Brian Chesky, Co-Founder & CEO of Airbnb

What if there were a more affordable way to pay for healthcare, built around Christian community instead of insurance company profits? There is. It's called healthcare sharing, and more than 1.7 million Americans have already chosen it as an alternative to traditional health insurance. We share health is a non-profit, Christian healthcare sharing organization. Individuals and families pay 40 to 60% less than for traditional insurance. And paying less doesn't mean sacrificing quality of care. Members get access to a nationwide PPO network of more than 1 million physicians plus unlimited telehealth. So if you're tired of paying too much for health insurance, maybe it's time to try a more affordable, faith-based approach built around Christian values and community. Visit WeShareHealth.org or call 1-888 WeShare. That's WeShareHealth.org or 1-888 WeShare. We get better healthcare when we share. This Monday.com ad was created by a team of people and AI agents. The agents wrote the copy and managed the timelines while our human creative director made sure it all made sense. Easy! Create your own AI agent today on Monday.com So we're all living in the new era of, I guess, super intelligence. Now how does that feel? How does that sit with you? It feels like it's promising more than artificial intelligence. I'll take that. I get the selling point. I'll always say that there was before I heard the name change and after. That's how I'm dividing my life now, you know, AI times and SI times. I feel like there's been a lot of talk about the sports illustrated branding transover that there's confusion about whether there will be a swimsuit issue at some point of SI. This was part of the consideration that goes in. It does seem like a real branding choice to be made. Are we going to see it reflected? Are they signing like a big accord with all the AI leaders? I think today is this going to be a super intelligence accord as opposed to an AI accord? Which will be awkward for XAI and open AI, I suspect. I've read that a number of the companies have already indicated they are going to start using the new nomenclature. They've got to get their IPOs approved. Yeah. As a public service, I'm going to suggest that maybe they don't do a swimsuit issue. I think what they need to do is a wedding issue and begin with the subtle tastes and nuance presentation that we all saw to lead Ahabah's recent wedding. And maybe that could be the first special issue of the new SI. I mean, these branding enterprises are kind of extraordinary. This one really stands out to me as like such a Trump product and it's kind of amazing. Well, I think it's actually a beautiful demonstration of democratic will because I don't know if you saw where this originated with Trump's posted polls, I think, on true social where he was sort of like crowdsourcing the new name. No, really. It's the American people, the American people who were on true social. Yeah, I was pulling up the other options. The options were superior intelligence, extreme intelligence, and supreme intelligence. I guess he went with none of them. They're all S, though, they all had to be an S, they committed to this SI thing. I'll confess when I saw that they were going to change AI to SI, my immediate thought was of the espionage role playing game that I think only two of us grew up with, which was called top secret SI and was pretty, pretty awesome. And the honest got truth is, I don't know what the SI stands in for that either and it never bothered me. I'm almost positive it was special intelligence or secret intelligence. But the game was perfect because it hit on every single cold war trope of the intelligence war between the West and the Soviet Union that you could think of. There were modules in East Berlin. There was an adventure set on the Orient Express. It was this great combination of a John LaCara CD atmosphere with the high jinks of James Bond film. And that's what we're going for now in the AI world, exactly that sort of blend of sex appeal and cutting edge technology. That's what the President is bringing to us. Hello everyone and welcome back to Rational Security, the show where we invite you to join members of the Law Fair team as we try to make sense of the week's big national security news stories, whether they are in our lanes or not. But I am thrilled to be back here as your host, Scott R. Anderson, with another panel of my wonderful Law Fair colleagues to break down some of the week's big news stories joining me this week is Law Fair managing editor Tyler McBride back from John's around the world around the country this time and back with us in the studio, Tyler, thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me. I'm actually back on another John. I'm in Atlanta for a couple days, but are you going to a Hawks game, Tyler? The question we're all asking, maybe you'll see Jack Smith there. Just be sure you clarify very carefully when you text us about it, which came and where and when you would just save a lot of people, a lot of embarrassment, a couple of years from now, okay? We're actually don't clarify. The entertainment value for society writ large will be so much greater if there is some degree of confusion on this. Yes, do it for the late nighthouse, if nothing else. And joining us as well as, of course, who you've already heard, it's Law Fair, senior editor and court reporter extraordinaire and a bower back on the podcast for the first time in a little while. And thank you for joining us as well from your beautiful brick laden abode. Great to have you back on the pod. Thanks. I'm glad to be here. Joining you from my brick laden, police will mansion. It is, it is so, but there's just so much brick there. You're like, that is