This is what the news should sound like. The biggest stories of our time, told by the best journalists in the world. Hosted by Michael Barbaro and Sabrina Tavernise. Twenty minutes a day, five days a week, ready by 6 a.m. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Listen to this podcast in New York Times Audio, our new iOS app for news subscribers. Download now at nytimes.com/audioapp
Similar Podcasts
SANS Internet Stormcenter Daily Cyber Security Podcast (Stormcast)
A brief daily summary of what is important in information security. The podcast is published every weekday and designed to get you ready for the day with a brief, usually 5 minute long, summary of current network security related events. The content is late breaking, educational and based on listener input as well as on input received by the SANS Internet Stormcenter. You may submit questions and comments via our contact form at https://isc.sans.edu/contact.html .
Un tema Al Día
'Un tema Al día’ es un podcast de elDiario.es para explicarte la actualidad. Con ayuda de los mejores periodistas de la redacción, nos detendremos cada día en un asunto: puede ser una noticia compleja o una historia sencilla que merezca la pena. Una píldora de sonido para acompañarte en el desayuno, de camino al trabajo, en la pausa de la comida o antes de dormir. Con Juanlu Sánchez. Disponible en tu plataforma de audio favorita.
Hoy en EL PAÍS
En este podcast diario de EL PAIS te contamos los hechos y cómo los contamos. Una nueva manera de disfrutar del periódico y de sus periodistas, con una historia cada día. Presentado por Ana Fuentes e Iñigo Domínguez.
The Latest: ‘It’s Very Intimidating’
Marie Yovanovitch, who was ousted as the ambassador to Ukraine on President Trump’s orders, came before the House Intelligence Committee on the second day of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry. At the very moment she was testifying about feeling threatened by the president, the president was tweeting about her.“The Latest” is a new series on the impeachment inquiry, from the team behind “The Daily.” You can find more information about it here. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
Capitalism on Trial in Chile
Free-market economists once talked about “the miracle of Chile,” praising its policies as Latin America’s great economic success story. But recently, over a million people have flipped the script, taking to the streets and facing down a violent police response as they demand a reckoning on the promise of prosperity that never came.Today, we explore how, in Chile, capitalism itself is now on trial.Guest: Amanda Taub, who explores the ideas and context behind major world events as a columnist for The Interpreter at The New York Times, spoke with Annie Brown, a producer for “The Daily.” For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: “It’s not 30 pesos, it’s 30 years.” Our correspondent went to Santiago, the Chilean capital, to understand how a small hike in public transportation fares ignited mass protests.After weeks of demonstrations, Chile’s president said he would support a new Constitution. But for many, it was too little, too late.Our correspondent went inside a trauma unit in Chile that’s responding to “an epidemic” of protesters who have been shot in the eye by police pellet guns. Watch the video below. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
The Latest: A New Word for What Trump Did
We’ve been hearing a lot about the “quid pro quo.” But this week, Democrats started using a new term, one that shows up in the impeachment clause of the Constitution, to describe President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine. Republicans started using it, too — to reject it.“The Latest” is a new series on the impeachment inquiry, from the team behind “The Daily.” You can find more information about it here. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
A Public Hearing, and a Feud Over Ukraine
The House of Representatives opened historic impeachment hearings on Wednesday, with William B. Taylor Jr. and George P. Kent, senior career civil servants, caught in the crossfire. Democrats underscored the constitutional import of the proceedings, while Republicans branded the whole investigation into President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine a sham. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent — carefully, if cinematically — detailed the emergence of a shadow foreign policy, one which had the capacity to determine the fate of an ally in the face of Russian aggression. We discuss what this phase of the impeachment inquiry could mean for the president — and for the 2020 election.Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, who covers national security and federal investigations for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Mr. Taylor said that, in a call with Gordon D. Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union, President Trump had made clear he cared “more about the investigations of Biden” than Ukraine’s security.Here are key moments from the first public impeachment hearing. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
The Latest: An Ideal Witness for the Democrats
On the first day of public hearings in the Trump impeachment inquiry, lawmakers questioned two diplomats, and laid out two competing narratives about the investigation. This is the first episode in our new series on the impeachment inquiry. For more information, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
A Third Grader’s Guide to the Impeachment Hearings
This morning, the House of Representatives begins public hearings in the impeachment inquiry against President Trump. Before those hearings get underway, we sat down with someone who’s unafraid to ask all the questions we’ve been too embarrassed to say out loud. Guests: Michael S. Schmidt, who covers national security and federal investigations for The New York Times, spoke with Bianca Giaever, a producer for “The Daily,” and Leo, a third grader, to answer his questions about the impeachment inquiry. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: In the first nationally televised hearings of the impeachment inquiry, Democrats will look to make the case that Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.These will be the first presidential impeachment hearings in more than two decades. Here’s how this inquiry is likely to be different than the last.Meet the public officials likely to be most prominent in the inquiry. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
A Small Act of Rebellion
Today, the Supreme Court begins hearing arguments about whether the Trump administration acted legally when it tried to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The Obama-era program known as DACA shields immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, known as Dreamers, from deportation.In this episode, we explore why the outcome of the case may turn on a small act of rebellion by one of President Trump’s former cabinet members. Guest: Julie Hirschfeld Davis, the congressional editor of The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Elaine C. Duke, a former Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, refused to echo the White House’s policy justifications for ending DACA. Her decision led to a Supreme Court case addressing presidential power over immigration.Meet two of the nearly 700,000 Dreamers whose families, homes and jobs may be affected by the justices’ ruling. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
Why Military Assistance for Ukraine Matters
The question of whether President Trump leveraged military assistance to Ukraine for personal gain is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. Today, we speak with our Ukraine correspondent on why that assistance was so important to Ukraine — and the United States — in the first place.Guest: Andrew E. Kramer, who covers Ukraine for The New York Times and is based in Moscow. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Petro O. Poroshenko, who was Ukraine’s president until May, knew his country’s independence hinged on American support. So he waged a campaign to win over President Trump.As vice president, Joe Biden tried to press Ukraine’s leaders to clean up corruption and reform the energy industry. The story of that effort has been overtaken by his son’s work for a Ukrainian gas company. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
The Saga of Gordon Sondland
Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, told impeachment investigators he knew “nothing” about a quid pro quo in Ukraine. Now Mr. Sondland, a blunt-spoken hotelier, has changed tack. In a new four-page sworn statement released by the House, he confirmed his role in communicating President Trump’s demand that Ukraine investigate the Bidens in exchange for military aid. Today, we discuss the road to Mr. Sondland’s sudden reversal, and what his new testimony means for the impeachment investigation.Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, a Washington correspondent for The Times who covers national security and federal investigations. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Mr. Sondland’s reversal offers a potentially critical piece of evidence to investigators trying to determine whether Mr. Trump abused his power.Late-night show hosts mocked Mr. Sondland, saying he had reversed his testimony after remembering “one important detail: that I don’t want to go to jail for perjury.” Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
‘Because of Sex’
In 2013, Aimee Stephens watched her boss read a carefully worded letter.“I have felt imprisoned in a body that does not match my mind. And this has caused me great despair and loneliness,” she had written. “With the support of my loving wife, I have decided to become the person that my mind already is.”Ms. Stephens was fired after coming out as transgender. Now, she is the lead plaintiff in a Supreme Court case that will determine the employment rights of gay and transgender workers across the nation. Guests: Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times, and Aimee Stephens, the lead plaintiff in the transgender discrimination case heard by the Supreme Court. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: The forthcoming Supreme Court ruling hangs on justices’ interpretation of wording in the Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination “because of sex.”The case came to the Supreme Court from a federal appeals court, which found in favor of Ms. Stephens last year. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
How Impeachment Consumed a Governor’s Race
Kentucky’s unpopular Republican governor, Matthew G. Bevin, was facing a losing battle. So he turned to President Trump, and a polarized political landscape, for help. Today, we look at why Tuesday’s race for governor in Kentucky is drawing outsized attention, what it may tell us about the politics of impeachment, and how a state race became a national test. Guest: Jonathan Martin, a national political correspondent for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Matthew G. Bevin, the incumbent governor in Kentucky, was deeply unpopular after blaming striking teachers for violence against children.Mr. Bevin pivoted away from his own agenda to make the race for governor a referendum on national politics.Andrew G. Beshear, Mr. Bevin’s Democratic challenger, has claimed victory, but Mr. Bevin has not conceded. Explore our map of the results: A few thousand votes separate the candidates after all precincts reported. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
Who’s Actually Electable in 2020?
The New York Times and Siena College conducted a major new poll, tackling the biggest questions about the 2020 presidential race: How likely is President Trump to be re-elected and which Democrat is best positioned to defeat him? The results reveal that the president remains highly competitive in the battleground states likeliest to decide his re-election, with Democratic candidates struggling to win back the support of white working-class voters who backed Mr. Trump in 2016. The poll also presents a snapshot of how the top Democratic candidates might fare in the general election — a critical question for Democratic voters hoping to take back the White House. Guest: Nate Cohn, a domestic correspondent for The Upshot at The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: The new poll suggests Senator Elizabeth Warren might struggle with some battleground swing voters, and found evidence that both gender bias and ideological doubts were hurting her.The top Democratic presidential candidates are locked in a close race in the Iowa caucuses, a key early test in the nomination race. But there, Ms. Warren currently has a slight edge. Here are five theories about what “electability” means in the 2020 race. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
The Democratic Showdown in Iowa
In just three months, the first election of the Democratic presidential race will be held in Iowa.Over the weekend, the party held its most important political event yet in the prelude to that vote — including a fabled annual dinner attended by almost every remaining candidate in the campaign. At this dinner in 2007, Barack Obama, then a senator, delivered a searing critique of Hillary Clinton’s electability, helping him pull ahead in the polls. Candidates this time around were hoping for a similar campaign-defining moment.We traveled to Des Moines to find out how the candidates are trying to stand out in a crowded field and to try to discern who might have the political support, financial might and organizational prowess to become the nominee.Guest: Reid J. Epstein, a campaigns and elections reporter for The Times based in Washington D.C. Clare Toeniskoetter and Monika Evstatieva, producers for “The Daily,” who traveled to Des Moines to speak with campaign supporters.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: With the Iowa caucuses fast approaching, the ideological debate has remained the same, but the key players have shifted, with Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Elizabeth Warren appearing to have gained momentum. The latest poll in Iowa suggested that Ms. Warren had seized much of Bernie Sanders’s youthful following. Here are five takeaways from the survey. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
A Vote on Impeachment
The House of Representatives voted to begin the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump — one which will be open to public scrutiny. Two Democrats in the House broke ranks and voted against the resolution, which outlined rules for the impeachment process. That was the only complication to an otherwise clean partisan split, with all House Republicans voting against the measure. The tally foreshadowed the battle to come as Democrats take their case against the president fully into public view. Today, we discuss what the next phase of the inquiry will look like. Guest: Julie Hirschfeld Davis, the congressional editor for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: House Democrats decided they now have enough confidence in the severity of the underlying facts about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine to open the inquiry to the public, despite the risk that doing so would further polarize the electorate. This is a timeline of the events that prompted the impeachment inquiry.Here’s how Democrats and Republicans voted on the impeachment rules resolution. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
What Boeing Knew
In testimony before a House committee on Wednesday, Dennis A. Muilenburg, Boeing’s chief executive, said, “If we knew everything back then that we know now, we would have made a different decision.” Congress is investigating two crashes of Boeing 737 Max jets which killed 346 people, cost the company billions of dollars and raised new questions about government oversight of aviation. So what did Boeing executives know about the dangers of the automated system implicated in the crashes — and when did they know it? Guest: Natalie Kitroeff, who covers the economy for The Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Boeing successfully lobbied to reduce government oversight of airplane design.Evidence presented to House investigators on Wednesday revealed that Boeing was aware of potentially “catastrophic” concerns about the 737 Max’s safety before the first crash. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.