Honestly with Bari Weiss

President Donald Trump has been in office for 100 days. Israel has been at war with Hamas in Gaza for 570, and Russia and Ukraine have been at war for over 1,000. Douglas Murray has had a front-row seat to all three of these unfolding stories, bringing us reportage and analysis that have illuminated the most urgent issues of our time. His reporting and willingness to call out bad actors across the world and the political spectrum has earned him his fair share of adversaries. Earlier this month, Douglas went on The Joe Rogan Experience—the most popular podcast in America—to debate both Rogan and comedian-turned-pundit Dave Smith. They sparred for some three hours, with the debate earning millions of views and becoming its own viral news story. The interview became popular in large part because Douglas refused to pull a punch. In this case that meant fighting back against antisemitism—the people that spew it and the people who fail to confront it. In this case, the kind of antisemitism rising on the online right. George Orwell famously wrote that “to see what’s in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Nobody knows that better than Douglas who, unlike many of his contemporaries, never gets lost in excuse-making and needless ideological abstraction. He sees the world clearly and reports it back to us, which is a big reason why he’s such a unique and valuable voice in our era of dishonesty. That gift is on full display in his new and best-selling book, On Democracies and Death Cults, where he writes: “The story of the suffering and the heroism of October 7 and its aftermath is one that spells not just the divide between good and evil, peace and war, but between democracies and death cults.” We get into all that and much on this episode of Honestly, which was originally filmed live for our subscribers. As an aside, if you want to start participating and asking questions in my live interviews with people like Douglas, head over to TheFP.com now to subscribe. The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article. Buy tickets for SAPIR Debate“Is Donald Trump Good for the Jews?” at ⁠sapirjournal.org/sapirdebate⁠. Listen to Wondering Jew with Mijal and Noam Visit clearme.com/honestly for two months free! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today marks President Donald Trump’s 100th day in office. What to make of this dizzying first hundred days? As Bret Stephens put it: “I’m hard-pressed to think of a more disastrous first 100 days of any presidency in American history. . . all of the wounds are self-inflicted.” Even some of Trump's most ardent supporters are struggling to understand and support his actions. As Rod Dreher wrote for The Free Press last week: “MAGA tempts the same sorry fate that conservatives like me suffered over Iraq. Do we hate our enemies more than we love liberty? More than we care about prudence and common sense? If the cost of victory is trashing the jobs and businesses of ordinary Americans with a reckless and unstable tariffs policy, abusing the Constitution, pointlessly sabotaging America’s allies, and replacing a domestic woke-left system with a woke-right one, MAGA risks destroying itself.” On the other hand, there are people like Victor Davis Hanson, who see Trump as waging an existential counterrevolution, "a social, political, military, and economic shake-up to see if he can reboot the country. . . In other words, each day he is trying to stage a counterrevolution against the prior left-wing, neo-socialist, DEI, and green revolutions of the Obama-Biden years.” Suffice it to say, the reaction to Trump’s policies has been a stark split screen. Today, we have two Honestly favorites to discuss these first 100 days: Free Press columnist Batya Ungar-Sargon, and Democratic strategist and Free Press contributor Brianna Wu. Bari asks them about Trump’s war on globalized trade, elite campuses, illegal immigration, plus the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Bari, Batya, and Brianna debate if Trump’s actions are what his base really wants, and most importantly, Bari asks about the reach of Trump's power, and the lengths he is willing to go. Visit clearme.com/honestly for two months free! Go to groundnews.com/Honestly to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world-wide perspectives on today’s biggest news stories. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Yesterday, The Free Press had a major scoop: The State Department is launching the biggest shake-up in decades in an effort spearheaded by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Today, Rubio joins us on Honestly to discuss his goals for restructuring the Department and also how the U.S. is responding to manifold crises at home and abroad, from controversial deportations to the American attempt to end the war in Ukraine to the possibility of a new Iranian nuclear deal. In his confirmation hearing, Secretary Rubio talked about how the postwar global order is obsolete. The question is: what replaces it? We asked that and more of the man who has been charged with overseeing one of the most transformational shifts in our relationship to the world in American history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the past few weeks, Bari has done two episodes on religion—one asking, “Do we need a religious revival?,” and then a follow-up conversation with Ross Douthat asking how people who grew up in the secular West can actually find faith. Today, we have the last installment of this intellectual and religious inquiry, and