like, that is like a true like Brooklyn experience, I love it. I think this is the angle where I've truly got it and it looks like you're in like, in alleyway or like an old row house in Gaines of New York, which I kind of love, just like strip brick with a skateboard on the wall. Yeah, it's, it was there when I, when I got here, the skateboard was, but yes, that is it. That is a skateboard. And it's not secretly a skate head rolling. This is how she gets back and forth to the office into the court room is on a skateboard. I'm going to take issue with the terminology, technically that is only the deck. It is not the entire skateboard. Oh, we got a real skater boy here. Exactly. Did you go to the band skate park? The number eight, B-O-I is how we're spelling that one right there. And that's Gator Boy is of course law fair public service fellow, a law fair senior editor, when I was saying former public service fellow now senior editor Mike Feinberg back on the podcast as well, Mike, thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. And letting your expertise in all things from high school, so far on this episode from skateboards to role playing games, we're happy to have you on board the lender, your expertise. Cause we have a couple of stories coming in this week, some of the legal domain, all kind of legal domain, this is law fair after all, mostly on the domestic side, all pretty interesting and novel and not at least a little bit entertaining, so let's get right into it. First topic for this week, third countries, the charm. On Tuesday, the spring court cleared the way for the third time for the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to third countries with which they have no connection, staying a lower court ruling that found the policy unlawful and agreeing to hear the case on the merits in December. The decision comes days after the administration quietly flew a group of Somali men, some with no criminal records who had been held in Guantanamo Bay for a month, after being told their plane was only stopping Cuba to refuel to Mogadishu on a flight that departed hours after an appeals court made clear the third country removal policy was blocked. It also comes as lower courts are increasingly finding the administration and contempt for violating their orders in deportation cases, and as the full DC circuit weighs whether Judge James Bozberg can continue his contempt inquiry into last year's Alien Enemy's Act flights. What does this pattern tell us about the administration's relationship with the courts and how far is willing to push its immigration agenda? Topic 2 Here comes the bribe. Last week, pro-publica revealed that by late 2024, FBI and I Corruption agents believed they had enough evidence to seek a sweeping bribery investigation, stemming from a defense contractors illegal donations to main Senators Suzanne Collins and other members of Congress, only for the probe to die when the Trump administration gutted the FBI and Justice Department units that handled public corruption cases. Collins denies any wrongdoing and has called the contractor a liar, but the story has become a central issue in her tight reelection race. It's also just the latest in a string of stories raising questions about public integrity in and around the Trump administration, from the Putin-linked Russian oligarch that secretly bankrolled Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding to the cashmatellon Todd Blanche-steaded wedding of former U.S. attorney Alina Haba to a Turkish businessman with close ties to the Erdogan government, where mixed martial arts manager Abdul Aziz Ali, a former FBI source and suspected double agent, at least as reported, was also in attendance. What do these stories tell us about what happens when no one is mining the store on public corruption and public integrity and how worried should we be about who is buying access to the president's inner circle? Topic 3 Manufactured Content President Trump escalated his war on the press this month banning CNN, MSNOW, and Politico from the White House and having the Secret Service seize their reporter's press passes over what he described as years of unfair coverage. If an old judge had since temporarily ordered their access restored, finding the ban likely violated their due process rights, but the White House isn't just restricting who gets to tell its story, it's also paying to tell its own, launching a series of taxpayer-funded TV ads that feature President Trump and closely track his campaign messaging, including one nearly identical to a 2024 campaign spot just weeks before the midterms. The White House insists that these are merely public service announcements, is the administration breaking long-standing norms in an effort to take control of the narrative and are there any legal limits that might stop it. So for our first story and I want to come to you first, we got a big spring court ruling coming down just in the last few days. Talk to us about this DVD case where we are, let's use that as an entree to talk about this topic. Yeah, so when you say we got a big ruling in the DVD case, Scott, I will just go ahead and mention that this big ruling is about one paragraph long because it came through on the shadow dog head. But it is indeed a significant, although not lengthy order from the Supreme Court. So the case background here is quite complicated and I'm gonna gloss over a lot of the details because we've talked about it in depth on some of our other law fair programming, including law fair live. So I suggest that people join us there this week if they wanna hear more detail from Roger Parloff who's been really covering this case in detail. But the DVD case is a case that was brought by a group of immigrants who fear removal to