3.16.26 Supreme Court on where a case should be heard, shipping fears in the Strait of Hormuz, and the dangerous first space walk

Summary

Podcast Summary: The World and Everything In It

Episode Title: Supreme Court on where a case should be heard, shipping fears in the Strait of Hormuz, and the dangerous first space walk
Date: March 16, 2026
Podcast: The World and Everything In It (WORLD Radio)
Hosts: Nick Eicher, Jenny Ruff
Contributors: Kent Covington, David Bonson, Kristin Flavin

---

Episode Overview

This episode delivers a comprehensive update on pivotal Supreme Court cases regarding federal versus state court jurisdiction, the global economic impact of stalled shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and a Cold War history lesson recounting the first human spacewalk—highlighting its perils and legacy. Featuring in-depth legal analysis, expert financial insights, and historical storytelling, the episode spotlights how legal frameworks, economic forces, and human ingenuity shape present realities.

---

Key Segments & Discussion Points

1. Supreme Court: Federal vs. State Court Jurisdiction

(06:45 – 18:29)

Theme:
Analysis of two Supreme Court cases examining whether certain environmental lawsuits should be heard in federal or state court, centering on technical legal statutes but with significant real-world implications.

A. Interview with Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Constitutional History (06:49 – 08:14)

• Justice Barrett reflects on the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
• On the Declaration versus the Constitution:

  "Abraham Lincoln described the Declaration as the promise and the Constitution as the means for fulfilling that promise. So most of my work deals with the means and the mechanism."
  (Amy Coney Barrett, 07:15)

• Barrett highlights Abigail Adams as her office inspiration, admiring her intellect and patriotism, despite the absence of women in the founding assemblies.

B. Case 1: Chevron vs. Plaquemines Parish (08:50 – 15:35)

• Background: WWII-era government contracts for aviation fuel and resulting oil industry impacts on Louisiana marshlands.
• Dispute: Plaquemines Parish sues Chevron for coastal environmental damage. Central question: Should the case be tried in state or federal court?
• The “federal officer removal statute” is at issue—Chevron argues it acted under government orders.
• Justice Kavanaugh notes underlying fairness concerns:

  "There seems to be a concern about the fairness of the state court system that underlies your position in this case. What is that concern?"
  (Brett Kavanaugh, 10:56) "We're not saying that they don't get their chance to prove their case in court. It just has to be proven in a federal court. If they can prove their case in federal court, then everybody's going to accept the outcome..."
  (Paul Clement, 11:10)

• Notable point: “local prejudice”—financial incentives may sway local juries.
• Louisiana’s attorney argues state courts are best suited for state law interpretation.
• Chief Justice Roberts challenges the breadth of “related to” under the statute:

  "Is it a butterfly effect? You know, the butterfly flaps its wings and it has the end result halfway around the world."
  (John Roberts, 15:06)

• The outcome will set precedent for similar “land loss” lawsuits. Justice Alito recused himself due to a financial conflict.

C. Case 2: Enbridge Energy vs. Michigan (15:35 – 18:29)

• Background: Michigan sues to shut down Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline for safety reasons. Enbridge tries to “remove” the case to federal court—two years late.
• Question: Can “equitable tolling” (an exception for missed deadlines) apply?
• International stakes:

  "What we're told shutting down Line 5 would result in a massive shortage of gas, diesel and jet fuel in both Ontario and in Quebec, not to mention thousands of Canadian jobs."
  (Justice Alito, 16:49)

• Federal courts are considered more experienced on international/federal law.
• Justice Roberts mistakenly dismisses Enbridge’s lawyer early, resulting in a light-hearted moment:

  "Thank you, counsel." "Thank you." "Oh, I—well, okay..." (17:52 - 18:00) "I'm glad that the chief will exercise his traditional equitable authority to allow you to ask this important question."
  (Paul Clement, 18:00)

Outcome:
The eventual ruling will clarify how strictly federal courts enforce statutory deadlines and under what circumstances late removals are permitted.

---

2. Monday Money Beat: Shipping Crisis in the Strait of Hormuz & Market Rotation

(19:25 – 28:37)

Theme:
David Bonson explains how disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz is rattling global energy markets and triggering changes in market sector performance.

• Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has virtually ceased—not from direct military strikes, but from fear of attacks, disrupting global oil and goods supply.

