Look, that settlement amount is objectively enormous and comes with significant changes to how Facebook and Instagram will operate for teenagers. And it resolves allegations that paint an extraordinarily ugly picture of how one of the world’s largest technology companies treated its youngest users.

And yet, when investors heard the news Wednesday morning, Meta’s stock jumped 4.4% in premarket trading. Almost $70 billion in added value!!!

That seemingly bizarre reaction may tell us as much about this settlement as the $16.7 billion headline.

Big Tobacco, for the digital age

The settlement cuts short a federal trial in California involving claims that Meta intentionally designed Facebook and Instagram in ways that encouraged excessive or compulsive use among children and teenagers. The attorneys general alleged Meta knew its products could hurt young people but continued using engagement-focused features because more time on the platforms meant more revenue. Allegations that are reminiscent of those against big tobacco.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser put the allegation particularly starkly before trial, accusing Meta of keeping young people “hooked” while they sacrificed sleep, became distracted in school and, in some cases, considered suicide. The states also say Meta misled children, parents and the public about the safety of its platforms.

Another major piece of the case involved children under 13. The states accused Meta of violating the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting personal information from children without proper parental notice or consent. The federal case also stated some of that children’s data was subsequently used to train machine-learning and generative-AI models.

Meta denies wrongdoing and has maintained that it has invested heavily in protecting young users. But over and over again, whistleblowers have said the accusations are accurate and internal documents have backed up these claims. And the settlement agreement itself gives you some idea of how seriously the states viewed the problems.

Meta isn’t just writing a check

Under the proposed agreement, Facebook and Instagram will have to make significant changes for teenage users.

Among them:

• Teen users will be placed under a default two-hour daily limit across Meta’s social-media platforms. A parent will have to approve making that setting less restrictive.

• Teen accounts will generally be blocked from broader Facebook and Instagram use between midnight and 6 a.m., while push notifications will be disabled from 10 p.m. until 7 a.m.

• During school hours, Meta will disable most push notifications for teens, and parents can impose even tighter restrictions.

• Meta must also give teens access to a non-personalized, chronological feed, hide like and reaction counts by default, and prevent teens from using filters designed to simulate cosmetic procedures.

• There will even be built-in “productive pauses” after 60 and 90 minutes of cumulative use and notices after 15 minutes of continuous use - measures the agreement specifically says are designed to reduce “excessive, mindless, or unintended”social-media use.

• Meta must also establish much more robust age-assurance systems designed to identify teenagers and users under 13, with third-party testing and independent auditing.

Those are meaningful changes - the kinds of actions child-safety advocates have been begging for.

But here’s where the economics get interesting.

$16.7 billion isn’t necessarily $16.7 billion

The headline number is a maximum.

The settlement includes guaranteed installment payments, but it also includes separate contingent payments. Those contingent payments depend in part on what happens elsewhere in the social-media industry, defining “Core Industry Members” as Snap, TikTok and YouTube.

For the contingent-payment trigger to occur, those competitors must become subject to comparable time-management and age-assurance requirements, along with additional monetary conditions. That could happen through settlements, legislation, regulation or qualifying voluntary commitments.

And here’s the crucial sentence in the agreement:

If a state fails to reach that trigger during the ten-year settlement period, its contingent payments are “permanently forfeited” and “retained by Meta.”

So Meta may ultimately pay substantially less than the maximum headline figure.

Wall Street made out big

Meta’s market capitalization Wednesday was roughly $1.5 trillion. That means even the entire $16.68 billion settlement represents only a little over 1% of the company’s market value. But investors initially sent Meta shares up 4.4% in premarket trading when the agreement was reported.

Apply a 4.4% gain to a company worth roughly $1.42 trillion and you’re talking about approximately $63 billion in additional market capitalization.

In other words, investors briefly added nearly four times the maximum value of the settlement to Meta’s valuation after hearing that Meta had settled.

That’s remarkable. But the reason is obvious: this case had enormous potential downside.

Before trial, Meta itself argued that the four lead states’ theory of statutory penalties could result in liability as high as $1.4 trillion. The states disputed that figure and reportedly estimated potential penalties closer to $200 billion.

Either way, $16.7 billion starts looking considerably different when compared with the possibility of a twelve-figure verdict, years of appeals, continuing damaging testimony, and the precedent such a verdict could establish.

Meta also entered this trial after suffering significant losses in other youth-safety litigation. So Wall Street’s reaction wasn’t necessarily celebrating the allegations against the company or dismissing the changes Meta now has to make. Investors were pricing risk. And from that perspective, Meta may have just spent billions of dollars to eliminate a considerably larger and much less predictable threat.

For families, regulators and advocates, this could represent one of the most consequential attempts yet to force a social-media giant to redesign products around the well-being of children rather than simply engagement.

But for Meta and Wall Street investors, despite this being potentially one of the most expensive legal settlements in American corporate history… $16.7 billion was a bargain.

Sources

Reuters: Meta reaches $16.68 billion settlement over social media harms to children

California Attorney General: Details of the proposed Meta settlement

California Attorney General: Allegations presented ahead of the Meta trial

Proposed Meta / State Attorneys General consent judgment and settlement agreement

Market-cap reference: Meta Platforms market capitalization

Attorney Mark Lyda has built a rapidly growing social media audience by doing something deceptively simple: reading the law, digging into the details, and explaining what they actually mean.

In this episode of MORE with Marc Istook, Marc (Istook) talks with Mark (Lyda) about his unexpected evolution from practicing attorney to online legal commentator - and why he believes social media has become an important place for serious conversations about law, politics and democracy.

They dig into the challenge of creating thoughtful content in a medium that rewards speed and outrage, why Mark says he normally wouldn’t even discuss politics “in polite company,” and what finally convinced him that staying quiet wasn’t an option.

Then they turn to some of the biggest legal questions surrounding the Trump administration, including the SAVE America Act, immigration enforcement, executive power, birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court and what Mark sees as weaknesses being exposed in America’s legal and political systems.

Marc also reconnects with Mark for a special follow-up conversation after a new Supreme Court ruling involving President Trump’s executive order targeting mail-in voting. Mark explains why the Court’s decision did not declare the order constitutional, why litigation over it remains unresolved, and why he believes the uncertainty could create significant problems ahead of the midterm elections.

In this episode:

00:00 - Cold open: “They rule it’s illegal... but we’re going to let it proceed?” 00:32 - Introduction to Mark Lyda 02:03 - From practicing attorney to social media creator 05:29 - How Mark scripts and researches his videos 06:05 - How long a one-minute video can actually take 07:14 - The “psychological gauntlet” of creating content online 08:55 - Social media as a new way people consume news and information 10:17 - What would Walter Cronkite be doing today? 11:22 - Why the quality of information matters more than the platform 12:41 - Covering politics when the news feels like “drinking from a fire hose” 13:11 - The SAVE America Act and ICE push Mark into political commentary 15:11 - “You would have done what you’re doing now” 16:15 - Why major stories can disappear amid the constant flood of news 17:26 - What happens when legal guardrails stop working? 18:13 - Trump as a stress test for weaknesses in the legal system 19:43 - Finding stories worth digging into 20:46 - The SAVE America Act and “visions of Saddam Hussein’s elections” 21:16 - Why Mark doesn’t want to make the 100-millionth “Trump is bad” video 23:08 - Giving people useful facts they can carry into real-world conversations 24:47 - Can confidence in the rule of law be repaired? 25:11 - Why Mark says the Supreme Court is legitimate - even when its decisions are deeply troubling 26:13 - The structural reforms he believes government needs 27:23 - Should Democrats use the same expansive executive powers if they regain control? 28:54 - The Trump action Mark considers most clearly unconstitutional 29:09 - Birthright citizenship and the Constitution 30:02 - Why the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship ruling was more complicated than 6-3 33:44 - Supreme Court ethics and structural reform 35:16 - What bothers Mark most about the Trump presidency: “It’s the brutality” 36:17 - Stephen Miller, political power and “an unholy mix” 36:56 - Government dysfunction, institutions and the normalization of bigotry 38:49 - Racism becoming more openly expressed

BONUS: Supreme Court ruling on mail-in voting

39:19 - Breaking-news addendum begins 39:54 - What exactly did the Supreme Court decide? 40:21 - “They ruled it illegal... but we’re going to let it proceed?” 41:08 - What Trump’s executive order actually does 42:32 - Threatening state election officials with prosecution 43:20 - When does the constitutional harm actually occur? 44:01 - Why the appeals process may not finish before the midterms 44:28 - Could this inject chaos into the November election? 45:07 - The legal catch-22: sue too early, then potentially too late 45:33 - Mark’s prediction: “There is a guarantee that it will muck up the works” 46:56 - What disruption could mean for states heavily reliant on mail voting 48:01 - How problems at the margins could affect close races 49:19 - Could changes to mail voting disproportionately affect Democrats? 49:50 - Trump himself votes by mail 50:02 - Could discretion over mailed ballots create unequal treatment? 52:29 - False positives in federal voter-eligibility databases 53:06 - “Please tell me it’s going to be okay, Mark” 53:23 - Mark’s answer: turnout matters 53:38 - “Vote early and vote often.” “No!”