third countries under the policy that the Trump administration has implemented by which people have been removed to these third countries that they often have no connection to. In some instances, there's been reports of mistreatment or even abuse in some instances. There were reports of people being hooded and bound and beaten by police in one of the destinations to which they were removed, things like that. And as a part of this policy, there's often, as I mentioned, a little to no notice that's given, and so this litigation has been ongoing since the Trump administration started doing this back in 2025. And since then, again, I'm gonna gloss over some of the details here, but what you need to know is that it's twice before been up to the Supreme Court where there will be a lower court restriction on removing people to third countries with little or no notice, an opportunity to be heard and all those things, it'll go up to the Supreme Court and then the Supreme Court will allow third country removals to be restarted. And there's been different iterations of this on different claims that the plaintiffs in this case have raised. And yesterday, the Supreme Court gave us the latest cycle of that in which the case again went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court again has allowed third country removals to continue, at least for the next few months temporarily. But what's important here is that the court also granted cert in the case. So it seems that we are finally going to have the court weigh in on the merits because this has all been happening on the shadow docket. And so in this one paragraph, ruling cert is granted, there's going to be December of 2026 oral argument in the case, and interestingly, and also I think concerningly, there's a really weird line here in the court's order in which there's this direction. - And I have it up because I was also very curious that people made of this. I believe it was the fourth question. It was a bit of a meta question presented that. It says, number four, such other questions that the government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case. - Right, thank you Tyler, I appreciate that. Yes, so there's this kind of like weird direction that I have never seen before in which the government's kind of being given license to determine and talk about kind of whatever it wants. So I'd be curious if you guys have seen anything like that, but the bottom line here is just that at least for the next few months, third party removal, policy continues to be an effect. And this is all happening. I should also mention at the same time yesterday, we heard oral argument in the DC circuit, another case that has gone up several times on appeal, not yet all the way to the Supreme Court. Well, unless you count some of the underlying litigation, it's complicated, but this is Judge Bozberg's effort to do a contempt inquiry in relation to the Alien Enemies Act litigation in JGG. That was the one where people were on flights being sent to El Salvador. Judge Bozberg issued this oral order saying, turn those flights around, don't disembark people, and I'm going to enter a written order memorializing all of this, he then enters a written order saying, these people shall not be removed from the United States. But sure enough, people are removed from the United States, they are disembarked off of planes, they are sent to El Salvador to a notorious prison there. And Judge Bozberg initiated a contempt inquiry, which now was up on appeal about this question of, for a second time, on this question of, can he proceed with this inquiry and to what extent? So yesterday, we had a lot of immigration-related actions in the appeals courts. And I think that it's certainly an interesting time to be thinking about exactly what is happening in the courts in relation to immigration, and how the district courts, particularly, are handling the issue of the administration, not being so willing to listen to the district courts and having some compliance issues. - I'll confess, regardless of either side's merits, I find scotuses, invitations seemingly only to the government to enter any other questions presented, they may think relevant, really discomforting. I've never seen that sort of direction in a court order to a single party. And while it doesn't obviate the cases in controversies, requirement for supreme court jurisdiction, normally to have a controversy, you have to have a clearly defined issue on which two parties agree upon that there is a dispute, allowing one party to just name issues without the input of the other, really seems to be tilting the playing field in at least some sense and giving an advantage to that party to sort of bring in anything they may help their position while denying the same opportunity, their opponents. It's just something that strikes me as fundamentally odd, and I can't really understand what an objective sort of neutral principles base justification for it would be. - Yeah, I mean, it is definitely an odd part of this case. To me, maybe this is my cynical skeptical side of this, it seems to be saying, hey, government, tell us what questions issues you need resolved to kind of clear the way for this, right? - But that's, isn't that giving the government an advantage under the normal way the case is? - Yeah, under the normal way that cases reach the supreme court, the government would try X, if somebody was in opposition, they would file suit as this happened here, the court would rule on issue X, and then the government would retry if there is a judgment adverse to them by doing action Y instead. What seems to be happening here is the court saying, we realize X is the only thing currently in play, but we're gonna give you the chance to raise A through E as well. And I realize I made that much more alphabetically confusing than I needed to, but it just seems like they're letting one party to the litigation set the terms of the debate in a way that is inherently disadvantageous to the other party. - Yeah, it seems like they're giving them a blank check in a sense, and you might make the argument on the other side that there's some kind of like judicial efficiency to taking this kind of approach when you have a case that has been up this now the third time, but I agree with you, Mike, that it feels, and there's something about it that is just strikes me as quite odd in the context of an adversarial litigation system. - I don't know if this was like this factored into the justice's reasoning at all, probably not, but especially when the party given the seeming advantage when you take into consideration its conduct. I mean, just last week, the class council had to file an emergency motion because they learned, according to the filing that they heard from multiple sources that there was a plane schedule the next day to leave and to deport clients to Central African Republic, to Burundi. I can't remember the third one. Countries that are Central African Republic, for example, has the highest State Department travel advisory. And so I don't know, I assume not, but it does seem odd that especially in light of this party's particular conduct. - Yeah, I mean, what I suspect we're going to see here is we're going to see the respondents in this case go to the court and say, hey, we need to advance notice of what these additional topics are. So we're going to need some sort of notice from the government saying here's a topic for oral argument because otherwise we don't get it to the principal brief, particularly because in theory, it's not clear, but it might include issues not briefed before the lower courts, right? Most of the time you treat arguments about that waived, but this is a weird approach to this sort of issue. And it does kind of fit, look, there's a judicial efficiency argument about this. And it kind of lines up with things before particularly Justice Kavanaugh talk about. Look, when these issues come to us, we should just-- decide them and resolve them. And if we do it similarly, that's fine. Like we shouldn't be so tiptoeing around establishing these binding press and we're the Supreme Court and everybody benefits we provide clarity. That's true to some extent. I mean, there's an argument there. The flip side of this is like these issues haven't been fully developed or argued yet. And that's always the big question here. And you benefit. I mean, the general prevailing conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court benefits from the analysis of lower courts that's been a lot more time with the facts and the cases and the individual cases and wrestle with these things, even if they don't ultimately agree with them. So I have to say what I think we have to wait a little bit to exactly what this amounts to. I suspect there's going to be pushed back from the respondents and we will get some clarity before the actual oral arguments and briefing. But who knows? It may just not know until then at that point. I want to think a little bit and pull back a little bit and jump into that second case you mentioned, Anna, about going back to Judge Bozberg because we have this big issue. We had this hearing for the DC Circuit about how this fits in. And this is obviously a concern here because we have this government that has been very intent on obviously an immigration agenda pushing it aggressively. We have now not just the case that Judge Bozberg's with looking at, but a number of other cases where you've seen judges, including some Trump appointed judges, holding or threatening to hold Justice Department or government officials in contempt, usually DHS, I should say, for violating different types of court orders. The same sort of possibility. And it's a percolating kind of problem throughout. And I become a curious what your sense was from that hearing about their amenability to that sort of solution. Given that we've gotten a little skepticism from the Supreme Court already, at least in terms of moving too quickly towards that sort of resolution. And from the DC Circuit, a panel, I should say. And we have a sense how the Hong Kong court might be able to thread the needle here a little bit. Yeah, so it was a it was a long hearing yesterday before the on-bong panel of the DC Circuit. And, you know, Scott, I got this sense that because remember, and again, this is another one where even explaining the background kind of takes a long time. So I'm going to gloss over some of the details. But the background here is basically that Judge Bozberg wants to do this contempt inquiry or continue this inquiry. There are there were supposed to be, you know, witnesses to testify the government at this point has already identified that Judge Bozberg's request to the they say was the relevant decision maker in deciding to send those plans on and and disembark people and send them over continue to send them to El Salvador, even in light of, you know, the oral order at the hearing and then also Judge Bozberg's later written order. And the the government says, you know, is Christy Nome, who conveniently for the government is is no longer working in the government. And so she's been kind of what has been seen by some as the sacrificial lamb in the in the government's case here related to the contempt inquiry. But as you mentioned, you know, now this question is kind of like, what can Judge Bozberg do? And it seems that he he might be interested in identifying other potential contaminors. He he wants to do a kind of limited inquiry in in in the sense of, you know, hearing from people. And so these are the kinds of issues that the on Boncourt was hearing yesterday. And there's again, all of these like little legal questions that we could get into in the weeds that that came up. But my sense overall is that the on Boncourt is is going to allow Judge Bozberg to proceed in some way with this inquiry. I think that it seems to me that the court is at least the majority of the court seems well aware of of just how kind of restrictive the government's argument would would make the district courts and in policing compliance. Because you know, the government's position here is that really once once the government has given a name, there's nothing more that the district court can do other than refer for prosecution. And of course, the the people that you're referring to would be the executive branch itself. And and I think that, you know, it seemed to me based on some of the questions that the appeals court here is is very aware of how important this is that district courts be able to kind of enforce their own orders in in some sense. You know, you do however have at least three members of the court, Judge Katzis, Judge Rao and Judge Walker who who seem more, you know, skeptical. But even then, then I think would not go so far as to really be as to be willing to go so far as the government wants them to. I think that there's there's various discrete arguments that they might be able to hang their hat on related to, for example, this idea that Judge Bozberg written order superseded his previous oral order. And that that written order was ambiguous. You know, there's different ideas that some of those judges have about what exactly it meant to be prohibited from removing people from the United States. Does it mean removing from the custody of the United States or removing from the territorial boundary. And that matters because because of where geographically the planes were located at the time the order was issued. So there's all these kind of like complicated questions. And I think that it may very well be that where it comes out for those judges, some of whom are probably a little bit closer to what the Supreme Court would do. Judges like I think Judge Katzis is a good metric for kind of where the center of the Supreme Court would be. And I think that it may well be that a judge like Judge Katzis here would kind of be in the minority, but might have more of an argument that someone like Chief Justice Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, when the case does, and I think maybe it will go to the Supreme Court are kind of more inclined to agree with that view. So we'll see what happens, but I think for now the on-bought court is likely to allow Judge Bozberg to proceed with this inquiry in some fashion. Did anybody else listen to the argument or no? I've read some readouts of it. I think that's basically right from what I can tell. I mean, not listen to it and we'll wait and see like there seem to be a critical mass of some sort of inquiry to move forward, but that's like a lot of shades of gray. You could see a court landing on because you could allow it inquiry to move forward, but reserve the question about an actual finding of content or what actually the standard is for referral. And those are other things that you could seek review on once you actually have the evidentiary record fully developed. It's like the easiest ask is the ability to build the evidentiary record further, I think, harder when you get further along. And I think too that like even if this goes back to Bozberg and you know, it seems clear to me that the government is so intent on not letting this go for move forward that there's going to be some other kind of wrench that they'll find to throw into, you know, whether it's attorney client privilege, you know, executive privileges or, you know, invoking various things to stop people from testifying or to stop Bozberg from proceeding in some way. I just feel that I have no doubt that this, this may very well not be our last time up on, on appeal in this case. Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, like I can, I think you can see this tension between like the Supreme Court release some of the justice and this might be an explanation for that DVD question are like a little skeptical of lower courts policing the administration seeing as too weighted. We've seen Justice Kavanaugh say this almost expressly, right? And criticizing how some lower courts have applied some of their shadow docket or expedited docket rulings. And then you have lower courts are obviously they're very concerned about the judicial enforcement and you have to wonder what does the optics of these repeated challenges, the administration that are getting increasingly high profile and again, have Trump appointed judges involved in various points. What does that optic do and how sensitive are maybe Chief Justice Roberts who's been vocal in certain other contexts about the importance of having compliance with judicial orders or Amy Coney Barrett who has shown herself to willing to be a little more independent swingy are on this. You know, you have to wonder that that I think the underlying logic of some of these things for the courts is usually we're putting pressure on the administration by entertaining the possibility of doing this. But when you have a administration quite consciously engaging in brinksmanship saying we're going to push the limit until we get a hard institutional pushback, those strategies begin to get a lot dice here. And the real question is when are you might have Chief Justice Roberts or Barrett begin to willing to embrace something they might otherwise have been more comfortable with but in the face of pushback they're more willing to do. But Scott, I think that