we are asking a new question: What is the role of religion as a political force in this country? Our guest today, Jonathan Rauch, says: “Christianity is a load-bearing wall of American civic life.” In other words, the success of liberal democracy depends on a healthy Christianity to support it—and if Christianity falters, our American project will falter too. We get into why that is in this conversation. It’s a fascinating position for a person who happens to be an atheist, Jewish, gay man. And Jonathan doesn’t just say we need to embrace Christianity, he goes a step further. He says that Christians need to look in the mirror and reconsider how Jesus would approach American politics today. Jonathan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and he just wrote Cross Purposes: Christianity’s Broken Bargain with Democracy. Bari asks him about the breakdown of religion. She asks about the religious and political forces that have shaped our present moment, like MAGA, the evangelical movement, and their marriage to President Donald Trump. And, she asks about the rise of Christian nationalism and the threat it poses. And, most importantly, she asks how we can restore health in political life. Go to groundnews.com/Honestly to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world-wide perspectives on today’s biggest news stories. Head over to fastgrowingtrees.com/Honestly and use the code HONESTLY at checkout to get 15% off your first order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You may have noticed on this show that Bari Weiss is always asking her guests, “Do you believe in God?,” “What is your favorite biblical character?,” or “Do we need a religious revival?” And you might be wondering why she keeps knocking on this door? It’s partly because we’re curious about people’s metaphysical beliefs. But it’s also because we think something profound has gotten lost in our society, as we’ve lost traditional religion. You can argue that we are starting to see the beginnings of a religious revival, and even if you don’t believe in God, many think that the practice of religion—keeping Shabbat, going to church—has clear benefits like a community or a moral code. Religion, in other words, is a good program. Our guest today, Ross Douthat, has a different perspective. Ross makes the case that we should be more religious—not in order to cure society’s many ills—but because it is the best way—the most accurate way—to understand the world around us. Belief in God, he says, is entirely rational. Ross is a best-selling author, a columnist at The New York Times, and the host of a new podcast called Interesting Times. His newest book is Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious. The release is perfectly timed to our strange moment of “plagues, populism, psychedelic encounters, and AI voices in the air,” as Ross writes. Ross says it’s not enough to argue that religion is simply good for society, or that we must be religious to sustain our civilization. Ross argues that it’s time for people to actually become religious. Bari presses him about this distinction. And this week, as billions of Christians gather for Holy Week—the sacred days leading up to, and including, Easter—we are wondering if this return that Ross suggests is even possible. And if yes, will it fix our problems? Today on Honestly, Bari sits down with Ross to understand why he thinks belief in God is the most logical way to understand our world, how he rationalizes and justifies faith, and how he thinks readers can move from doubt to belief. Go to fastgrowingtrees.com/Honestly and use the code HONESTLY at checkout to get 15% off your first order. Buy tickets for the first SAPIR Debate: “Is Donald Trump Good for the Jews?” at sapirjournal.org/sapirdebate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2025 it seems like there are two types of people—those who are insanely diligent about health, the people who learn everything there is to know about ingredients, the people who run every beauty or cleaning product through the EWG Working Group (a database where you can check for the presence of alleged toxins in household ingredients)—And then there are the rest of us. The people who go about their daily lives trying to do the best they can when it comes to health. The problem is—as hard as most try—the world around us is laden with processed foods and chemicals. Their exact impact on the body is under intense debate. But there’s no question that America is facing a crisis of chronic illness. You don’t have to be a scientist or a doctor to see that. There are countless experts out there—and we’re using the term “expert” loosely—with advice about what you should or shouldn’t eat. This advice, however, is often geared toward people who have more time and resources. So today we have someone who can thread the needle and give practical health advice. Dr. Mark Hyman is one of America’s most famous doctors. He’s written 15 books, and he hosts a hit podcast called The Dr. Hyman Show. He is also an entrepreneur—and his new company, Function Health, is focused on empowering people to understand what is going on in their bodies, through lab testing. Hyman’s fundamental insight is that rather than treating the sickness, which is the way Western medicine has typically been practiced, we should look at the root cause and focus on preventative care. To do that, he says we need to go upstream, to look at the way our food is farmed, processed, and how we approach the grocery store. He calls it functional medicine. Today on Honestly, Bari asks him how we got so sick and how to eat better. She asks about sleep, stress management, environmental toxins, community, and loneliness. And if the solution is at the individualized level or at the policy level—and if policy change is even possible. And most importantly, she asks how we can all live better. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If your head has been spinning since Donald Trump walked into the White House Rose Garden and declared “Liberation Day” last Wednesday, we don't blame you. And not just because it was nauseating watching the stock market or your 401(k) crash down, but because it wasn't clear what exactly we were looking at. As our guest today, economic historian and Free Press columnist Niall Ferguson, wrote in our pages last week: "Depending on your worldview, you probably think Trump’s tariff blitz is one of two things. Either a committed protectionist is trying to Make America Great Again by killing “globalism,” ending “forever wars,” and bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Let’s call this Project Minecraft. Alternatively, an unhinged demagogue is crashing both the world economy and the liberal international order, mainly to the advantage of authoritarian regimes…But here is what is actually happening: The American empire that came into existence after the failed autarky and isolationism of the 1930s is being broken up after 80 years. Despite Trump’s imperial impulses—wanting to annex Greenland, calling for Canada to become the 51st state—he is engaged right now in a kind of wild decolonization project." Whether or not you agree with Niall’s conclusion, there’s no question that the real story here is not about the particular tariff rate for Cambodia or Taiwan; rather, it’s fundamentally about reordering America’s place in the world. Over the past decade, there’s been an intense debate over what role America should play on the world stage, in geopolitics, in trade, and in technology. Trump has made a very clear set of decisions on that question. And that’s the case whether or not most Americans understand the consequences. So what are the consequences when the U.S. acts unilaterally to upend the global trading system? What is the outcome when the U.S. weaponizes its own economic power? What happens when the world order, as we know it, is upended? Will these actions embolden our adversaries, or weaken them? Will this ultimately make us poorer, or better off? Has the American empire reached its end? And, was this inevitable or self-inflicted? One note: While Bari and Niall were recording this conversation, Trump announced a 90-day pause on the reciprocal tariffs. Notably, there’s no pause on the tariffs for China. In fact, it went up to 125 percent. But the point remains. And the face-off between America and China has only heated up. What does that mean? Is the twenty-first century destined to be ours, or China’s? All these questions and more with Free Press columnist Niall Ferguson. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Depending on who you talk to, Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen are either the swampiest of swamp creatures—the epitome of all that is wrong with political journalism—or, alternatively, two of the most interesting, successful entrepreneurs in the new media landscape. In 2006, VandeHei left The Washington Post to co-found Politico, where he was executive editor. His first hire was Mike Allen, then of Time magazine. Politico turned into a massive hit, with Allen as its star writer. During the Obama years, Allen was so well-sourced that he became, in the words of Mark Leibovich at The New York Times, “the man the White House wakes up to.” But then, in 2017, Mike and Jim decided to start something new—a website called Axios, which, in the beginning, was really a newsletter Mike wrote every day. They delivered news straight to your inbox and kept it short, snappy, and heavy on emojis. They called it “smart brevity.” Their emails are filled with invocations to “go deeper” and “be smarter.” And at the end of the day, they send you an email called “Finish Line” that’s essentially life advice for young professionals on the make. A recent one advised millennials nearing middle age to begin something new, like ice skating, while another advised readers to ditch Google Maps to keep their brains sharp. It’s like MAHA for D.C.’s professional-managerial class. They were, in a sense, pioneers of a new kind of online journalism. Long before seemingly everyone had a Substack, they were using one of the oldest internet applications—email—to get news to subscribers. So Mike and Jim are big deals in journalism and have been for a long time. But in case you haven’t noticed, and we don't know how you would have missed this if you listen to this show, journalism is in deep trouble. This is in large part because Americans have lost faith in journalists. According to Gallup, roughly two-thirds of Americans had a great deal of faith in the news media in 1970. Today, only 31 percent of Americans say the same—while 36 percent say they have no faith in the news media at all. How can that trust be rebuilt? Are we destined to live in a world of different realities and alternative facts? Should the mainstream media apologize for all they have ignored or covered up or gotten wrong over the past few years? To boil it all down: Does real, honest journalism have a future in America? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John McWhorter is one of the greatest living experts on the English language—and many others, too. He’s an associate professor of linguistics at Columbia, a columnist at The New York Times, and he’s an unsung Broadway aficionado. He once told us he could not do an interview because he was busy rehearsing a cabaret show for his bungalow colony. It all sounds like a scene out of The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. But in his day job, he is thinking about words, language, and—the not-so-controversial topic of pronouns. John is a true independent mind. He has been one of the most outspoken critics of liberal excess—his last book was called Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. But now? Now he’s taking a position that we suspect will provoke the other side. In his new book, Pronoun Trouble: The Story of Us in Seven Little Words, John makes the provocative case that the English language evolves in ways that don’t always make sense. But, he says, that’s okay. And he takes it a step further—saying the wide adoption of they/them in the singular, instead of he/him or she/her, works. What are the stakes of these little words? For example, as a society, are we disrespecting women (and men) when we fail to acknowledge, in our language, who has dealt with the challenges of womanhood or manhood and who has not? And what are the consequences of letting children adopt they/them pronouns, especially if it pushes them toward medical transition? At the same time, how do we create a society that is kind and inclusive but also reflective of reality? And can we even have both? The broader context of this language conversation is about what can and cannot be said. We talk about this broader context—the state of the woke left, but also the rise of the woke right. Bari puts all of these questions to the premier linguist and culture expert John McWhorter on this episode of Honestly. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Ground News - Go to groundnews.com/Honestly to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world-wide perspectives on today’s biggest news stories. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A few years ago Jay Bhattacharya was an obscure Stanford professor—a medical doctor who also had a PhD in economics. Then Covid hit, the lockdowns began, and “Doctor Jay”—as he is known—became a pariah in the medical community. That’s because, along with colleagues from Harvard and Oxford, Jay questioned whether the lockdowns were a good idea. They did this in an open letter called the Great Barrington Declaration. And this idea, in the madness of that period, was considered so dangerous by federal health and Big Tech that Jay was not only smeared, but censored. His words—on platforms from Reddit to Twitter to Facebook—were suppressed. But here’s the thing: The lockdowns were pretty disastrous. We’re still dealing with their effects—the loss of childhood learning, the cancer screenings that were skipped, the inability of those with special needs to see the people who help them, the separation of families—just to name a few consequences. And it’s still unclear if those lockdowns were worth it. Many powers tried to silence Jay, but he persisted. And today Jay is the new head of the National Institutes of Health. If you’re skeptical of karma, this turn of events may lead you to believe in it. He’s leading this massive federal agency, sometimes called “the crown jewel of American science”—it’s the largest public funder of medical research in the world—at a moment when public health authorities need to rebuild trust. But here’s the wrinkle. Jay has two bosses: President Trump, who initiated Operation Warp Speed to develop a Covid vaccine in his first term. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services secretary, who is also the most famous vaccine skeptic in America. Walking the line here will inevitably be tricky for Dr. Jay. So, how can he do it? How does someone who believes that vaccinating your kids for diseases like polio and measles also confront the idea that large swaths of Americans have fear around vaccinating their kids? And how will he navigate an HHS that’s empowering discredited antivax crusaders — a move that, as The Wall Street Journal recently argued, is already vindicating Kennedy’s critics. That’s among the many, many things Bari asks him in this conversation. Jay has lived a remarkable life. And we get into all of it. His conversion to Christianity as a teenager and how his faith allowed him to stick to his values—and even to pray for Francis Collins, the former NIH director who called his ideas dangerous. The chutzpah it took to fight the entire medical establishment. How he ultimately triumphed against his critics. How he wants to put the National Institutes of Health on the frontline in the war against chronic illness in America. And, most importantly, how can public health authorities make America healthy again? Today on Honestly, he tells us all about how he plans to do it all. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For the last quarter century, an Italian macher from New Jersey has been one of the most powerful people in the United States. If you’re a certain type of nerdy, obsessive, legally inclined conservative, he’s basically Taylor Swift. But most people don’t know who he is because he doesn’t want them to know. He has never held or sought political office. He does not hail from Silicon Valley or Wall Street. He is not a writer, pundit, or political aide. He rarely does interviews. And yet his influence is hard to understate. People in power—particularly presidents—trust and listen to him. I’m talking about Leonard Leo, the animating force behind the Federalist Society and the key node of a growing network of conservative groups aiming to reshape the culture and the country. Whether you’ve heard of him or not, he has no doubt directly affected your life in some way. Leo is the person who counseled George W. Bush to appoint Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He had an arguably even greater influence on President Trump. Trump was new to Washington when he first became president. Leo, on the other hand, knew everyone in town. Leo counseled Trump and helped pick and prepare Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett for confirmation. And that’s just the Supreme Court. Leo has cultivated talent across every level of the judicial system. Leo understands the levers of Washington. He understands how Congress works, how the press works, and most importantly, how the courts work. He is, in a sense, the architect of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority — the one that overturned Roe v. Wade. Which means he has changed American history—for better or worse, depending on your worldview. Today on Honestly, Bari asks Leo about all of it: his relationship with Trump, their falling out (though he disputes this characterization), how he understands the divide on the right between the old guard like himself and the new characters like Elon Musk and RFK Jr. Bari asks about his so-called dark money groups, the $1.6 billion-dollar gift he was given, and the criticism he gets for wielding power and influence of this magnitude. She asks about Trump’s willingness to defy the courts, and if Leonard sees it that way. They discuss Trump’s controversial moves like sending accused gang members to El Salvador and reinstituting TikTok. She asks why MAGA has recently rejected Amy Coney Barrett, and if gay marriage is a settled matter. And most importantly, in a moment of institutional crisis in American life, Bari asks whether the Supreme Court can remain above the fray. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Go to fastgrowingtrees.com/Honestly and use the code HONESTLY at checkout to get 15% off your first order. Spring starts here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The morning of March 8, Mahmoud Khalil was detained at his apartment in New York City. Khalil is a 30-year-old Algerian citizen. He was born in Syria and is of Palestinian descent. He came to this country on a student visa in 2022, married an American citizen in 2023, became a green card holder in 2024, and finished his graduate studies at Columbia University in December 2024. Mahmoud was also the spokesman and negotiator for Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a group that says it is “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization,” and which played an active role in the rioting that took over Columbia buildings last spring. He has not been charged with any crimes—at least not so far. But the White House wants to deport him on the grounds that he poses a threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio went as far as to post on X: “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” Many of us believe that Khalil’s ideology is abhorrent. He enjoyed the United States’ educational system—attending one of our most prestigious universities—while advocating for America’s destruction and for a group that seeks the genocide of the Jewish people. At the same time, the case for his deportation is not clear-cut. Here’s the divide: Some say this is an immigration case. As Free Press contributing editor Abigail Shrier has put it: “This is an immigration, not a free speech case. It’s about whether the U.S. can set reasonable conditions on aliens for entry and residence.” But others say this is, in fact, a free speech case that cuts to the heart of our most cherished values. To figure all this out, we’re hosting three of the smartest legal minds we know. Eugene Volokh is an expert on the Bill of Rights who is currently a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. He’s also a contributor to Reason magazine, where he runs his own blog, The Volokh Conspiracy. Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder is a practicing lawyer and the director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center. Just yesterday, he filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against Khalil and several others for material support for terror. Jed Rubenfeld is a Free Press columnist and a professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School. This case is one we have written about extensively in The Free Press—and one that we are actively debating in our newsroom. So we were thrilled to be able to bring together some of the smartest people on this complicated issue. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last week Bari traveled to Austin, Texas, to host a debate on a simple little topic: religion and whether we need more of it. There’s a line from Proverbs that has guided believers for at least the past 2,000 or so years. It goes like this: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” But for most of our lives, this message has been turned on its head. We can’t entirely blame the so-called New Atheists, who dominated the American intellectual scene in the first part of this century, for the death of God—for that, we’d need to go back to Nietzsche or Darwin or the Enlightenment. But the point is that for people of Bari’s generation and cohort, to be an educated, sophisticated, respectable person was to be an atheist. Or at the very least, an agnostic. The percentage of Americans who identify as Christian fell from 90 percent in 1972 to 64 percent in 2022, while the religiously unaffiliated (the so-called “nones”) rose from 5 percent to 30 percent in the same period, according to Pew Research.The shift toward secularism has been even more pronounced across the Atlantic. Among Europeans ages 16 to 29, 70 percent say they never attend religious services. But after years of decline, this trend may be starting to reverse. A massive new Pew survey found that the share of Americans identifying as Christian has, after many years of decline, finally started to rise again. And the share of Americans identifying with other religions is actually increasing. So are we better off with or without God? The other night in Austin Bari sat down with Ross Douthat, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Michael Shermer, and Adam Carolla. They came together to debate the following resolution: Does the West need a religious revival? Ross and Ayaan argued yes. Ross is a New York Times opinion columnist. His most recent book is Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious. Ayaan is an activist and best-selling author of many books including Prey: Immigration, Islam, and the Erosion of Women’s Rights. On the other side, Michael Shermer and Adam Carolla argued no, we do not need a religious revival. Michael is the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine and the host of The Michael Shermer Show. He, too, is the author of multiple New York Times bestsellers on science, psychology, and faith. Adam Carolla is a comedian, actor, radio personality, TV host, and best-selling author. He currently hosts The Adam Carolla Show. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson are the two most important liberal journalists working in the legacy press today—Ezra at The New York Times, and Derek at The Atlantic. Although they insist they’ll never go into politics themselves, they are offering Democrats a path back to power. To see their way out of the political wilderness, the Democrats need a vision—one that goes beyond resistance to Trump. A vision that can bring back the disaffected Democrats who stayed home, or voted red for the first time, this past November. While other liberals and progressives are doubling down on zombie ideas, afraid to come face to face with a country that has moved decisively to the right, Ezra and Derek are willing to face reality. They see that blue states are functioning—as Bari likes to say—similarly to the DMV. And as a result, people are fleeing to places like Texas and Florida. If you’ve lived in a city like L.A. or San Francisco in the past decade, it’s pretty difficult to sell the idea that the government is working effectively. It’s why so many people are cheering for DOGE. But while DOGE is taking a chain saw to the federal bureaucracy, Ezra and Derek are reformers who believe it can be fixed. They want to rein in the laws, regulations, and liberal thinking that have made it nearly impossible to do anything in this country. They just wrote a new book about all of this called Abundance. Their thesis is simple: To have the future we want, we need to build and invent more of what we need. While conservatives and libertarians might say: Yes, exactly, let the free market do its thing, Ezra and Derek think the government can play a crucial role—if liberals will let it. So how do we build a government that’s less like the DMV and more like the Apple Store? How will this government actually deliver for Americans and solve our most pressing problems—in housing, energy, transportation, and healthcare? And, how do we reverse our government’s long march into total incompetence? Ezra and Derek have a lot of ideas on how we can get there. Today on Honestly, we hear them. This conversation challenged us, and we hope it challenges and surprises you too. Header 6: The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Listen to Unpacking Israeli History: https://link.chtbl.com/DmS_bFpl Go to groundnews.com/Honestly to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and stay fully informed on today’s biggest news stories. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Alex Karp is many things: a cross-country skier, a long-range shooter, a tai chi expert who might be the only man who knows how to wield a sword but doesn’t know how to drive. He’s also a collector of extremely prestigious degrees. His PhD thesis was called “Aggression in the Life-World: The Extension of Parsons’ Concept of Aggression by Describing the Connection Between Jargon, Aggression, and Culture.” Since 2003, he has also been the CEO of Palantir, a software and data analytics company that does defense and intelligence work. Simply put, it’s a company that stops terror attacks—while also helping make sports cars go faster and pharmaceutical companies build better drugs. Bari sat down with Alex Karp at UATX to discuss his new book, The Technological Republic, which offers a vision of how Silicon Valley lost its way and how the future of America and the West hinges on it finding its way back—fast. It just debuted on The New York Times Best Seller list. They also discuss Barnard students occupying a campus building, the religious nature of woke culture, and DOGE. Header 6: The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Each one of us has a different conception story. For some parents, it’s a romantic night out, maybe over a candlelit dinner. For others, like Bari and Nellie, it involves