Follow Marc:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/marcistook
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@marcistook
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@marcistook
Substack: https://morewithmarcistook.substack.com
Website: https://www.marcistook.com

Find more episodes of MORE, with Marc Istook wherever you get your podcasts.

Conversations. Context. Clarity. Because there’s always more to the story.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

…and then there’s Roblox.

Over the top? Maybe… until you hear the argument the multibillion-dollar gaming company is making in federal court.

An 8-year-old clicked “I agree”

Audree began using Roblox when she was 8 years old. Her mother, Jaimee, says she did what parents are constantly told to do: she set parental controls and tried to monitor what her daughter was seeing and doing online.

According to a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by Seitz, however, Audree encountered other users and became involved with an online subculture that glorified violence, mass shooters and self-harm. The lawsuit alleges those influences continued across Roblox, Discord and TikTok and contributed to Audree’s deteriorating mental health.

Audree died by suicide in December 2024, shortly after turning 13.

Roblox, Discord and TikTok all dispute responsibility for her death. And it’s fair to say there a jury deserves to hear the specifics of the case before those companies take the blame. But Roblox is trying to make sure it never gets that far.

The company says the case should be sent to arbitration rather than heard by a jury because Audree repeatedly agreed to Roblox’s Terms of Service. The fine print that is supposed to lay out a company’s responsibility to a user, and how disputes will be governed, should they arise.

Audree first signed that agreement when she was eight.

Roblox says Audree and her family accepted its terms 28 times - when the account was created, when terms were updated, when gift cards were redeemed and when Robux were purchased. Its attorneys wrote that Roblox made the terms clear and that Audree repeatedly demonstrated her agreement to them. In other words, Roblox wants a court to treat the click of an elementary-school child as agreement to a contract determining how her family could someday seek justice against the company after potentially helping cause her death.

Roblox might have a winning argument. Courts have enforced online arbitration agreements before, including in cases involving minors. The judge will decide whether this particular agreement is enforceable.

But legality and decency are not the same thing.

Roblox apparently understands that 8-year-olds are children

Here’s where the argument becomes almost surreal. In June, Roblox rolled out Roblox Kids, a special account specifically for children ages 5 through 8.

Why?

Because, according to Roblox itself, younger children need stronger protections. Roblox Kids accounts get the platform’s strongest default safeguards. Chat is turned off. Content is restricted. Games undergo additional screening. Roblox says these protections are designed to “evolve as children grow.”

So according to the people designing Roblox’s product, an 8-year-old needs special protections because they aren’t developmentally equipped to navigate the platform like an adult. But according to Roblox’s lawyers, an 8-year-old apparently IS mature enough to waive their rights to a jury trial and agree to a mandatory arbitration clause buried inside Terms of Service.

You can’t have it both ways.

If children need special protection from the dangers on Roblox’s platform, perhaps they also deserve special protection from Roblox’s lawyers.

Roblox’s child-safety problems are not theoretical

Roblox has repeatedly said it wants to become a “gold standard” for online safety. The evidence suggests the company still has a long way to go.

Just last year, Roblox submitted 65,381 reports to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s CyberTipline. And NCMEC has raised additional concerns that are harder to dismiss. In correspondence released this year, NCMEC said Roblox had deficiencies in its reporting and described the platform as a “primary location where suspects meet and recruit minors for abuse,” including by groups involved in sadistic online exploitation.

Roblox is also facing more than 140 federal lawsuits from plaintiffs alleging the platform failed to protect children from sexual exploitation, accusations the company denies. Several state attorneys general have filed their own cases. Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman went so far as to title his lawsuit announcement:

“Roblox: ‘Website of Choice for Child Predators.’”

His complaint accuses the company of creating a “hunting ground for child predators” and failing to provide adequate protections. And as Audree’s story was breaking this week, regulators on the other side of the world provided another troubling data point.

Australia tested the safeguards

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner spent months examining Roblox’s child-safety systems. Earlier this year, the regulator tested the platform. It found that:

• adult strangers could still send connection requests to young children without parental consent

• children and adults could interact on forums outside individual games

• children’s connections were publicly visible

• portions of children’s profiles and biographies could be viewed by anyone on Roblox

Australia has now secured court-enforceable action requiring Roblox to make additional changes, including stronger privacy defaults, restrictions on adults contacting unknown children and an independent audit of the company’s safety systems. Roblox says it believes it complies with Australian law and points to the significant safety changes it has already implemented.

And it’s worth noting the company has implemented changes. Which demonstrates that Roblox knows it has issues serious enough to warrant additional safety measures. But it also underscores the foundational issue:

A game designed FOR children, used primarily BY children, was never created to be SAFE for children.

“Where were the parents?”

Whenever something horrific happens to a child online, there is an almost automatic response:

Where were the parents?

I get the question, and it’s normal to wonder. Of course parents have a responsibility to understand what their kids are doing online. I don’t think anyone disputes that. But it shouldn’t be ONLY their responsibility. We’d never tolerate a blatantly unsafe toy being marketed and sold to children. How are online experiences any different?

And let’s be real - managing parental controls is no walk in the park. There’s evidence companies have intentionally made them difficult because they’re an obstacle to gameplay and profitability. Also, each platform has its own controls. Roblox. Discord. TikTok. Instagram. iPhones. Snapchat. Etc, etc, etc. They’re far from foolproof, assuming they’re being used properly from the beginning. And parents are supposed to be on top of this while working, making dinner, paying bills, helping with homework, running carpool, and any of the hundreds of other overwhelming daily tasks.

But it’s not just that. Do we want a world where the only people looking out for the safety of an individual child are that kid's parents? Or do we want to have a basic expectation that the safety of ALL kids is being considered by the people profiting off of our children?

Audree’s mother says she used the parental controls because she believed they would protect her daughter. The lawsuit alleges they did not. At some point, “parents should do a better job” becomes an extraordinarily convenient way for billion-dollar technology companies to shift responsibility onto the people with the fewest resources.

Roblox built this for kids

Roblox isn’t some obscure corner of the internet that children accidentally discovered. The company itself says Roblox was “initially created to serve the younger demographic” and calls itself the largest dedicated gaming platform for children 13 and younger.

Roblox averaged 123 million daily active users during the second quarter of this year. Among users who have completed the company’s age check, 35% are younger than 13 and another 38% are between 13 and 17. That’s 73% under 18.

If parents have a responsibility, Roblox does as well. Any company that builds a product for children, attracts children by the tens of millions and profits from their presence should bear an enormous responsibility to make that product as safe as reasonably possible.

We expect car-seat manufacturers to protect children. We expect crib manufacturers to protect children. We expect toy companies to protect children. When those products contain dangerous defects, we don’t simply shrug and tell parents they should have supervised better.

The digital world shouldn’t get a completely different moral standard.

Roblox believes an 8-year-old needs its strongest safety protections to use the platform. Yet when the family of an 8-year-old who later died tries to hold the company accountable, Roblox argues that same child was sophisticated enough to contract away her right to a jury trial. And maybe a court ultimately decides that argument is legally correct.

That doesn’t make it right.

If Roblox believes children are grown-up enough to understand the fine print before playing its game, perhaps Roblox should be grown-up enough to accept responsibility for protecting them while they do.

Sources and further reading

Louisville Courier Journal: Roblox argues 8-year-old waived rights in wrongful death lawsuit

Roblox: Roblox Kids and Roblox Select Accounts Now Available Worldwide

Australia eSafety Commissioner: eSafety secures court-enforceable undertaking from Roblox to do more to protect Australian kids from grooming and sexual exploitation

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children: CyberTipline data and correspondence regarding Roblox

Reuters: Roblox agrees to pay $10 million, make platform changes in Nevada settlement over child safety - including the latest federal lawsuit count.

Kentucky Attorney General: Attorney General Coleman Sues Roblox: “Website of Choice for Child Predators”

Roblox Q2 2026 shareholder materials: daily active users and age-checked user demographics.

Audree’s family's federal complaint laying out the allegations concerning her experiences on Roblox and other platforms, her mother's use of parental controls, and the circumstances leading to the lawsuit.

Now, he’s doing things on his own terms.

In the inaugural episode of the revamped More with Marc Istook, Trey joins Marc for a wide-ranging conversation about ESPN’s heyday, the changing sports-media landscape, why he has little interest in manufactured hot takes, and what he enjoys about building an independent media business.

They also revisit some of the defining moments of Trey’s ESPN career, including helping turn NFL Live from an afterthought into appointment television, hosting the unprecedented 2020 NFL Draft during COVID, and anchoring SportsCenter alongside Bob Ley in the days after September 11.

And yes, Trey also explains why he is definitely not Mike Tirico.