the court has sort of not dug its own grave but put itself in this position. There's a very easy way for them to ensure that lower courts do not misapply rulings from the shadow docket. And that is to provide some explanation of their reasoning. If you're not going to do that, there are hundreds of lower courts that are going to be fumbling to figure out how the result and rule was reached. And just by the sheer law of numbers, there's going to be massive disagreement about how to do that. So if justices like Kavanaugh are upset about shadowdocket rulings being misapplied, that is a problem that is entirely within their own control to solve. Well, but also I think in many instances, the compliance issues don't even relate to this idea that there's a lack of clarity around what this Supreme Court is saying in its shadowdocket rulings. These are things that are happening at the district court level on a very kind of like a judge will enter a routine order related to something the government has to do related to immigration. And the government will not comply with it or there's some type of, you know, it seems to me that there's there are things that are happening that where, you know, the district court, that things are happening at first instance in the district court. And there are compliance issues. It's not always that there's some kind of, you know, ambiguity about what is going on in the in the with the status of how to apply the law because of a shadowdocket ruling. Totally. Totally. I think it's more why I was trying to get it is the idea that if the Supreme Court justice is some of them are skeptical of lower courts, how inclined are they going to be to empower them more specifically. I think that's the tension for them. Right. And I think to that point, I'm going to throw out my wildest take, which is that we need to bring back circuit writing, but at the district court level, give everyone a little taste of it and see what it's like. I guarantee you when John Roberts has to deal with people sending plans onto El Salvador, he will suddenly find it to be much more concerning than he does when he looks at it on appeal. Because you and I say that jokingly, but but I also mean it in some sense seriously, because, you know, I am not primarily a Supreme Court reporter, like I am like a district court, you know, court rat, like I'm in the trial courts, listening to things happening at first instance. And I was I remember listening to the litigation live in JGG when this was happening. And it was the most shocking, you know, it's it's still shocking to me even now, Scott, that that the government is being so bold as to even make the argument that Judge Roseburg was in any way unclear, like anyone who listened to that hearing knew exactly what Bozburg wanted the government to do. It's a total fiction to say otherwise. And the lawyers who were involved in suggesting otherwise, I mean, I, you know, I, you do got to wonder if they're getting a whole lot of sleep at night a folks been with us here. I have made a lot of upgrades for my health in recent years, new tracking texts, fitness equipment and classes, martial arts, you name it. Some of them have been good. Some of them have been pretty forgettable, but I got to tell you I am really excited about my new Lisa mattress, which is on the way after being made specially for me. I'm going to wake up well rested, comfortable and ready for the day. And why am I confident of that? Let me tell you, Lisa has this lineup of beautifully crafted mattresses tailored to how you sleep. Each mattress is designed with specific sleep positions and feel preferences in mind from night one. You'll feel the difference premium materials that deliver serious comfort and full body support no matter how you sleep. So I took the Lisa sleep quiz and I found my perfect match in less than two minutes. Lisa mattresses are meticulously designed and assembled in the United States for exceptional quality. And they back it all up with free shipping easy returns and a 120 night sleep trial. And that's the key. That's why I'm confident. If it doesn't deliver on my promises, I'll just send it back. Lisa has been awarded best hybrid and best memory foam mattresses by the New York Times's wire cutter and is featured by West Elm as their go to mattress partner plus Lisa is committed to eco friendly materials and sustainable manufacturing practices. And it partners with organizations like clean hub to help remove harmful plastic waste from the environment. So go to Lisa.com for the extended Labor Day sale plus get an extra $50 off with the promo code law fair exclusive for our listeners. That's L E E S a dot com promo code law fair for the extended Labor Day sale plus an extra $50 off support our show and let them know we sent you in the survey after checkout Lisa dot com promo code law fair. Hey folks, Ben with us here and I want to tell you that when I started law fair, I did not know that I was building a platform that lots and lots of people would use. I thought I was just creating a blog for myself. And like every business owner, I hit a point where I suddenly needed more expertise than I could handle alone. But we didn't have money. We were organized yet as a nonprofit. And so how do you find the people with the skills to do what you need to do on whatever basis you need? And back when I started law fair, there was no up work. But there is now a solution to that problem. And I want to tell you about it. Upwork is where growing businesses can find highly skilled freelance specialists. It's not just for one off tasks, but to build an entire team and to do it at a fraction of the cost and without the commitments of permanent head count. It gives your business fast access to highly skilled specialists