• "It's fear of activity, of drone attack... causing the insurers, shippers, just anyone... to sit tight. And so the number of ships that have now stacked up... is massive. That is largely being felt in the marginal price of oil..."
  (David Bonson, 20:14)

• Bonson stresses the broader commerce impact:

  "It's a Persian Gulf story that goes far beyond Iran selling to Russia. There is a complexity that becomes—all economics is done on the margin—and it becomes marginally significant."
  (David Bonson, 22:47)

• Market rotation: Investors are moving funds from speculative tech stocks into “real economy” sectors like energy, utilities, and consumer staples.

  "The diapers and paper products and food and beverage items... have rallied a lot in the first 10 weeks of this year."
  (David Bonson, 24:04)

• The economy faces a “tug of war” between growth and stagnation, with tariffs increasing costs and dampening hiring.

  "Tariffs are weighing on the economy... This is economically objectively true... Over $300 billion of new cost. That's, that's a massive amount of money that has to be absorbed by American importers."
  (David Bonson, 26:13)

---

3. World History Book: Dangerous First Spacewalk

(29:08 – 36:23)

Theme:
A gripping retelling of the first human spacewalk by Russian cosmonaut Alexei Leonov in 1965, exploring the triumphs and near-disasters of early space exploration.

• Leonov became the first man to walk in space, floating for 12 minutes outside his spacecraft (29:40).

  "There was a lot of [stars]. And it was interesting that they were everywhere. They were above and they were beneath..."
  (Alexei Leonov, 30:13)

• His spacesuit ballooned dangerously in the vacuum, nearly trapping him outside; he reduced his suit pressure—risking decompression sickness—to reenter (33:17 – 34:13).

• "I have got to do something... I dropped the pressure to 0.27 atmosphere."
  (Alexei Leonov, 33:17)

• Mentally, this required astronauts’ famed nerve:

  "It's almost like your cockpit fills with snakes. And how are you going to handle that?"
  (Barry Wilmore, 32:45)

• After reentry, Leonov and his crewmate survived two nights in a remote Russian forest amid bears and wolves.
• NASA pored over Leonov’s experience, quickly applying its hard-won lessons. Ed White’s Gemini 4 EVA followed just 10 weeks later, doubling Leonov’s time and setting the stage for the Apollo moonwalks.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Justice Kavanaugh: "There seems to be a concern about the fairness of the state court system that underlies your position in this case. What is that concern?" (10:56)
• Chief Justice Roberts: "Is it a butterfly effect? You know, the butterfly flaps its wings and it has the end result halfway around the world." (15:06)
• David Bonson: "Four days [of shipping disruption] creates some inconvenience. Four weeks becomes a pretty big problem. More than four weeks becomes a massive problem." (21:35)
• Alexei Leonov (on spacewalk): "And it was interesting that [the stars] were everywhere. They were above and they were beneath... In space, they are everywhere." (30:13)
• Barry Wilmore (astronaut): "You can't just fire off a rocket and go to the moon." (32:08), and on crisis management, "It's almost like your cockpit fills with snakes. And how are you going to handle that?" (32:45)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Time | Segment / Topic | |-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 06:45 | Introduction to Supreme Court legal docket | | 06:49 | Justice Amy Coney Barrett interview at Library of Congress | | 08:50 | Case 1: Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish (WWII avgas, marshland lawsuit) | | 15:35 | Case 2: Enbridge v. Michigan (Line 5 pipeline, equitable tolling) | | 19:25 | Monday Money Beat: Strait of Hormuz shipping crisis, market rotation | | 29:08 | World History Book: The first human spacewalk, Alexei Leonov |

---

Style & Tone

The podcast maintains a calm, informative, and slightly conversational tone, blending legal, financial, and historical expertise. The hosts and guests avoid partisan rhetoric, aiming to clarify complex issues in accessible language.

---

For New Listeners

This episode guides you through how intricate legal disputes reach the nation’s highest court and shape environmental restoration and corporate accountability. It connects geopolitical military action in Iran’s neighborhood to tangible spikes at the gas pump, exposing vulnerabilities in global trade. A vivid story of Cold War-era courage and improvisation rounds out the episode, showing the dire risks—and enduring triumphs—of the human spirit reaching into space.

Transcript

[Jenny Ruff]

Good morning. Today on LegalDocket, a case with a long reach.

[Paul Clement]

Is it a butterfly effect? You know, the butterfly flaps its wings and it has the end result.

[Nick Eicher]

Halfway around the world, the Supreme Court deciding just how far the law should reach and where the case should be heard. Also today, the Monday money beat shipping slowdowns in the straight. And amid the volatility, a market rotation underway. David Bonson standing by to explain later the world history book. In the cold war space race, the Soviet program finds out the hard way,

[Barry Wilmore]

you can't just fire off a rocket and go to the moon.