In this episode:

00:00 - Trey Wingo is not Mike Tirico 00:31 - Welcome to the revamped More with Marc Istook 01:16 - Why Marc and Trey had to record the entire interview twice 03:00 - The surprisingly small world of sports broadcasting 04:21 - Trey’s Texas roots, Baylor and some very deep Fort Worth references 06:24 - What the iconic ESPN sound still means to Trey 09:12 - When ESPN was the common language of sports fans 10:25 - Trey’s dream of working at ESPN and realizing how big it had become 12:43 - Why sports television feels different today 13:38 - Trey on ESPN now: “We take ourselves very seriously, and if there’s time we’ll talk about sports” 14:36 - Why Trey wants to know what analysts know, not just what they think 17:11 - “No bits, no bullshit, just ball” and the freedom of independent media 18:34 - What great sports television used to get right 21:04 - How Overreaction Monday started 21:41 - Why Trey refused to bury Tom Brady and Bill Belichick 24:35 - What made Bill Belichick such an adaptable coach 27:14 - Dale Hansen’s influence on Trey as a broadcaster and storyteller 29:34 - The strangest cases of mistaken identity in Trey’s career 32:19 - Trey’s biggest “pinch me” moments at ESPN 33:30 - How NFL Live became appointment viewing 34:17 - Hosting the historic 2020 NFL Draft essentially alone in the studio 36:08 - Anchoring SportsCenter after 9/11 and why Bob Ley changed Trey’s mind about going on the air 39:31 - Life after ESPN 40:03 - Why Trey says he’s having a blast now 41:27 - Golf, football and the freedom to cover only what he actually cares about 42:51 - Building the Wingo Network and moving from cable to YouTube 43:50 - Why authenticity is at the center of Trey’s new work 45:42 - How sports betting changed the sports-media business 49:03 - Why Trey has become more willing to speak out online 49:30 - “I hate politics. But I don’t like people lying.” 50:31 - Final thoughts and the legend of the lost first recording

More from Trey Wingo

You can find Trey’s latest work across The Wingo Network, including:

• Trey Wingo Presents on YouTube

• Trey Wingo Golf on YouTube

• Inside Football on YouTube

• The Wingo Network on your favorite audio podcast platform

Trey also hosts Golf Live with Justin Ray, breaking down the biggest stories and developments from the world of golf.

Follow Trey on social media for more sports analysis, commentary and updates on his latest projects.

More with Marc Istook

More with Marc Istook brings you conversations, context and clarity - from behind-the-scenes stories with actors and athletes to expert perspectives on the issues affecting your everyday life.

Because there’s always more to the story.

Watch full episodes: YouTube
Follow Marc: Instagram | TikTok | Facebook | Threads
More: morewithmarcistook.substack.com

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this short announcement, Marc shares why "Dream Job" is evolving into "More with Marc Istook." The show will continue going behind the scenes with interesting people from sports, entertainment and media, while also featuring experts and newsmakers who bring greater perspective and insight to the issues that affect us every day.

Conversations. Context. Clarity.

Because there’s always more to the story.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

“I commit to telling the truth from this podium every single day.”

She didn’t even make it the rest of the press briefing.

After yesterday’s announcement she’d be leaving the White House at the end of August, it feels like an appropriate time to look back at some of the whoppers she told the American people. I’m calling these “misstatements” rather than “lies” for a reason. I don’t know what was in Karoline’s head when she said something. I can’t prove intent. What I can do is compare what Leavitt said with what the evidence actually shows and let you be the judge about where these fall on the truth continuum.

So, without further ado, here are my Top Five.

#5: “All” of the people ICE arrested were criminals

During the very first White House briefing in January 2025, the one where she committed to telling the truth, ABC News’ Mary Bruce asked how many of roughly 3,500 people ICE arrested since Trump took office had criminal records versus those who were simply in the country illegally.

Her answer:

“All of them, because they illegally broke our nation’s laws, and, therefore, they are criminals.”

There are two problems with that answer.

First, simply being undocumented in the United States does not automatically mean someone has committed a criminal offense. Illegal entry can be prosecuted criminally under federal law. Illegal reentry after removal can be a crime as well. But someone can enter the country legally - on a visa, for example - and later fall out of legal status. Unlawful presence can carry serious immigration consequences without itself constituting the crime Leavitt was describing. It’s a civil offense, not a criminal one.

More importantly, the reporter was specifically asking Leavitt to distinguish people with criminal histories from other immigration violators. Leavitt essentially erased that distinction by declaring everyone ICE arrested a “criminal.”

That simply wasn’t an accurate answer to the question. And since then, we know for a fact that ICE has arrested American citizens, and that despite promises they were focused on the “worst of the worst,” violent offenders make up a fairly small percentage of overall ICE arrests.

The bottom line: Being undocumented does not automatically mean someone has a prior criminal history - or even that they committed a criminal offense by becoming undocumented.

#4: “Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries” and “a tax cut for the American people”

Another twofer! Again, Leavitt manages to squeeze two questionable claims into one sentence.

In March 2025, she said:

“Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries. Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people.”

Except that isn’t how tariffs work.

A U.S. tariff is a tax imposed on an imported product. The tariff is collected by the U.S. government from the U.S. importer - not from China, Canada, Mexico or whichever foreign government happens to be on the other side of the trade dispute.

Who ultimately absorbs that cost is more complicated. An American importer can eat some of it. A foreign supplier can lower its price. Or some of the cost can be passed along to American businesses and consumers.

But describing a U.S. tariff simply as “a tax hike on foreign countries” badly misstates the mechanism. And calling it a “tax cut for the American people” is harder to square with the evidence.

Federal Reserve researchers studying the tariffs implemented in 2025 found that they increased prices for American consumers. An early Fed analysis found measurable increases in core-goods prices from the tariffs, and a follow-up published in 2026 estimated that tariffs implemented through November 2025 had raised core-goods PCE prices by about 3.1% through February 2026.

You can make an argument for tariffs. You can argue they protect domestic industries, strengthen supply chains or give the United States negotiating leverage.

But that’s a different argument.

A tariff collected from an American importer is not, by itself, a “tax cut for the American people.”

PolitiFact rated Leavitt’s claim False.

#3: “Tens of millions” of dead people were receiving Social Security

This one spread quickly because it sounded outrageous.

The Trump administration and Elon Musk had begun highlighting Social Security database records that appeared to contain millions of extraordinarily old people. Leavitt told reporters they suspected “tens of millions of deceased people” were receiving Social Security.

Except those weren’t the same thing.

Social Security databases contained roughly 18.9 million records for people born in 1920 or earlier that did not have a recorded date of death. But that did not mean those 18.9 million people were receiving checks.

In fact, the Social Security Administration’s inspector general had previously reported that almost none of the extremely old numberholders identified in its review were receiving SSA payments. And the administration’s own acting Social Security commissioner, Lee Dudek, publicly clarified the situation the very next day, explaining that the old records were not necessarily people receiving benefits.

FactCheck.org found that only about 89,000 Americans age 99 or older were actually receiving Social Security benefits in 2024.

To be clear, Social Security does make improper payments. Some payments have even gone to deceased people.

An SSA inspector general review found about $71.8 billion in improper payments between fiscal years 2015 and 2022. But that was less than 1% of the roughly $8.6 trillion Social Security paid during that period, and most of those improper payments were overpayments to living beneficiaries, not checks being mailed to millions of dead people.

The enormous numbers being circulated came largely from old database records, not millions of fraudulent checks.

That is a pretty important difference.

#2: “This bill does not add to the deficit”

On May 19, 2025, Leavitt was asked about the budgetary impact of what would become President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.

Her answer was unequivocal:

“This bill does not add to the deficit.”

She also pointed to roughly $1.6 trillion in savings.

There really were large spending reductions in the legislation. The problem is that spending reductions are only one side of the ledger. The legislation also contained enormous tax cuts that reduced federal revenue.

When the Congressional Budget Office scored the House version shortly afterward, it estimated the bill would increase primary deficits by potentially $2.4 trillion over ten years. Once higher debt-service costs were included, CBO put the cumulative effect at roughly $3 trillion. And when Congress passed the final version, CBO estimated the law would increase the unified federal budget deficit by approximately $3.4 trillion from 2025 through 2034 compared with its baseline.

The law reduced direct spending by roughly $1.1 trillion. But it also reduced federal revenues by roughly $4.5 trillion. So yes, you can truthfully say the bill contained enormous spending reductions. You cannot take those reductions, ignore the lost revenue and conclude:

“This bill does not add to the deficit.”

The government’s own nonpartisan budget scorekeeper concluded precisely the opposite.

#1: $50 million for condoms in Gaza

And then there’s the condoms.

At her first White House briefing, Leavitt touted what she said was an example of waste uncovered by the new administration:

$50 million in taxpayer money that was supposedly about to be spent on condoms in Gaza.

It was an extraordinary claim, and right-wing media practically fell over itself with glee in reporting the number.

There was just one problem. Nobody could find evidence that it was true.

PolitiFact investigated and found no evidence that the United States had earmarked or spent $50 million for condoms in Gaza.

FactCheck.org reached essentially the same conclusion: the administration had provided no evidence that $50 million had ever been directed toward condoms in Gaza. The aid organization apparently connected to the funding told fact-checkers that it had not used U.S. aid to procure or distribute condoms.