a trip to a fertility clinic in a mall that doesn’t even validate parking. And of course, for some it’s a long, challenging, emotional process involving needles, hormones, and many false starts. We know a lot of our listeners can relate to that. Now, the topic of infertility often seems like the purview of a doctor’s office or a self-help book, or maybe a women’s health column. Where you might not expect to hear about it in painstaking detail is in Andrew Schulz’s new Netflix special. Schulz’s special is vulnerable, obviously funny, and a look into the taboo topic of male infertility. It’s called Life, and if you haven’t already seen it, blow off your plans tonight and watch Life instead. Now, the last time we had Schulz on this show was three years ago. It was in the thick of the woke culture storm, and Schulz was about to release a comedy special on Amazon. But when the streamer asked him to do what a lot of people at the time were being asked to do in comedy—censor his jokes—Schulz said no. He bet on himself and released the special independently. As he tells Bari today, he ended up making five times what he would have made with Amazon. We’ve been talking a lot on this show about the vibe shift that’s come for politics and tech. And it’s obviously come for comedy. But actually, we think you could make the argument that comedy created the vibe shift that we’re seeing in so many other parts of the culture. And perhaps that’s because comedians with podcasts have become like the Walter Cronkites of American culture. Theo Von is almost Barbara Walters at this point. And Andrew Schulz has found himself right in the thick of it. Last October on his podcast, Schulz sat down with then-candidate Donald Trump as he was running for president, for a candid 90-minute conversation. You can imagine the type of response he got for that. Today on Honestly, Bari asks Schulz about that interview with Trump and whether there are certain people who are beyond the pale. They talk about his difficulty conceiving, what it meant for his masculinity, and she asks about the decision to put his—and his wife’s—vulnerability on camera. And finally, she asks how to resist audience capture. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You may have never heard of Sarah Wynn-Williams, but that’s about to change. She’s written a memoir about her nearly seven years at Facebook, the company that has since rebranded as Meta. In doing so, she’s become the company’s highest-ranking whistleblower. Until around 72 hours ago, the book’s existence itself was a secret. Wynn-Williams, a onetime New Zealand diplomat, was effectively the company’s top envoy to governments around the world. She traveled extensively with Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg—the company’s two top leaders during her time—and her experiences with them often read like pure comedy, a mix of Succession and The Office. The book, however, is a lot more than that. It’s a shocking insider’s account of working at one of the world’s most powerful companies at the highest level, and the gap between the idealistic way it sold itself to its employees and the world. It’s called Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism. And it coincides with the news that Wynn-Williams has filed an SEC complaint against the company, alleging that Zuckerberg agreed to crack down on the account of a high-profile Chinese dissident living in the U.S. in the hopes that it would help convince Beijing to allow Facebook into China. On today’s Honestly, Bari and Wynn-Williams discuss her bizarre experiences, her thoughts on the future of Facebook, the pushback she’s already received, and why she wrote this book—despite the risk of taking on a corporate behemoth like Meta. Header 6: The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article. Go to groundnews.com/Honestly to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world-wide perspectives on today’s biggest news stories. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Earlier this week on Honestly, Batya Ungar-Sargon, Brianna Wu, and Christopher Caldwell shared their views on President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance’s showdown with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, and on the Russia-Ukraine war more generally. Simply put, Batya and Chris made the case that Russia is not an American adversary in the way China is and that Trump’s seeming sympathy toward Russian president Vladimir Putin is actually a strategic play to pull Russia away from China and into our orbit. The conversation is provocative. It provoked many of us here at The Free Press. Not all of our listeners agreed with what they heard either. For some, it was frustrating or even angering to hear this perspective. Yes, contrary to popular belief, we do read the comments. And there’s been a tremendous amount of debate inside our newsroom about America’s new posture regarding Russia and Ukraine, just as there is on all of the most important topics of the day. We think that’s our strength. We believe in listening to arguments, in good faith, from people we respect. And if our panel show earlier in the week was dominated by a perspective sympathetic to Trump, today we want to offer a very different perspective from Eli Lake, Free Press reporter and the host of our new podcast, Breaking History. In this episode, Eli explores how a different Republican president—Ronald Reagan—spoke out against Russian aggression. And how his words inspired dissidents from across the Soviet bloc, like the Czech playwright Václav Havel, to lead their own countries to freedom. This is a show that looks to the past to illuminate the present, and we think this episode is especially important right now. So today, Eli Lake on Breaking History. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Go to groundnews.com/Honestly to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world-wide perspectives on today’s biggest news stories. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It’s been four days since the diplomatic earthquake went down in the Oval Office between President Trump, Vice President Vance, and Ukrainian president Zelensky. The world is still feeling the aftershocks. In Europe, leaders have been jolted into action. Ukraine’s European allies, including British prime minister Keir Starmer and French president Emmanuel Macron, met in London on Sunday to forge their own peace plan and agree on additional support for Kyiv. In Moscow, officials are celebrating Trump’s approach to the conflict—and his foreign policy more generally. “The new administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations. This largely coincides with our vision,” said a Kremlin spokesman. Russian state TV described a new world order with Trump in the White House. In Washington, administration officials have made it clear that it is up to Zelensky to apologize and patch things up if there is any chance of a U.S.-Ukraine mineral deal. “The president believes Zelensky has to come back to the table and he has to be the one to come and make it right,” one official told NBC News. The Zelensky-Trump bust-up—and the war in Ukraine in general—is one of those important subjects where people we respect (including inside The Free Press newsroom) passionately disagree. There are plenty of other outlets that will give you only one strongly expressed view. But it is our conviction that the only way we can get to the truth is by seriously considering multiple perspectives. The differences of opinion start with the question of what, exactly, we all watched on Friday. Were Trump and Vance bullying a besieged ally in public? Or were we watching the White House finally stand up for American taxpayers? Then there are the bigger questions: Is Trump’s Ukraine policy a long-overdue acknowledgment of the limits of American power? Or an unforced error that endangers not just America’s allies but America itself? And what are the chances of peace with honor for Ukraine? Today we’ve brought together a group of people who answer those questions quite differently: Free Press columnist Batya Ungar-Sargon, Democratic fundraiser and strategist Brianna Wu, and special guest Christopher Caldwell, author of multiple books, including The Age of Entitlement. Both Batya and Christopher have pieces up in The Free Press right now: “Zelensky’s Trumpian Trick” by Christopher Caldwell, and “What Average Americans Think of Trump’s Showdown with Zelensky” by Batya Ungar-Sargon. Other must-reads in The Free Press: "Trump’s Foreign Policy Revolution" by Matthew Continetti "J.D. Vance’s Fighting Words—Against Me and Ukraine" by Niall Ferguson "A Fiasco in the Oval Office" by Eli Lake "Ten Reasons for the Zelensky-Trump Blowup" by Victor Davis Hanson "What Zelensky Can Learn from Netanyahu" by Michael Oren Header 6: The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Go to groundnews.com/Honestly to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world-wide perspectives on today’s biggest news stories.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Have you ever gone on the internet and stumbled onto this combo of words, or perhaps non-words?: “Dogecoin.” “Shiba Inu.” “Hawkcoin.” “Bored Ape NFT.” If that sounded like gibberish, don’t worry—we’ll explain. And also, time to start learning, because these terms come out of a new financial ecosystem—the world of crypto, a market that started 15 years ago and is now worth about $3.3 trillion. This new world has caught the attention of none other than President Donald Trump. Since coming to office, Trump has appointed a crypto czar and floated the idea of a national crypto stockpile. And shortly Trump took office, he launched his own meme coin—as did Melania. Trump’s coin has reportedly generated $100 million in trading fees so far. And to top it all off, Trump is taking calls from the biggest names in the business. One of whom is our guest today—Brian Armstrong. Brian is a 42-year-old San Jose native who changed the nature of commerce not only in America but all over the world. He co-founded a cryptocurrency platform called Coinbase in 2012. Now, it’s the largest crypto exchange in the US. To some, he’s doing something as revolutionary as building rocket ships to Mars. To others, he’s growing an industry riddled with scammers, grifters, and criminals. Armstrong says those stories are the sideshow and that Bitcoin—or perhaps another cryptocurrency—will prove itself to be as essential as the dollar. Today on Honestly, Bari asks Brian why he thinks crypto is the way of the future, how he navigates eager regulators, why he’s been so politically active, how MAGA’s "America First" ethos gets along with the borderless, decentralized crypto zeitgeist, and if crypto is really as dangerous as some make it out to be. We also talk about the DOGE, his recent meeting with Trump, and how he once stuck his neck out against the far-left mob. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Get $10 for free when you trade $100+ with code HONESTLY: www.Kalshi.com/Honestly Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices