one in Washington, they used my house, they used my phone, and that's the way you become president of the March for Life.

[Jenny Ruff]

The group has been marching ever since current President Ginny Bradley Lichter. Throughout this year as we celebrate the founding of our beloved country, never forget that the United States of America was built on the foundation of the right to life. In 2022, the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dobbs case overturned Roe v. Wade and sent the issue of abortion back to the states. That's meant many who come to the march now go home to new political battles in their state legislatures. World's Washington producer Harrison Waters was at this year's march and spoke to dozens of participants.

[David Bonson]

What's your name? My name is Isaac Kudrowski. Jennifer Christianci, Ben Keech, Gina Clement, Paul Barron. My name is Claire Sievers and I'm from central North Carolina. My name is Josue Sierra and I'M from Cecil County, Maryland.

[Nick Iger]

Cool.

[David Bonson]

Where are y' all from? Michigan. Michigan.

[Jenny Ruff]

I'm from St. Louis, Missouri.

[David Bonson]

I'm here with my college. We're from Wisconsin and we're from Kansas. Well, to you say you're here.

[Jenny Ruff]

I'm here because life matters and we.

[David Bonson]

Can'T just passively stand up. We have to show people that we stick to the guns and we do what we say we're going to do. I'm here because I believe in the right to life from conception until natural death. I'm here because I want my kids to experience. I want them to experience the March for Life because it was a good experience for me.

[Paul Clement]

But I want them to see that.

[David Bonson]

There are other people that are like minded. Well, I'm here because I'm marching for life. I think abortion is evil and we should really protect the lives of innocent babies. And tell me what your sign says. Oh, my sign says, your mom chose life. It says, get married, have kids. You won't regret it. I just think that's really powerful. By Charlie Kirk. It says if I am worth something later, I am worth something now. My sign says my clump of cells is 15 years old and she's standing right next to me. The back of my sign says no flex on Hyde. The President has recently said that the pro life movement has to flex on the Hyde amendment and we are opposed to federal funds going to abortions and we think that that's wrong.

[Paul Clement]

I know that there is still much road ahead to travel together. Take heart. Take heart in how far we've come. But don't lose the sight of why we march. And so long as you are out there marching for life, I hope you.

[David Bonson]

Know that the Vice President of the.

[Paul Clement]

United States will march with you. God bless you all and thanks for having me.

[David Bonson]

How many marches for life have you been to?

[Jenny Ruff]

This is my first one.

[David Bonson]

So excited. And I don't care if we're gonna have a snowstorm. This is my first martial Life here in DC. This is my second, maybe 10.

[Jenny Ruff]

I've been coming almost every year since college.

[David Bonson]

My family, starting with my parents back in the 70s, have been coming almost.

[Jenny Ruff]

Every year to the March for Life.

[David Bonson]

Who would you say you're marching for today? I'm marching for all those that didn't get the chance to be born and for all those who are currently in the womb. I'm here marching for anyone in my life that I could have met but I had the opportunity taken away by unlawful killing all those ladies who have aborted their babies and now feel the conviction. I pray for them that they will have peace in their heart. So I would say I'm marching for family members and for my lost sibling.

[Jenny Ruff]

I'm marching for Belle.

[David Bonson]

Belle is a four year old who.

[Jenny Ruff]

Is at my church who her mom.

[David Bonson]

Was considering an abortion but thankfully chose.

[Jenny Ruff]

To keep and save her baby's life.

[David Bonson]

Belle is a good, gorgeous four year old little girl. What does it look like to be pro life in your home state? Yeah, Maryland is tough. You know, with Governor Moore, they've just expanded abortion on demand. I would say it's difficult because I'm from New Jersey and we do have a pro life movement there, but it's very small. The fight for life has to happen in each state. And so that means in our state.

[Paul Clement]

In Pennsylvania, fighting for legislation on the.

[David Bonson]

Ground that's going to protect life. I mean, we have a fight in our legislature over life.

[Jenny Ruff]

You know, there's a lot of push.

[David Bonson]

To advance abortion in the uk. There's a very strong contingent of like counter protesters and it can become quite tense here. It's very positive, a very loving environment. Everyone's here to celebrate life and life is a gift.

[Paul Clement]

And I feel like more and more.

[David Bonson]

People are just coming to the realization that, you know, the truth, truth, it's.

[Nick Iger]

Not a clump of cells.

[Paul Clement]

It's not just, you know, it's their babies.

[Jenny Ruff]

We feel that there's people fighting for the babies now like that are in the positions that can make a difference.

[David Bonson]

Make a huge difference. So it's very, it's more of a joyous year, I think. I mean it's an exciting time, it's fun to be there.

[Jenny Ruff]

I think I'm discouraged just that there's not more political movement and like actual change. Like I think some of the changes have been very small. When we're really fighting for equal rights.

[David Bonson]

For the unborn, oftentimes, except for when Roe v. Wade was overturned, a lot of times our side can kind of feel like we're, you know, getting lost in the mug, getting lost in the news cycles. But obviously we're here. I'm here with my school, I'm here with a bunch of other people who believe in the pro life cause. So it keeps me coming back, keeps me feeling invigorated. Unthinkable race, abortion. Unthinkable race, abortion. Unthinkable race, abortion. Unthinkable, unthinkable.

[Nick Iger]

Tomorrow, the US has officially left. The World Health Organization will have a report and Kim Henderson with a story on young experience equestrians that and more tomorrow. I'm Nick Iger.

[Jenny Ruff]

And I'm Jenny Ruff. 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, the Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters. He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me. Your rod and your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil. My cup overflows. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life. And I shall dwell in the house of the lord forever. Psalm 23. Go now in grace and peace.