There was U.S. humanitarian assistance intended for Gaza, and some international health programs do include reproductive-health services. But there was no $50 million condom order. No mountain of taxpayer-funded prophylactics waiting to be shipped.

No evidence supporting the astonishingly specific claim the White House Press Secretary delivered to the American people.

And that’s why it takes my number-one spot.

The Press Secretary’s job matters

Look, I’m not naive. I know that every administration spins. And part of a press secretary’s job is to advocate for the president who appointed them. Republican and Democratic administrations alike selectively emphasize favorable statistics, minimize bad news and package policies in language designed to make their boss look good.

That’s politics.

But there is a difference between spin and saying something that is demonstrably contradicted by the evidence.

The person standing behind the White House podium speaks on behalf of the President of the United States. Reporters and citizens should be able to interrogate those statements, compare them with the record and call them out when they don’t hold up. And we shouldn’t forget that whomever is in that role still (supposedly) works for the American people.

Karoline Leavitt began her tenure by promising to tell the truth from that podium every single day.

These five statements didn’t meet that standard.

And she still has a couple of weeks left.

Sources and further reading

• White House - Karoline Leavitt’s first press briefing, January 2025

• 8 U.S.C. § 1325 - Improper Entry

• USCIS - Unlawful Presence and Inadmissibility

• PolitiFact - Leavitt’s claim that tariffs are a tax cut

• Federal Reserve - Detecting Tariff Effects on Consumer Prices, May 2025

• Federal Reserve - Detecting Tariff Effects on Consumer Prices, April 2026

• FactCheck.org - Trump and Musk exaggerate Social Security payments to the dead

• Associated Press - Tens of millions of dead people aren’t getting Social Security checks

• Congressional Budget Office - Budgetary effects of the final 2025 reconciliation law

• CBO - House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act

• PolitiFact - No, the U.S. did not spend $50 million on condoms for Gaza

• FactCheck.org - Unsupported $50 million condoms-for-Gaza claim

In this episode of Dream Job, Marc Istook sits down with Chad Blankenship, President and General Manager of the Texas Rattlers, to explore the evolution of professional bull riding and the remarkable career path that prepared Chad to help lead it.

Chad explains how the PBR Teams league took a traditionally individual sport and added the hometown loyalty, shared responsibility, rivalries, and season-long storylines that make team sports so compelling. He also breaks down what fans experience at a live event, from world-class riders and bulls to music, lights, pyrotechnics, and a carefully designed pace that keeps the entire arena engaged.

The conversation expands into the resurgence of Western culture across sports, television, music, and fashion. Chad discusses why values such as perseverance, self-reliance, community, and respect for the land continue to resonate with modern audiences.

Then Marc and Chad retrace a career journey that was anything but predictable. Chad shares stories from his early years in advertising, being laid off from one of the world’s most prestigious agencies, working on New York City’s bid for the 2012 Olympics, spending seven years at ESPN, launching a television network with filmmaker Robert Rodriguez, and helping create the PBR Teams league.

He also recounts leaving his career behind for nearly a year to travel through China, Tibet, Nepal, and Thailand, including trekking to Everest Base Camp and unexpectedly taking a job at a resort on a Thai island.

The episode concludes with a conversation about failure, personal responsibility, community, and one of Chad’s most enduring life lessons: wherever you go, you remain the same person. The real opportunity is learning to be fully present and make the most of where you are now.

Timestamps

• 00:00 - Meet Chad Blankenship, President and GM of the Texas Rattlers

• 01:53 - How professional bull riding and the PBR Teams league work

• 04:12 - What it feels like to experience a Rattlers event in person

• 04:56 - The difference between traditional rodeo and PBR

• 07:30 - Building a fast-paced entertainment experience around eight-second rides

• 09:00 - Fan service, live sports, and the Savannah Bananas comparison

• 11:38 - Commercial breaks and the pace-of-play problem in American sports

• 15:49 - Why the young PBR Teams league has so much potential

• 16:39 - What team competition adds to an individual sport

• 19:17 - How teammates change the experience for bull riders

• 20:22 - Why Western culture is having a major resurgence

• 24:44 - The influence of Yellowstone, country music, fashion, and pop culture

• 26:23 - Chad’s unconventional career journey begins

• 27:18 - Growing up in Oklahoma and studying marketing at OU

• 28:02 - His first advertising job at The Richards Group

• 30:40 - Getting recruited by Wieden+Kennedy

• 32:54 - Losing his job and learning an early career lesson

• 35:35 - Moving to Los Angeles and finding a community of creators

• 39:36 - Leaving work behind to travel through Asia

• 40:46 - Trekking to Everest Base Camp from Tibet and Nepal

• 42:05 - An unexpected job opportunity at a resort in Thailand

• 44:53 - Joining New York City’s bid for the 2012 Olympic Games

• 47:01 - How sports can inspire social and personal change

• 48:40 - Why losing can sometimes be more valuable than winning

• 50:21 - Taking ownership of failure and deciding what comes next

• 51:13 - Seven years at ESPN and earning a “sports business MBA”

• 53:02 - Launching El Rey Network with Robert Rodriguez

• 54:17 - Working with Richard Branson’s Virgin Sport

• 54:50 - Joining PBR with little background in Western sports

• 56:01 - Launching a streaming platform and helping create PBR Teams

• 57:03 - Becoming President and GM of the Texas Rattlers

• 58:28 - Winning the 2023 PBR Teams Championship

• 59:24 - Why Chad and his family fell in love with Fort Worth

• 1:02:23 - The biggest lesson from Chad’s travels and career

• 1:05:23 - Final thoughts and an invitation to experience Rattler Days

Links and Resources

• Ariat Texas Rattlers official website

• 2026 Rattler Days at Dickies Arena - October 2-4

• Texas Rattlers on Instagram

• Texas Rattlers on Facebook

• Professional Bull Riders

• Connect with Chad Blankenship on LinkedIn

• Dream Job on Apple Podcasts

Connect with Marc

• Website: MarcIstook.com

• Instagram: @MarcIstook

• YouTube: @MarcIstook

• Facebook: MarcIstookTV

• TikTok: @MarcIstook

• Substack: More, with Marc Istook

• Contact: info@marcistook.com

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

But any conversation about why that doesn’t happen, and it seems the blame is most often pointed squarely in one direction: toward schools.

The teachers. The principal. The superintendent. The board. The district.

But you know who escapes a lot of the blame - or is even doing the finger pointing themselves? The people writing the laws and setting the policies that shape the lives of those students before they ever walk through the schoolhouse doors. And research shows those policies can shape social circumstances that have a FAR greater impact on education than a particulate school might. Which raises a question I don’t think we ask often enough:

When a school struggles, how much of what we’re seeing is actually the school - and how much is the community and circumstances surrounding it?

What exactly is a “good school”?

Think about what comes to mind when someone tells you a neighborhood has “good schools.” What do you think of? What do you picture?

Maybe it’s a beautiful campus. Happy kids. High test scores. High graduation rates. Lots of AP classes and extracurriculars.

You probably also picture a nice neighborhood, filled with expensive homes.

Researchers have repeatedly found that perceived school quality gets capitalized into housing prices. In other words, buyers are willing to pay more for access to schools they believe are better. But that belief may be informed far more by who lives in that neighborhood or attends that school than the quality of the school itself.

That can create a feedback loop.

Higher property values can mean greater household wealth and, depending on how a state finances education, a stronger local tax base. Affluent neighborhoods are also more likely to have many of the resources that help children thrive outside school.

So here’s the chicken-and-egg question:

Is a highly rated school producing an affluent community? Or is an affluent community helping produce a highly rated school?

The answer can be both. And that’s important, because the same logic applies in reverse.

Schools matter. But maybe not as much as everything that happens outside them.

Schools are but one part of a much larger ecosystem that can affect a child’s educational outcomes. And research suggests they have far less of an impact that conventional wisdom would have you believe.

The landmark 1966 Coleman Report pushed this conversation into the national spotlight by finding that differences in family background and student populations were enormously important in explaining differences in academic achievement. Obviously, every student’s situation is different. And family background correlates to outcomes - it’s not causal. But circumstances like poverty, wage gaps, parental involvement, hunger, even zip code, can be much larger predictor’s of a kid’s academic success than what school they attend.

None of this is an argument for letting schools or educators off the hook. But we can do a better job recognizing what else is on the hook with them, and assigning responsibility accordingly.

A teacher can’t fix poverty

Consider family income.

Poverty can affect housing stability, nutrition, health, stress, access to books and enrichment, transportation, childcare and the amount of time parents have available to spend with their children.

A parent working two jobs to make rent may desperately want to read with a child every night. Wanting to do it and having the time to do it are two different things.

Which is why it’s important to remember :

3rd grade teachers don’t set minimum wage.

Principals don’t write housing policy.

Superintendents don’t determine whether affordable childcare exists in a community.

Those are public-policy decisions - made largely by elected officials at the local, state and federal levels. Yet some of the loudest criticism of struggling schools comes from those same politicians who have considerably more control over those underlying conditions than the teacher standing in front of 25 kids.