[Jenny Ruff]

It's Monday, March 16th. This is the world and everything in it. From listener supported World Radio, I'm Jenny Ruff.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Eicher. Good morning.

[Jenny Ruff]

Up next, Kent Covington with today's news.

[Kent Covington]

TSA airport security agents are reporting for work today without pay. For now, they just missed their first full paycheck since the Homeland Security funding lapse began more than a month ago. But they are now enduring their second shutdown in a matter of months and many have had enough. Transportation secretary Sean Duffy, 300 TSA agents have quit.

[David Bonson]

The number of callouts are double what they were before.

[Kent Covington]

But TSA agents are not alone. More than 100,000 DHS workers missed Friday's paycheck. Federal employees are guaranteed back pay once the shutdown ends, but there's no telling when that will be. Security lines have stretched for hours at major airports and a number of airports are now soliciting public donations to help agents get by while they wait. Democrats have refused to fund Homeland Security until Republicans agree to a list of demanded changes to immigration enforcement. But Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman has broken with his party on the issue.

[Paul Clement]

Why would you want to punish all of these workers that under dhs, only thing that it could do is just make us less safe. And that also makes people have to go without getting paid.

[Kent Covington]

But Democratic Congressman James Walkinshaw says Republicans are the ones to blame.

[Paul Clement]

Democrats have been saying let's fund the

[Nick Eicher]

other agencies in DHS and continue to negotiate around ice.

[Paul Clement]

And there wasn't a vote in the

[David Bonson]

Senate and in the House until this week.

[Kent Covington]

Republicans say Congress must fund the entire Department of Homeland Security immediately for the sake of national security. President Trump says Iran is ready for talks to end the war, though he says he does not believe the terms would be good enough yet to reach a deal. But Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Al Rakchi disputed that claim, telling CBS's Face the

[Paul Clement]

Nation, we never asked for a ceasefire

[Kent Covington]

and we have never asked even for negotiation.

[Paul Clement]

We are ready to defend ourselves as long as it takes.

[Kent Covington]

And there are still questions about exactly who is in charge. Iranian state media last week read a statement purportedly issued by Iran's new supreme leader, much to Bahamai, but notably he did not appear on camera. Israel believes he was seriously wounded in the initial US And Israeli strikes. And some question whether he's truly in charge or even in if he's still alive. As US And Israeli forces continue to devastate Iran's military, the regime's greatest leverage remains its ability to largely halt commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz with threats of violence. Energy Secretary Chris Wright says the strait

[David Bonson]

is very important for global commerce and for energy commerce, and they impact energy prices as we're all seeing. They have used this threat for 47 years and, and they've continued to build up their arsenal to make this threat graver and graver.

[Kent Covington]

And he said President Trump is determined to end that threat once and for all. But in the meantime, energy prices are surging across the globe, including at the pump in the U.S. aAA says the national average for a gallon of regular unleaded is now $3.70 per gallon. For perspective, a month ago, that price was $2.93. White House press Secretary Caroline Levitt had this message for the American public.

[Kristin Flavin]

We understand your concerns, we hear you and we are taking them into account and we have a plan to address them. And this is a temporary short term disruption in global oil prices that the president is ultimately going to rectify by wiping out the rogue Iranian terrorist regime.

[Kent Covington]

The Trump administration argues that the long term gain of what it says will be a safer world is more than worth the short term pain at the pump. But Democrats continue to blast the military efforts, calling it a war of choice with no clear exit strategy. A massive storm system that buried much of the upper Midwest in snow is now targeting the East Coast. Forecasters upgraded the severe weather risk for parts of the Mid Atlantic to a rare level. 4 out of 5 warning of possible tornadoes, damaging winds and large hail from the Carolinas to Washington, D.C. mark Chouinard with the National Weather Service, A lot

[Paul Clement]

of these areas are seeing one to two feet of snow. Portions of Minnesota, Wisconsin, northern Michigan. Locally, higher totals. Quite a bit of wind with this storm, too.

[David Bonson]

So we have the blowing snow issue

[Paul Clement]

as well, and then the cold temperatures behind it. Yeah, I mean, we'll have temperatures across portions of the northern Plains that get below zero.

[Kent Covington]

Meantime, a disaster in Hawaii as a rare Kona storm has triggered historic flooding and landslides, prompting the governor to declare a statewide emergency. President Trump is on track to become the first US President to visit China since he visited eight years ago in his first term, and American officials are now working to make it happen. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant met Sunday with China's vice premier for trade talks, and they were set to meet once again today. The White House hopes the talks will set the stage for a summit later this month between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. China has not officially confirmed the visitors. I'm Kent Covington. And straight ahead, legal Docket. Plus, more on the ongoing effects of the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz. This IS THE WORLD AND EVERYTHING IN it.