By kindergarten, the story has already started

A child’s earliest years are a period of extraordinary development. Responsive interactions between young children and caring adults help build the foundations for language, cognition, emotional regulation and future learning. Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child describes these back-and-forth interactions as an important part of developing healthy brain architecture.

That doesn’t mean a child’s future is somehow predetermined at age five. But it does mean that children can arrive at kindergarten having had dramatically different opportunities to learn. One child may have spent years surrounded by books, conversation, high-quality childcare, museums, travel and enrichment activities. Another may arrive equally capable and equally curious, but from a family that has been struggling simply to keep food on the table and rent paid.

Then we put both children in the same classroom, give them the same standardized test and sometimes act as though their scores are purely a measure of how well the school did its job.

That’s a pretty extraordinary assumption.

It also makes access to quality early-childhood education enormously important, particularly for children who don’t otherwise have access to those resources.

It’s hard to concentrate on fractions when you’re hungry.

According to the USDA, 18.4% of U.S. households with children experienced food insecurity in 2024 - roughly 6.7 million households. In about half of those households, adults were able to shield children from directly experiencing food insecurity. But 7.3 million children lived in households in which both adults and children experienced food insecurity.

A hungry child doesn’t leave hunger at the schoolhouse door. Neither does a child leave housing instability, family financial stress, neighborhood violence or a lack of healthcare outside.

Schools inherit those problems every morning.

Addressing these issues isn’t just charity. It’ an investment.

Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman and his colleagues studied two intensive early-childhood programs in North Carolina - the Abecedarian Project and CARE - that provided comprehensive services to disadvantaged children beginning in infancy.

Following participants into adulthood, the researchers estimated that the programs produced a 13% annual return on investment, with benefits showing up in education, health, employment and other outcomes. Some estimates show a potential return as high as $13 returned for every $1 invested. It seems obvious that investing early in disadvantaged children can pay dividends for decades.

None of this lets schools off the hook

Schools matter.

Teachers matter.

Curriculum matters.

Leadership matters.

Resources matter.

Safety matters.

Expectations matter.

A great teacher can change the trajectory of a child’s life. We see that anecdotally, and the research backs it up. It helps kids to have effective teachers. And communities have every right to expect our schools produce the highest outcomes possible. But we should also know the difference between poor outcomes that fall at the feet of the school, and those a school never had any control over.

Instead of just assuming poor outcomes are the fault of teachers or districts, we need to better understand the societal factors that negatively impact families and students. Which means recruiting and retaining great teachers, improving instructors, holding administrators accountable and making sure public dollars are well spent. But we should also demand our elected officials address the issues that hamstring a school’s ability to educate, and that they don’t blame schools when they can’t.

“Accountability” only goes so far if we assume the school controls every variable reflected in its test scores.

Maybe we’re measuring more than the school

A school’s test scores can tell us a lot. But what, exactly?

How much do those numbers reflect the effectiveness of a school? And how much do they tell us about family income and neighborhood segregation and food security and housing stability and access to early-childhood education?

That’s why I think we need to be much more careful with broad-brush phrase “failing school.”

Sometimes schools fail kids. We shouldn’t be afraid to say so when they do. But perhaps more often schools are being asked to compensate for enormous inequalities created outside their walls and are then punished when they can’t completely erase them. It’s much easier for a politician to point at a low-performing school and demand accountability than it is to tackle affordable housing, poverty, hunger, childcare, healthcare or economic inequality.

These are problems that are complicated and expensive and politically difficult. It’s FAR easier to just blame the school.

But if we genuinely believe that every child deserves a good education, then our responsibility can’t begin when a child walks through the school doors at age five and end when the dismissal bell rings.

Because until we’re willing to address the conditions that make it harder for children to learn in the first place, maybe it’s worth asking whether the schools are the only ones failing.

Sources and further reading

1. School quality and property values
Cambridge University Press - “Does Close Count? School Proximity, School Quality, and Residential Property Values”

2. Teachers, schools and academic achievement
National Bureau of Economic Research - “Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement”

3. Teacher effects on disadvantaged students
ERIC - “Teacher Effects on Minority and Disadvantaged Students’ Grade 4 Achievement”

4. Early childhood development and responsive relationships
Harvard Center on the Developing Child - Guide to Serve and Return

5. Food insecurity among American families with children
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Food Security Key Statistics

6. USDA’s full 2024 food-security report
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Household Food Security in the United States in 2024

7. Heckman’s research on early-childhood investment
The Heckman Equation - Lifecycle Benefits of an Influential Early Childhood Program

8. The underlying Heckman benefit-cost findings
University of Chicago Center for the Economics of Human Development - Early Childhood Programs Can Yield Up to 13% Returns

9. University of Chicago summary of the Heckman research
University of Chicago Department of Economics - Investment in Early Childhood Programs Yields Robust Returns

You can agree or disagree with those ideas. But they certainly envision a larger role for government in the economy. Which raises an interesting question:

Have you looked at what Donald Trump is doing lately?

Because while conservatives have been warning that socialism is coming from the left, the Trump administration has embarked on an extraordinary expansion of federal involvement in private American businesses.

The government is becoming a shareholder

Let’s start with Intel.

In August 2025, the Trump administration converted previously approved government funding into a 9.9% ownership stake in Intel. The federal government effectively became one of the company’s largest shareholders.

That’s unusual enough.

But the circumstances leading up to the deal make it even more remarkable.

On August 7, Trump publicly demanded that Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan resign, calling him “highly conflicted.” Four days later, Tan went to the White House to meet with Trump and members of his administration. Less than two weeks after that call for resignation, the Trump administration announced the deal giving the federal government roughly 10% of the company.

That doesn’t prove Trump threatened Intel into giving the government equity. And we shouldn’t claim that it does. But Trump himself has been remarkably candid about his philosophy.

Asked in August 2025 whether government ownership of a private company represented a new way of conducting economic policy, Trump responded that he wanted to get as much as he could when companies came to the government needing something. He also made clear that Intel wasn’t necessarily a one-off. Asked about the prospect of similar arrangements, Trump said there could be other cases and that he would do it again if he had the opportunity.

And apparently he has.

According to Cato, the number is now 30

This isn’t criticism coming from some left-wing think tank.

The Cato Institute is one of America’s most prominent libertarian organizations, dedicated to limited government and free markets. And Cato has been keeping count.

In July 2026, Cato reported that six additional semiconductor companies were joining what it described as the federal government’s rapidly expanding corporate portfolio, bringing the total to 30 companies by Cato’s count.

Cato has called the broader phenomenon “state corporatism.” The Wall Street Journal has used another term: state capitalism. Whatever terminology you prefer, this is decidedly different from the hands-off, free-market capitalism Republicans have traditionally championed.

And Intel isn’t the only example.

The Pentagon became an investor - and helped set a price

In 2025, the Pentagon struck a multibillion-dollar agreement with rare-earth producer MP Materials. The deal included a federal investment in the company and a remarkable additional provision: the government guaranteed a minimum price of $110 per kilogram for two important rare-earth materials.

At the time, Reuters reported that was nearly twice the prevailing Chinese market price. In other words, the federal government wasn’t merely supporting an industry considered important to national security.

It became an investor and guaranteed a price.

There are legitimate national-security arguments for doing this. China dominates much of the world’s rare-earth supply chain, and reducing American dependence on China is a defensible policy objective.

But imagine for a moment that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed government ownership of a mining company accompanied by a federally guaranteed minimum price.

What would Fox News call it?

Washington now has veto power at U.S. Steel

Then there’s U.S. Steel.

As part of the Trump administration’s approval of Nippon Steel’s acquisition of the iconic American company, the federal government received a special “golden share.” It isn’t an ordinary ownership stake designed to produce dividends. In some respects, it’s more consequential.

The arrangement gives the government veto power over certain major corporate decisions. Trump also received authority to designate a member of the company’s board.

Trump himself described it this way in June 2025:

“We have a golden share, which I control, the President controls.”

Again, there may be legitimate national-security arguments for imposing conditions on the foreign acquisition of an important American steelmaker. But this is also a Republican president proudly describing presidential control over decisions at a private corporation. That deserves some attention in a country supposedly facing an imminent socialist takeover from the left.

Want permission to sell your product? Washington gets a cut.

The Nvidia and AMD arrangement may be even more extraordinary.

The companies wanted permission to sell certain artificial-intelligence chips in China. The Trump administration controlled the export licenses they needed. The eventual arrangement? The companies agreed to give the federal government 15% of the revenue from certain China chip sales in exchange for permission to make those sales.

Think about that arrangement stripped of the political labels:

A private company wants government permission to sell its product.

The government says yes.

And the government gets a percentage of the revenue.

That isn’t conventional Republican free-market economics.

And it isn’t merely critics characterizing the policy that way. Trump publicly defended the arrangement.

How about price controls?

This is where the ideological lines get even blurrier.

Mamdani has been attacked relentlessly for supporting a rent freeze on New York’s rent-stabilized apartments. Price controls, his critics warn, distort markets. There’s a legitimate economic debate there.

But in January 2026, Donald Trump called for credit-card companies to cap their interest rates at 10% for one year.

That’s a price ceiling.

And here’s the particularly interesting part: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez herself has supported legislation establishing a 10% credit-card interest-rate cap. So we have reached the point where a policy associated with AOC and Bernie Sanders is also being promoted by Donald Trump.

Trump has taken a similarly aggressive approach to prescription-drug prices. In May 2025, he ordered his administration to pursue “most-favored-nation” pricing intended to bring U.S. drug prices in line with lower prices paid in comparable countries.

Now, you may think that’s a great idea. I I happen to think reducing prescription-drug costs is a worthy goal. But that’s precisely the point. The question isn’t whether every government intervention in a market is inherently bad.

The question is why government intervention is routinely described as “socialism” when it comes from the left and something entirely different when Donald Trump does it.

Is Trump actually a socialist?

No - at least not by the conventional definition of the word.

It’s a distinction that matters, especially given how often the label gets tossed around incorrectly as a slur.

Socialism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are owned or controlled collectively or by the state. The United States remains overwhelmingly a capitalist economy, and Donald Trump is not advocating comprehensive social ownership of American industry. Government ownership of a handful of companies doesn’t suddenly make the United States socialist. Neither does regulating prices.

But that observation cuts both ways.

If those things don’t make Trump a socialist, then conservatives should probably stop reflexively describing every proposal for greater government involvement in the economy as socialism when Democrats propose it.

There is also a more precise term for what we’re seeing.

The Wall Street Journal has described Trump’s emerging economic model as “state capitalism” - an economy that remains fundamentally capitalist while the government uses ownership, regulation, financial leverage and political power to direct private business toward government objectives.

Cato has gone further, warning about “state corporatism” and the danger created when the government becomes both a company’s shareholder and its regulator. Those aren’t warnings from AOC. They’re coming from institutions and economists who have spent decades defending capitalism.

So what exactly are we afraid of?

That’s what makes our national debate over “socialism” so strange.

Mamdani proposes government-run grocery stores and Republicans warn about socialism. Trump’s government takes stakes in private companies. Mamdani proposes freezing certain rents and critics warn about price controls. Trump proposes capping credit-card interest rates. Progressives propose using government power to shape private markets and we’re warned that capitalism itself is under attack. Trump’s administration acquires equity, guarantees prices, negotiates revenue-sharing arrangements, gains veto rights over corporate decisions and openly talks about doing more of it.

Maybe some of those policies are good. Maybe some are terrible. Maybe extraordinary national-security circumstances justify government intervention that would otherwise make free-market conservatives uncomfortable.

Those are debates worth having.

But let’s at least be consistent about the terminology.

Because if price controls, government ownership and politicians exerting control over private businesses are called socialism when AOC and Mamdani do it...

What do we call it when the president does it?

Sources

Cato Institute - “Government Ownership Stakes in Companies Becoming Routine Under Trump,” July 30, 2026.Cato’s latest accounting puts the Trump administration’s expanding portfolio at 30 companies.
https://www.cato.org/blog/government-ownership-stakes-companies-becoming-routine-under-trump

Cato Institute - “The Conspicuous Fist of Trump’s State Corporatism,” February 20, 2026. Scott Lincicome’s broader argument about government equity stakes, regulatory power, capital allocation and cronyism.
https://www.cato.org/free-society/winter-2026/conspicuous-fist-trumps-state-corporatism

Reuters - “Trump holds high-stakes meeting with Intel CEO after calling for his resignation,” August 11, 2025.Documents Trump’s demand that Lip-Bu Tan resign and the subsequent White House meeting.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-holds-high-stakes-meeting-with-intel-ceo-after-calling-his-resignation-2025-08-11/

American Presidency Project - Trump remarks, August 25, 2025. Primary-source transcript of Trump’s comments about the Intel stake and the prospect of similar deals.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-prior-meeting-with-president-lee-jae-myung-south-korea-and-exchange-with-reporters

Reuters - “MP Materials seals mega rare-earths deal with US to break China grip,” July 10, 2025. Details of the Pentagon’s MP Materials investment and $110-per-kilogram price floor.
https://www.reuters.com/business/mp-materials-partners-with-department-defense-boost-us-rare-earth-magnet-supply-2025-07-10/

Reuters - “Nippon Steel’s purchase of U.S. Steel closes, with big role for Trump,” June 18, 2025. Details of the government’s golden share and Trump’s authority to designate a board member.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/nippon-steels-acquisition-us-steel-closes-with-big-role-trump-2025-06-18/

Reuters - “Trump opens door to sales of version of Nvidia’s next-gen AI chips to China,” August 11, 2025. Trump defends the arrangement requiring Nvidia and AMD to provide the federal government 15% of revenue from certain China sales.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-opens-door-sales-version-nvidias-next-gen-ai-chips-china-2025-08-12/

Reuters - “Trump calls for one-year cap on credit card interest rates at 10%,” January 10, 2026. Documents Trump’s proposed credit-card interest-rate ceiling and notes bipartisan proposals for a similar cap.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/trump-calls-one-year-cap-credit-card-interest-rates-10-2026-01-10/

White House - “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients,” May 12, 2025.Trump’s executive order directing the administration to pursue lower U.S. prescription-drug prices based on prices in comparable countries.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/delivering-most-favored-nation-prescription-drug-pricing-to-american-patients/

Reuters - Mamdani policy overview, July 2, 2025. Summarizes Mamdani’s proposals including freezing rents, city-owned grocery stores, free buses and universal child care.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/mamdanis-millionaire-tax-other-financial-fallacies-2025-07-02/

The Wall Street Journal - “CEOs Are Learning to Live With Trump’s Turn to State Capitalism,” December 15, 2025. Examines Trump’s use of equity stakes, revenue sharing, corporate pressure and price intervention as a form of state capitalism.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/ceos-trump-state-capitalism-f7111bf3

He is very good at sounding as though he knows what he is talking about.

Kennedy speaks with confidence. He remembers names, dates and study titles. He describes chemical compounds, government reports and obscure regulatory proceedings. He delivers his arguments with the certainty of a prosecutor addressing a jury.

And that makes sense. He spent decades as an attorney and advocate, developing precisely the skills required to challenge witnesses, find vulnerabilities in institutions, construct narratives from circumstantial evidence and create doubt about an opposing case.

Those skills may be useful in litigation. They do not make someone a physician, scientist, epidemiologist, immunologist or public-health expert.

Kennedy has no medical degree, scientific doctorate or clinical training. His official HHS biography describes a career in environmental law and advocacy, not medicine, infectious-disease control, vaccine science or administration of a public-health system. He nevertheless oversees a department with a budget approaching $2 trillion and agencies that include the CDC, FDA and National Institutes of Health.

That distinction matters because Kennedy is no longer simply a private citizen appearing on podcasts. His words now carry the implied authority of the United States government.

The firehose

One of Kennedy’s most effective techniques is volume.

During an interview, he can move rapidly from autism to vaccine trials, pharmaceutical corruption, chronic disease, COVID deaths, religious exemptions, a particular Institute of Medicine report and an anecdote about an injured child.

Each assertion may take only seconds to make. Properly checking it can require reading an entire scientific paper, examining its methodology, consulting specialists and determining whether Kennedy has accurately represented its conclusion.

By the time a journalist has begun addressing claim number one, Kennedy has delivered claims two through eight.

It is a firehose of assertions.

Kennedy may then present a question as though its premise were itself evidence:

Why has this never been studied? Why are authorities afraid to investigate? Why will no one debate me?

The problem is that many of the questions he raises have been studied. Researchers simply did not reach a conclusion Kennedy agreed with.

Real facts, unsupported conclusions

Kennedy’s arguments are often built around legitimate concerns.

Pharmaceutical companies have committed misconduct. Regulators have made mistakes. Medical treatments can cause side effects. Government officials sometimes communicate poorly or overstate their certainty. Conflicts of interest deserve scrutiny.

All of that is true.

But none of it proves that vaccines cause autism, that COVID vaccines killed more people than they saved, or that an unfavorable scientific conclusion must be the product of corruption.

Kennedy regularly begins with a fact and ends with an inference the fact does not establish.

He cites actual studies, but may exaggerate their findings, confuse association with causation or elevate a preliminary result above a much larger body of evidence. He treats an anecdote about something that occurred after a vaccination as though it establishes that the vaccine caused it. He points to unavoidable uncertainty in science and argues that the uncertainty supports his preferred theory.

It is a highly effective form of advocacy. It may have worked on some of his juries. But it’s not a reliable way to determine scientific truth.

An extraordinary record of unsupported claims

Kennedy has promoted or repeated claims suggesting that vaccines cause autism, that Black children may require a different vaccine schedule, that the COVID vaccine was the deadliest vaccine ever made, and that COVID-19 may have been designed to disproportionately affect Black and white people while sparing Chinese people and Ashkenazi Jews.