[Nick Eicher]

It's Monday, 16th March. 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.

[Amy Coney Barrett]

So it's the 250th anniversary of the United States this year, as you all know, and I spend a lot of time working with the Constitution and a lot of time thinking about the history of the Constitution and its founding.

[Jenny Ruff]

And so Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared before an audience at the Library of Congress last week and sat for a live interview. Among other topics, she addressed the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the

[Amy Coney Barrett]

Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, which we celebrate this year, Abraham Lincoln described the Declaration as the promise and the Constitution as the means for fulfilling that promise. So most of my work deals with the means and the mechanism.

[Jenny Ruff]

She mentioned the portrait she chose when decorating her Supreme Court office. She wanted an influential woman from the founding era.

[Amy Coney Barrett]

Obviously, there were no women in the Continental Congress. There were no women in the Constitutional Convention who participated. But I mean, when you think about who were the influential women at the time, I think Abigail Adams was just remarkable. And I identified with her in many ways. I mean, Abigail had a large family. She had five living children. But she was a sharp observer of the politics at the time, a fierce patriot.

[Jenny Ruff]

She also gave an example of the genius of the Constitution and why it's mostly written in general terms.

[Amy Coney Barrett]

If we tried to have environmental regulations, for example, in our Constitution, it would get out of date very quickly.

[Nick Eicher]

So things like that are left to the legislative process. And it brings us to our two cases that she and the court are considering right now. Both involve environmental laws at their core, although the question before the Supreme Court focused narrowly on a technical but important question, which court should hear them, state or federal? First case Chevron vs. Plaquemines Parish. It takes us back to a distinct historical period.

[Paul Clement]

December 7, 1941,

[Alexei Leonov]

a date which will live in infamy.

[Paul Clement]

The United States of America was suddenly

[Alexei Leonov]

and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

[Jenny Ruff]

The day after Pearl harbor, the U.S. the U.S. formally entered World War II. Warplanes would need enormous quantities of a specialized high octane aviation fuel known as avgas. So the federal government partnered with the petroleum industry to supply it. Plaquemins Parish is oil country. Situated on Louisiana's southern tip, a parish is the equivalent of a county, and Plaquemines Parish is one of the areas where Chevron's predecessors and others dredged canals, drilled wells and dumped wastewater. The oil companies then shipped the extracted crude to refineries to convert it to avgas for the military.

[Nick Eicher]

Plaquemins Parish says the companies that extracted the oil also did damage to the coast in violation of state law. It sued and wants Chevron to fix what it broke by restoring the disturbed marshland. Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Oganyaga that they

[Paul Clement]

do not dispute the that they dumped billions of gallons of produced water from oil wells directly into our marsh.

[Jenny Ruff]

But the issue in this case, although narrow and technical, could be financially crucial. Is it heard in state or federal court? The last time related litigation stayed in Louisiana, the jury hit the company with a $750 million verdict. The lawsuit does involve state law, and typically that means state, and that's where the parish filed its lawsuit.

[Nick Eicher]

But Chevron argues that a law known as the federal officer removal statute allows it to remove the case to federal court. Defendants like Chevron often prefer that, viewing it as a more neutral forum and state court as unfair. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Chevron's lawyer, Paul Clement about that.

[Paul Clement]

There seems to be a concern about the fairness of the state court system that underlies your position in this case. What is that concern? So the concern is in a nutshell, you know, really, since almost the framing of the country, there's been this problem, this issue, this concern with issues that are nationally important but locally unpopular. We're not saying that they don't get their chance to prove their case in court. It just has to be proven in a federal court. If they can prove their case in federal court, then everybody's going to accept the outcome and they're not going to view it as something that's a product of local prejudice.

[Jenny Ruff]

That term, local prejudice is important. What he means by it is the financial incentives of the jury. Clement argued that cases like these do not belong before Juries drawn from the local communities suing the companies. Clement emphasized in cases like this, the jury makes more of a difference than it typically would in federal court. The jury would be drawn from people in the greater region, but it's not

[Paul Clement]

going to be drawn exclusively from people that are going to get, you know, effectively a direct benefit. If the parish collects reflects a massive windfall. Do you have specific concerns in this case about the state court system or is it more the general concerns, historical concerns? Well, it's both. I mean, I'd be lying if I didn't say that the verdict in the one case that went to trial here, which was, you know, roughly $750 million for just one parish.