He has claimed that boys circumcised early have double the autism rate and suggested that Tylenol use explains the supposed connection. Some observational research has reported associations involving circumcision or acetaminophen, but those findings do not establish the causal conclusions Kennedy has promoted. Researchers reviewing the literature have not found credible evidence that circumcision causes autism.

He has elevated an unproven causal link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and autism. He has suggested antidepressants may be associated with school shootings. He has warned that Wi-Fi radiation opens the blood-brain barrier and causes cancer. He has speculated that environmental chemicals may be making children transgender.

He has promoted raw milk and attacked restrictions intended to reduce exposure to bacteria such as E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter and Listeria. He has portrayed community water fluoridation as a neurological threat while failing to distinguish evidence involving high exposure from the much less certain evidence at standard American fluoridation levels.

There is a recurring pattern: a limited finding, open question or real institutional failure becomes the foundation for a sweeping public conclusion that the evidence cannot support.

The real-world test has already arrived

Kennedy took office on February 13, 2025. Public-health emergencies did not wait for him to learn on the job.

The United States has since confronted its most serious outbreak of measles cases in decades. During last year’s January surge in West Texas, officials ultimately recorded 762 confirmed cases, 99 hospitalizations and two deaths. Among patients hospitalized during the outbreak’s first three months, all were either unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status. Approximately 70 percent suffered pneumonia and low blood oxygen.

By July 30, 2026, the CDC had confirmed 2,371 measles cases across 45 U.S. jurisdictions during the year, with 94 percent associated with outbreaks. The agency reported 37 newly identified outbreaks in 2026.

Kennedy did not create every condition that allowed measles to return. Vaccination gaps, pandemic-era disruptions, religious communities with low coverage and international transmission all contributed. But this was precisely the kind of moment that demanded unequivocal leadership from the nation’s health secretary.

Instead, Kennedy repeatedly complicated the message. He acknowledged that the MMR vaccine protects against measles while continuing to emphasize alleged vaccine risks, promote alternative treatments and question established accounts of measles deaths. Even when he eventually gave a clear recommendation that families vaccinate their children, it came alongside another barrage of misleading claims.

The issue is not merely whether Kennedy eventually uttered the correct sentence. Public-health communication depends on clarity, consistency and trust. A secretary cannot credibly tell parents to vaccinate while repeatedly supplying them with reasons to fear the vaccine. Being right 1 time out of 10 isn’t cause for celebration - or trust.

Dismantling the safeguards

Kennedy’s impact goes beyond rhetoric.

In June 2025, he removed all 17 sitting members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. ACIP is the independent expert body that reviews evidence and makes vaccine recommendations affecting medical practice, insurance coverage and public-health programs. HHS openly said the entire committee had been removed and replaced.

Kennedy characterized the purge as necessary to restore trust. Many medical organizations saw it differently.

The American Public Health Association declared that “Secretary Kennedy and his policies are a danger to the public’s health.” A coalition of medical, scientific, public-health and patient organizations later called for his resignation, warning that his leadership was undermining science and making Americans less safe.

Medical groups also went to court to challenge HHS vaccine-policy changes. Their complaint pointed out that the country was already confronting major influenza, measles and pertussis outbreaks while Kennedy was disrupting the expert committee responsible for evidence-based vaccine recommendations.

This is what makes the current situation different from Kennedy’s years as an activist. He is no longer shouting from outside the system. He is reshaping the system. The scientific safeguards intended to prevent one political appointee’s personal beliefs from becoming national health policy are the very safeguards he has been weakening.

Confidence is not competence

Kennedy’s defenders frequently argue that he is simply asking questions that powerful institutions would prefer to avoid.

Questions are valuable. Pharmaceutical companies should face scrutiny. Public agencies should be transparent. Scientists should be prepared to explain their evidence and acknowledge uncertainty.

But asking a question does not absolve a public official of responsibility for ignoring the answer.

Nor does mistrust of one institution establish the truth of an alternative theory.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. occupies a position that gives his words enormous scientific credibility, despite his lacking the medical, scientific and public-health training required to independently evaluate much of the evidence he discusses.

That would be concerning in ordinary times.

It is much more dangerous during a resurgence of vaccine-preventable disease, after the removal of experienced scientific advisers and amid a broader dismantling of the institutions Americans depend upon to detect threats, evaluate treatments and issue trustworthy guidance.

Kennedy’s greatest rhetorical strength is his ability to make unsupported ideas sound just plausible enough that listeners think, “Maybe.”

But public health cannot be run on “maybe.”

It requires evidence, expertise and leaders willing to follow the science even when the answer conflicts with what they already believe.

I’m embarrassed, as an American, by what we saw happen in the United States Senate.

No, Dr. Anthony Fauci pleading the Fifth Amendment 111 times was not a good look. It was jarring. It was uncomfortable. And to too many Americans, it probably looked like an admission of guilt.

But considering the environment he was facing, I am not sure he believed he had much of a choice.

This was not a calm, good-faith examination of the government’s response to COVID-19. It was a three-ring circus led by senators like Rand Paul, Rick Scott, Josh Hawley and Bernie Moreno, several of whom appeared far more interested in humiliation and prosecution than understanding what actually happened.

Let me be 100% clear: if Dr. Fauci broke the law, prove it. If he lied under oath, prove it. If there is credible evidence that he committed a crime, prosecute him and hold him accountable. Pardons be damned, present the evidence.

No public servant should be above the law, regardless of his résumé, reputation or years of service.

But what happened in the Senate did not look like a serious search for truth.

It looked like an attempt to publicly destroy an 85-year-old man who dedicated his life to public service, served seven presidents from both parties and helped lead the nation’s response to HIV/AIDS, Ebola, SARS and other deadly diseases.

There are people alive today because of research and public-health programs Fauci helped champion.

That does not make him infallible.

It does, however, make the effort to reduce his entire career to “villain” both dishonest and deeply troubling.

Fauci Became the Convenient Villain

Many Republicans decided years ago that Fauci would become the face of everything Americans hated about the pandemic.

The restrictions. The masks. The vaccines. The school closures. The changing guidance. The fear. The uncertainty. And perhaps most of all, the lost income.

Blaming Fauci for all of it is politically convenient because it means never having to account honestly for Donald Trump’s own COVID failures.

Did Fauci make mistakes during the pandemic?

Of course he did!

Scientists, doctors, public-health officials and elected leaders were confronting a new virus during a once-in-a-century emergency. Some decisions were correct. Some were wrong. Some were based on incomplete information. Some were communicated poorly. Some restrictions continued longer than they should have.

Those questions deserve serious examination. But the fact that guidance changed is not, by itself, proof of corruption or conspiracy. The evidence changed, so some of the recommendations changed.

That is how science works.

Science is not a stone tablet handed down from a mountain. It is a process of testing evidence, revising conclusions and sometimes admitting that an earlier judgment was wrong.

Public officials should be held accountable when they speak with too much certainty, fail to explain that uncertainty or make decisions unsupported by the evidence. But changing one’s position as new information emerges is not inherently dishonest.

They Want to Have It Both Ways

Fauci’s critics repeatedly try to hold contradictory positions at the same time. They downplayed COVID and compared it to a common cold or seasonal flu. Then they accused Fauci of causing countless deaths.

Which was it?

Was the virus harmless, or was it a deadly catastrophe for which Fauci alone must answer?

They blame Fauci for “shutting down America.”

Yes, Fauci recommended restrictions, as did countless public-health officials who were trying to slow a virus that was filling hospitals and killing Americans.

But Fauci did not have the legal authority to close a school, restaurant, church, city or state. Those orders were issued by elected officials, including the president, governors and mayors from both parties.

They praise Donald Trump for accelerating vaccine development through Operation Warp Speed. Then many of the same voices portray those vaccines as experimental poison and blame Fauci for promoting them.

You cannot demand that Trump receive credit for producing the vaccines while treating Fauci as a criminal for supporting their use.

And all the while, they excuse a president who repeatedly downplayed the virus and promoted unproven treatments while doctors and hospitals dealt with the consequences.

They accuse Fauci of funding research that created COVID, while still moving back and forth between claiming the virus was overblown and claiming it was an unprecedented biological catastrophe.

Again, which is it?

The Origins Question Is Legitimate

There are legitimate questions about the origin of COVID-19.

A laboratory-related accident has not been conclusively ruled out. China has failed to release critical information that could help scientists determine what happened. That lack of transparency deserves condemnation.

But according to the World Health Organization, the scientific evidence still favors zoonotic spillover, meaning the virus moved from animals to humans, with the earliest known cases centered around the wet market in Wuhan.

Asking whether a laboratory accident occurred is legitimate. Claiming it has already been proven that Fauci funded the creation of COVID and then orchestrated a cover-up is something else entirely.

That requires evidence. Suspicion is not evidence. Political repetition is not evidence. A viral social-media post is not evidence.

Words Have Consequences

The language used against Fauci has become increasingly extreme.

He has been called a “megalomaniac,” a “dirtbag” and one of the greatest villains in American history. A man was sentenced to federal prison for threatening to kill Fauci, one of numerous threats directed at him and his family.