[Nick Eicher]

But Louisiana Solicitor General Ogin Yaga said this case prov properly belongs in state court. Plaintiffs generally prefer state court for their own strategic reasons. And Justice Clarence Thomas asked about that.

[Alexei Leonov]

As a practical matter, what difference does

[Paul Clement]

it make to be in state court

[Alexei Leonov]

as opposed to federal court?

[Paul Clement]

Well, Justice Thomas, I'm not going to lie that, you know, we have the same reasons for wanting to be in state court that anybody who sues under state law wants to be in state court. We want the actual experts interpreting state law, especially when we get to the Louisiana Supreme Court on an important statute like this, and especially with respect to a problem that is so sweeping in

[Nick Eicher]

scope, the answer to where this case belongs will depend on how the Supreme Court interprets that federal officer removal statute that would allow a case involving state law to be removed to federal court. If Chevron is able to clear a few hurdles.

[Jenny Ruff]

For example, Chevron must show that as a private party, it was acting under a federal officer, and it must show the challenged conduct, that is the conduct it's being sued for is related to the federal contracts.

[Nick Eicher]

Plaquemins Parish argues Chevron cannot clear those hurdles. It says its lawsuit targets Chevron for its conduct over oil extraction. But the federal contracts dealt with Chevron's refining because Chevron could have gone into the open market and other suppliers for the raw crude and didn't have to drill for oil in the fields itself. The Parish says Chevron was not acting under a federal officer, nor was its conduct related to fulfilling its World War II government contracts to refine petroleum.

[Jenny Ruff]

Chevron's lawyer disagreed. He said it's a no brainer that Chevron was acting under a federal officer.

[Paul Clement]

The the classic person who acts under a government official is a government contractor providing the government with what it needs to win a war.

[Jenny Ruff]

He went on to say the kind of crude it produced was an indispensable component of the refined avgas it provided. So it satisfies the related to language as well. But Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to know how far that would reach.

[Paul Clement]

How far upstream do you carry relating to let's say you have a vertically integrated company. You know a lot of inputs changes along the way and at the end of it they're selling a product to the government. Does relating to go to the step that's, you know, 10 steps above that where they're buying the materials, they're shaping the material, all this other stuff.

[Nick Eicher]

Later, Justice Roberts pressed the issue on how far the phrase related to might stretch.

[Paul Clement]

I mean is it a butterfly effect? You know, the butterfly flaps its wings and it has the end result halfway around the world.

[Jenny Ruff]

There's little doubt Louisiana's coastal land is eroding about every 90 minutes it loses about a football field of habitable land. The decision here should establish a uniform rule to determine not only whether this case belongs in federal court, but whether some of the other land loss cases belong there too. And I should note that Justice Samuel Alito recused himself due to a financial conflict.

[Nick Eicher]

The second case raises a different question of procedure which when can a company miss a federal filing deadline and still get into federal court? It's Enbridge Energy versus Nestle here. Michigan state officials sued Enbridge in state court to shut down what's known as Line 5 pipelines that begin in Wisconsin, run under the Straits of Mackinac and end in Canada. The pipes crossing the Straits of Mackinac are exposed and at risk of being ruptured by anchor strikes from massive freight vessels. And Defendant Enbridge had 30 days to remove the case to federal court if it wished to do so, and it did, but it missed the deadline by two years.

[Jenny Ruff]

The question here is whether an exception applies. One possible exception is a doctrine called equitable tolling, which allows judges to extend deadlines when extraordinary circumstances prevent a party from filing on time. Enbridge said it held off until a nearly identical case clarified that pipelines crossing the U.S. canadian border invoked foreign policy issues, thus bringing federal issues to light. Justice Alito asked Michigan's lawyer what would happen if the case proceeded in state court and it shut down the pipelines.

[Paul Clement]

I would be interested in your response to the arguments about the consequences for U.S. canadian relations. What we're told shutting down Line 5 would result in a massive shortage of gas, diesel and jet fuel in both Ontario and in Quebec, not to mention and thousands of Canadian jobs.

[Nick Eicher]

When Enbridge was at the lectern, Justice Kavanaugh asked about fairness.

[Paul Clement]

Why do you want to be in federal court? Are you concerned that you would not get a fair shake in state court? I'm guessing that the Michigan state courts have not dealt very often with the federal common law of foreign affairs jurisdiction. That's something that's uniquely situated to the federal system. Doesn't come up that often in regular federal district court litigation either.

[Nick Eicher]

Michigan Solicitor General Ann Sherman jumped on that.

[Jenny Ruff]

We trust state courts to adjudicate issues

[Paul Clement]

to even federal questions. They've been doing that since the founding.

[Jenny Ruff]

At one point, Justice Roberts dismissed Enbridge's lawyer, John Birch, thinking the questioning had finished.

[Paul Clement]

Thank you, counsel. Thank you.

[Nick Eicher]

Oh, I.

[Paul Clement]

Well, okay.

[Alexei Leonov]

Do you have any further.

[Paul Clement]

You have a.

[David Bonson]

Yes, I'm sorry.

[Paul Clement]

Why don't you get back there? I was jumping the gun. And I'm glad that the chief will exercise his traditional equitable authority to allow you to ask this important question.

[Jenny Ruff]

The ruling will determine whether companies like Enbridge get more flexibility when federal issues surface late in the litigation or whether missing the deadline shuts the door to federal court entirely. And that's this week's legal docket.

[Kent Covington]

Additional support comes from Barnabas Aid hope and support for our suffering brothers and sisters around the world. Aid from Christians through Christians to Christians barnabasaid.org From the masters University, equipping students for lives of faithfulness to the the Master Jesus Christ Masters. Edu and from Truth for Life. And a book to share this Easter titled the man on the Middle Cross by Bible teacher Alistair beggaruthforlife.org.

[Jenny Ruff]

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

[Nick Eicher]

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, David.

[David Bonson]

Well, good morning, Nick. Good to be with you. All right.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, let's begin as we have the last couple of weeks with the Iran war. We've seen volatility in the markets this week, quite a lot of volatility in the markets this week. But as you've pointed out, it's not really dramatically lower. For example, the S&P 500 down just about 3% on the year, so not all that much. And you've made the point that uncertainty around oil and shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, not the war itself, seems to be more of the real story. So walk us through why that matters so much.

[David Bonson]

Well, I mean, obviously the Strait of Hormuz activity that is at the core of current uncertainty and current Volatility is inextricably connected to the war, but it is a particular causation here. It has to do with the fact that there has been a basic cessation of shipping that is not really related to military strike that rendered the strait inoperable. It's fear of activity, of drone attack, of, you know, some endeavor that is causing the insurers, the shippers, just anyone, friend or foe in the region with commercial interest to sit tight. And so the number of ships that have now stacked up inoperable is massive. That is largely being felt in the marginal price of oil and in refiner spreads for where you can get oil. But now it has pushed margins much higher in what they call the crack spreads in terms of refinery, but then also other products and other goods that are stuck on cargo ships. This is a big question right now. First of all, it appears to me that it's one of the few vulnerabilities in the way the attack and the effort, the entire operation was planned, that it doesn't seem that the administration was fully prepared for this or at least had a plan for dealing with it. And that doesn't mean they won't come up with one and that they're not going to end up prevailing strategically with what needs to happen here. But I think it has caused a certain pause around, well, if they missed this, what else have they missed? But more so just the direct economic impact. Four days creates some inconvenience. Four weeks becomes a pretty big problem. More than four weeks becomes a massive problem. And so there is some uncertainty around this key element of global economic function.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, David, I'd like to talk about the nature of that problem. Of course, we've had massive sanctions on Iran. We don't buy oil from Iran. Iran is the supplier of oil to the bad guys around the globe. So what if the bad guys don't get their oil? Seems like that's a good thing. Why does it hurt the whole economy and not just them?

[David Bonson]

Well, it doesn't. If all we were talking about, you know, India shouldn't be buying oil from Iran. China and Russia do, and they're the bad guys. If that's all we were talking about, it wouldn't be an issue. But there is other necessity through the Strait of Hormuz as a commercial waterway, getting products to certain parts of Europe and Asia and getting liquefied natural gas out of other elements of the Gulf. So this has a Persian Gulf story that goes far beyond Iran selling to Russia. And it also is incoming and outgoing and so there is a complexity that becomes again, all economics is done on the margin and it becomes marginally significant.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, David, I'd like to talk now about something you identified in your dividend cafe. A rotation going on among investors in the market. Not a collapse in the market, but money moving into what we would call real economy sectors. Energy, utilities, consumer staples, and decidedly away from speculative tech. Is that a temporary thing? Is it Iran related or do you think it's more of a permanent phenomenon?