No senator is personally responsible for every unstable person who makes a threat. But public officials who repeatedly portray a doctor as a murderous criminal and historic monster cannot pretend that their rhetoric has no real-world consequences.

Words matter. Especially when they come from powerful people speaking to millions of angry and frightened Americans.

The Questions They Should Have Asked

There were serious issues the Senate could have examined.

• What mistakes did the federal government make?

• Were lockdowns too broad or prolonged?

• What damage did school closures cause children?

• Why was public-health messaging so inconsistent?

• Did officials speak with more confidence than the evidence justified?

• Was research funding properly monitored?

• How should future administrations balance public health, civil liberties, education and economic harm?

• What should be done differently when the next pandemic arrives?

Those questions matter.

Fauci should be required to answer difficult questions when the law permits it. His decisions and statements should not be shielded from scrutiny simply because he spent decades in public service.

But scrutiny is not the same as abuse. Investigation is not the same as a predetermined prosecution. Accountability is not the same as vengeance.

Why Would Anyone Choose Public Service After This?

We need more Americans willing to choose public service over personal enrichment.

We need scientists, doctors, researchers and administrators who are willing to spend their careers working on diseases most Americans never think about until an emergency arrives.

But why would anyone choose that path after watching what happened to Fauci?

Why spend decades serving presidents from both parties if a future Congress can drag you before the cameras, reduce your life’s work to a caricature and use you as a political prop?

Fauci made mistakes. He may have made serious mistakes. If investigators can prove that he lied or broke the law, they should act. But yesterday was not primarily about establishing those facts.

It was an attempt to rewrite the history of the pandemic, look away from Donald Trump’s own failures and place every painful decision, death and disruption at the feet of one man. It was a clown show six years in the making.

That was not accountability.

It was vengeance.

My work as a TV journalist has taken me around the globe, covering the worlds of news, sports and entertainment. I've interviewed heads of state and pro athletes. Actors and artists. Teachers and scientists, CEOs and people whose names you may not recognize - but whose stories you’ll never forget.

One lesson has stayed with me through all of it:

There’s always more to the story.

That’s especially true today.

We’re surrounded by headlines, clips, algorithms, outrage, and opinions delivered with complete certainty - often before the full story is fully understood.

I’ve always believed being a journalist was a privilege that came with huge responsibilities. To be able to tell people’s stories, document current events, and serve as a conduit to what’s happening in the world.

But ultimately, it should create deeper, broader understanding.

That’s why I’m launching More, with Marc Istook.

A place for me to go more in-depth. Here you’ll find thoughtful conversations with interesting people, interviews with experts who can help explain complicated issues, behind-the-scenes looks at journalism, and context that doesn’t fit into a 90-second social media video.

My goal isn’t to tell you what to think.

It’s to give you enough information that you can think more clearly for yourself, and to invite you to be part of the conversation.

Whether we’re talking about politics, science, sports, culture, faith, media, or everyday life, I want this to be a place where curiosity wins over certainty.

Thanks for joining me at the beginning. I’m really glad you’re here.

There’s always more to the story.

-Marc

Texas has taken over more school districts than any other state in the country, and a majority of those takeovers have happened in the last ten years under Governor Greg Abbott and Education Commissioner Mike Morath. The official story is accountability. The real story, according to this week's guest, is the construction of an entirely new model for public education in Texas, one designed to be cheaper, more regimented, and built on a workforce of uncertified, inexperienced teachers reading from scripted curriculum.

Marc sits down with Dan Dawer, a former classroom teacher of 11 years and a PhD candidate at the University of Texas at Austin, whose dissertation research has put him on the ground inside the Houston ISD takeover for nearly four years. Dan has interviewed close to 140 stakeholders across the district and has emerged with one of the most comprehensive views of what state takeovers actually do to communities, students, and teachers.

This conversation covers:

. Why the research overwhelmingly shows takeovers do not improve student outcomes, and which communities they disproportionately target . The shift from "conservative" takeovers (designed to restore districts) to "activist" takeovers (designed to rebuild them into something new) . How Houston's reported test score improvements may be driven by changes to the pool of test takers, not actual learning gains (including a 24% drop in 8th grade Algebra 1 enrollment and a 15% drop in Biology end-of-course test takers) . The financial throughline connecting property tax elimination, the absence of a state income tax, and the budget pressure to make public education cheaper . Why a Pennsylvania billionaire would care about Texas school board elections . The reality of the voucher program: most applicants were already enrolled in private school, and tuition routinely exceeds the $10,000 award . The teacher pipeline crisis (45% of Houston ISD's teaching workforce now has between 0 and 3 years of experience, and a majority of new hires statewide are uncertified) . The AI-in-the-classroom question, and why Dan worries about cognitive offloading and the erosion of professional teaching knowledge . An honest assessment of Mike Morath's ten years as Education Commissioner . Why the A-F school rating system is more variable than parents realize, and what families should actually be looking at . The toll road analogy that explains vouchers better than any political talking point

If you care about public education, your property taxes, your kids' classrooms, or the long-term direction of this state, this is the conversation. Dan brings the data. We dig into what it actually means.

Recommended reading from this episode: Takeover: Race, Education, and Democracy in America by Domingo Morel.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

EPISODE NOTES

Sara Hirsh Bordo has spent her career building stages for other people's stories — directing award-winning documentaries, founding the women's empowerment production company Women Rising, and being named an Architect of Change by Maria Shriver. But while she was busy lifting up everyone else, her own body was sending a message she couldn't ignore.

In this conversation, Marc and Sara — friends since their days as undergrads at TCU — go deep on her debut book, Autoimmunity and the Good Girls: How Permission to Put Ourselves First Has the Power to Keep Us Well, published by HarperOne/HarperCollins.

Topics covered in this episode:

• How Sara's career journey — from Estée Lauder and MGM Studios to Paramount Pictures to documentary filmmaker — was always driven by curiosity and storytelling

• What it means to be a "good girl," and why that conditioning starts in girlhood

• The connection between the caretaker archetype, birth order, and autoimmune disease

• How Sara funded the first quantitative research study at the intersection of female empowerment and autoimmunity — and what the data revealed

• Why 80% of autoimmune disease patients are women, and why so many go undiagnosed or unheard

• The role of self-suppression in chronic illness — and the science behind it

• Sara's personal health journey: Hashimoto's, cancer, tumors — and full remission

• How faith intersects with the struggle for self-sovereignty

• The butterfly as a symbol for transformation — and why the journey to flight matters more than the flight itself

• What Sara hopes the book ultimately does for the women who read it

Timestamps:

• 00:02:28 — Sara on what she actually does for a living

• 00:05:33 — The hero's journey vs. the heroine's journey

• 00:10:12 — On catalysts: cozy ones and crushing ones

• 00:15:47 — The lightbulb moment that led to the book

• 00:16:19 — What autoimmune disease actually is, explained plainly

• 00:19:18 — How Sara funded the first research study on this topic

• 00:22:24 — Beyond birth order: the caretaker archetype

• 00:27:43 — Sara's full list of diagnoses — and how they all went into remission

• 00:29:57 — Why women silence themselves in the doctor's office

• 00:32:01 — The whisper, the tap, the shove

• 00:33:32 — Why the word "feminist" doesn't appear in the book

• 00:39:30 — The battered butterfly in a German museum

• 00:44:58 — What Sara hopes the book's legacy will be

About Sara Hirsh Bordo: Sara is a 20-time award-winning filmmaker and Founder/CEO of Women Rising. Her documentary debut, A Brave Heart: The Lizzie Velasquez Story, won the Audience Award at SXSW and qualified for the Academy Award. She has directed campaigns for Toyota and ESPN, consulted on the Wonder Woman franchise for Warner Bros., and produced the first TEDxAustinWomen — the most-viewed TEDxWomen event in the world that year. A percentage of her author proceeds are being donated to the Society for Women's Health Research.

Autoimmunity and the Good Girls is available wherever books are sold, including Amazon, and the audiobook — read by Sara herself — is available on Audible.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Chris McKenna spent 12 years in business risk consulting at Ernst & Young before a call to youth ministry put him face-to-face with the rise of the smartphone in kids' lives. What he saw there led him to launch Protect Young Eyes, now one of the most respected voices in the fight for online child safety.

In this conversation, Chris and I get into why he thinks "parental controls" is a destructive phrase, how to talk to other parents about screens without sounding judgmental (hint: think peanut allergy), what the recent Meta and social media court wins really mean, why the Australia law is being framed exactly the way Big Tech wants it framed, and what it'll take for screen-time legislation to have its seatbelt-law moment.

Chris's new book, Five Habits of the Tech-Ready Family: Raising Wise Kids in a Wild Digital World, comes out June 16 and is available for pre-order now.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We discuss the "self-love and self-glory" forces driving parent behavior on the sidelines, why "winning is everything" coaching is still the default even when we know better, the private-equity gold rush turning kids into revenue streams, the scholarship myth, and the difference between development and competition for kids under 12. Jonathan also shares the John Wooden quote that reframed how he thinks about success, why he calls himself part of "the youth sports resistance," and the one piece of advice every sports parent needs to hear: let your kid lead.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.