[David Bonson]

No, it's not Iran related at all. It had gone on and it really sort of began in the fourth quarter of last year. You know, a lot of the hot tech companies peaked in September or October. The high for Oracle was September, the high for Nvidia was October. And you saw health care rally significantly in the fourth quarter. Utilities and industrials. And so when I refer to real economy, I'm talking about things that people are using day to day a lot more. They use their gas, electric bill. Consumer staples have rallied a lot in the first 10 weeks of this year. The diapers and paper products and food and beverage items that are necess everyday life. I think that when we talk about how long lasting it'll be, we don't really know where some of the AI narrative is going to go and when some of the excess in some of the tech valuations are going to be let out. But I think that if the rotation were to change and the tech side were to not rally, then you would be talking about a whole market retracement. But clearly, as we're sitting here talking before the market is opened on Monday, the S and P is down just barely 3% on the year. The NASDAQ is not even down 5%. I think it's 4.8%. That's not correction, that's not obviously a bear market. It's a very minimal drop. But the reason is that there are things like energy up over 20%, utilities up over 10%, consumer staples up over 6%. That's really the definition of a rotation. And I think that at this point now we see how the Iran war affects all of this.

[Nick Eicher]

All right, David, and before we go, just one more item from your dividend cafe. This past week you identified kind of a tug of war in the US Economy between growth and stagnation. And what you're saying is that stagnation right now has the edge. What has to happen for that to change?

[David Bonson]

The Supreme Court throwing out all of the tariffs. I kid. I kid. Look, the tariffs are weighing on the economy and it's not a political opinion. It's not me editorializing. This is economically objectively true. I am utterly shocked that the high and I think somewhat faulty measure of rent inflation that was pulling the total inflation number higher, that it's come down as it has. And yet the total inflation number has stayed where it is because goods inflation went from 0%. There was no goods inflation in aggregate for all of 2024 and much of the end of 2023. And now it's come up to 1.7, 1.8%. We're used to getting downward pressure in goods prices and services being the thing that holds it higher. And now all the tariffed items are putting upward pressure on those prices, offsetting what should be a price benefit from the lag effect of shelter inflation coming down. So as far as economic stagflation, look, there is still this hope I have that the really significant incentives for business investment kick in and offset some of the cost of tariffs. I really believe it's going to be $200 billion of tax benefits this year to capital expenditures, but we're not seeing it yet. And I think other than AI and I think a lot of the reason for capital expenditures being held back is uncertainty about tariff costs. And we're seeing that in hiring plans, too. Fortunately, we're not seeing a major escalation of firings yet, but you're just not seeing a lot of new job hiring. And I think that has to do with people not knowing what the impact is going to be in their business with tariffs. And this should be unsurprising when you look at the dollar amount of what's going on, over $300 billion of new cost. That's, that's a massive amount of money that has to be absorbed by American importers.

[Nick Eicher]

All right. David Bonson is founder, managing partner and chief investment officer of the Bonson Group. He [e-mail] and at World Opinions. David, I hope you have a good one. We'll talk to you next week.

[David Bonson]

Thanks so much, Nick.

[Nick Eicher]

Today is Monday, March 16th. Thank you for turning to World Radio to help start your day. Good morning. I'm Nick Iger.

[Jenny Ruff]

And I'm Jenny Ruff. Coming next on THE WORLD and everything in it, the space race. In the depths of the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy announced an ambitious goal.

[Kent Covington]

We, we choose to go to the

[David Bonson]

moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy,

[Nick Eicher]

but because they are hard. The US Wanted to prove its technological edge over Soviet Russia. But before anyone could land on the moon. They needed to know how to survive there. Kristin Flavin, now with the World history book.

[Kristin Flavin]

On March 18, 1965, Russian cosmonaut Alexei Leonov became the first man to walk in space. He would exit the spacecraft using the inflatable airlock, attach a camera to the outside of the craft to document his spacewalk, and float freely in the silence of space.

[Alexei Leonov]

And I heard how my heart was. I could hear myself breathe after that,

[Kristin Flavin]

he Sundays in a 2015 interview. He noticed that the stars, these stars were very bright.

[Alexei Leonov]

There was a lot of them. And it was interesting that they were everywhere. They were above and they were beneath and on the ground. We can only see stars up in the sky. In space, they are everywhere.

[Kristin Flavin]

Leonov was outside his Voskod 2 spacecraft for a total of 12 minutes and 9 seconds, and people across Europe and Russia watched on TV. For Russia and the US this was more than a feat of science. It was driven in part by an ideological battle between communism and freedom. The Soviets were winning.

[Kent Covington]

Until two days ago, that sound had never been heard on this Earth. Suddenly, it has become as much a part of 20th century life as the

[Paul Clement]

whir of your vacuum cleaner.

[Kristin Flavin]

The space race had begun eight years earlier. Earlier, after the successful launch of the Sputnik satellite, the Americans tried to launch their own version, the Vanguard Test Vehicle 3. But it lost thrust just two seconds after liftoff, four feet off the ground before exploding on the pad. It was a humiliating failure, made worse when cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space and orbited the Earth. The Americans were losing ground.

[Barry Wilmore]

You gotta realize the geopolitical climate of the day.

[Kristin Flavin]

Captain Barry Wilmore is a retired NASA astronaut and Air Force test pilot. He says the US Space program's motivation was political, to prove that a free enterprise economy could produce better results than Communist Russia.

[Barry Wilmore]

We viewed it as the people were being oppressed in certain respects because they didn't have the opportunity to have the ingenuity and go forward and prosper in a capitalistic fashion.

[Kristin Flavin]

Wilmore says the United States chose to approach space carefully and methodically.

[Barry Wilmore]

You can't just fire off a rocket and go to the moon.

[Kristin Flavin]

NASA wanted to understand the impacts of the vacuum of space. In a vacuum, water boils, and NASA wanted to be sure that wouldn't happen to an astronaut's blood. They needed to know it was safe to exit the spacecraft.

[Barry Wilmore]

So you have to learn how to survive in those, in those environments, because you know eventually you're going to go outside and fix things. So you're going to have to. You have to be in a vacuum. So you got to prepare.

[Kristin Flavin]

So anyways, part of that preparation goes beyond the physical to crisis management. Developing that cool under pressure mentality so common in astronauts. It's situational training called snakes in the cockpit.

[Barry Wilmore]

Things go wrong in the cockpit. It's almost like your cockpit fills with snakes. And how are you going to handle that? You know, fighting off the snakes and realizing they're there? Are you going to focus on the snakes? Are you going to focus on the issue that you're dealing with?

[Kristin Flavin]

Meanwhile, the Soviets took the opposite approach. Rushing to keep their lead, they largely improvised Leonov's spacewalk mission. And it nearly cost Alexei Leonov's life. Leonov's spacesuit expanded in the vacuum, ballooning to a point of becoming completely.

[Alexei Leonov]

During the 8th minute, I all of a sudden realized that my fingers got loose and they kind of came off the glove and inside the glove. I immediately realized that I have got to do something.

[Kristin Flavin]

He couldn't bend his joints or fit back into the airlock.

[Alexei Leonov]

So what should I do? What should I have done? Drop the pressure in five minutes. I was supposed to be in eclipse and then I silently violated every single rule and regulation without reporting anything to the ground. I dropped the pressure to 0.27 atmosphere.

[Barry Wilmore]

You have to do that in a delicate fashion because as pressure changes, your inner ear, your station tubes and all that has to balance pressure, or you can literally blow out an eardrum if you do it too fast.

[Kristin Flavin]

A pressure drop can also cause decompression sickness. And Leonov's core body temperature jumped dangerously high, putting him at risk for heatstroke.

[Alexei Leonov]

I was sweating. I could not see much because of the sweat.

[Kristin Flavin]

After slowly dropping the pressure, Leonov then had to try to get back into the airlock.

[Alexei Leonov]

And I tried to kind of break the spacesuit in order to get back to the airlock with my legs first.

[Kristin Flavin]

That didn't work. So he went head first and managed to twist his body back around so he could get in the spacecraft feet first.

[Alexei Leonov]

And that was by far the most difficult thing with the hedge of 190 centimeters.

[Kristin Flavin]

But the danger wasn't over. The capsule landed hundreds of miles off course in a remote mountain mountainous Russian forest. Leonov and his crewmate spent two frigid nights surrounded by bears and wolves until rescue crews could reach them on skis. NASA engineers studied Leonov's nearly disastrous spacewalk and learned critical lessons. Lessons about how spacesuits react to vacuums and the importance of airlock size and design. Just 10 weeks later, astronaut Ed White walked outside the Gemini 4. Although Gemini 4 had its own share of issues, White nearly doubled Leonov's spacewalk, spending 23 minutes outside the spacecraft until mission control ordered him back inside. That set the stage for other Americans to eventually take the first and only steps on the moon. That's this week's world history book. I'm Kristin Flavin.

[Nick Eicher]

Tomorrow, more on how the world

[Kent Covington]

and

[Nick Eicher]

what's next for the Voter ID Save Act. We have a report 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 about Jesus. Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, who do the crowds say that I am? And they answered, john the Baptist. But others say Elijah and others that one of the prophets of old has risen. Then he said to them, but who do you say that I am? And Peter answered, the Christ of God, verses 18 through 20 of Luke 9 go now in grace and peace.

[Nick Eicher]

SA.