with deep expertise. So you can fill critical skills gaps, launch projects faster and scale support up or down without committing to your full time head count upwork is where businesses find highly skilled freelance professionals for specialized work. You can browse profiles, review, pass work and get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence with the business plus plan. You can access the top 1% of talents on upwork. AI powered short listing delivers a curated short list of top freelancers match to your goals all in under six hours. There's no endless searching required. Upwork cuts down on operational hassle by handling things like contracts and payments in one place, but you can spend more time running your business. That's what I needed. And if I were starting law fair today, it would be there what I need right where I need it. So visit upwork.com right now and get your job posted for free. That is upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's UPWORK.com upwork.com. This is the story of the one as a shipping manager. He's running the dock stocking supplies and making sure every order goes out on time and Granger helps him stay prepared from shipping supplies to PPE to hand tools. He counts on Granger to keep products moving and trucks rolling. So his operation runs smoothly. No matter the shift call 1-800-GRanger. Click Granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done. What if there were a more affordable way to pay for health care built around Christian community instead of insurance company profits? There is. It's called health care sharing and more than 1.7 million Americans have already chosen as an alternative to traditional health insurance. We share health is a nonprofit Christian health care sharing organization. Individuals and families pay 40-60% less than for traditional insurance and paying less doesn't mean sacrificing quality of care. Visit WeShareHealth.org or call 1-888-WeShare. That's WeShareHealth.org or 1-888-WeShare. We get better health care when we share. Reese, our content agent, wrote the copy based on our best practices like mentioning Monday.com three times. That was the second. Johnny, our Coordination agent, built the timeline and and kept everyone aligned. Olivia, our human creative director, stayed in the loop because agents are great, but they don't always know when a joke lands. She had one note, tell listeners it only takes minutes to build an agent. So, minutes, create your own AI agent today on Monday.com. - Well, we will have opportunity to revisit this topic. I have no doubt in the weeks to come, but let us move on to our second topic. Mike, I want to turn to you on this report coming from ProPublica. Actually, a couple of reports from ProPublica doing exceptional work these days. Talking about, let's talk first about the real more substantive story. This report that a active corruption investigation, public integrity investigation into, among other members of Congress and other issues, Susan Collins relating to payments from this defense counter. I believe a Hawaii based defense contractor was essentially squashed indirectly, or deliberately, or perhaps indirectly, by the staff cuts, reprioritization, other things that would happen at the FBI and other places. Obviously, you are a bit of the FBI. I don't know what you worked in public integrity cases, but certainly cases adjacent to those, if not those, talk to us a little bit about what surprises you, what doesn't surprise you about this story, and what it tells us about the broader state of law enforcement in this whole area of law. - So, I want to be careful. I want to choose my words with a bit more deliberiveness than usual, simply because there's a lot about this story that we don't know. And within the FBI, there is no subject matter, save for espionage cases, which are held as closely as public corruption cases. By design, these are investigations that, the majority of the FBI doesn't know about outside of the people directly involved in them. And the simple reason for both espionage and public corruption is that you are invariably looking at public servants. And if you are wrong in your assumptions, and if you exonerate the person of what they're accused, you're dealing with a selfless patriot. You're dealing with somebody who does not deserve to have their name dragged through the mud. So, I'm not gonna make any pronouncements about whether the investigation into Susan Collins was justified or what they might have found. It's just not my place, and I don't have the knowledge. What I am gonna say, though, is that the changes that have occurred at the Department of Justice and at the FBI have functionally made running these sorts of cases all but impossible. The units whose very existence is to help move these sort of cases forward. Just don't exist anymore. The public integrity section always abbreviated as pin at DOJ, as far as I know, if not officially, been completely disbanded. Almost everybody who worked there has been moved to other positions or outright fired. Most of this happened in the wake of Emil Boves purported demand to drop the charges against Eric Adams. But the writing was on the wall. I mean, Jack Smith had drawn heavily from that section and as a result, there was already a bullseye on it, the unwillingness to play ball with Eric Adams to benefit the administration was just sort of the final nail in the coffin. Meanwhile, at the FBI, the very squad that was running this Susan Collins investigation just straight up doesn't exist anymore. This was the same squad that was running the Arctic Frost investigation into Trump's attempts to overthrow the election. And in a fit of peak, sort of carthaginian piece move Cash Patel just straight up disbanded the squad. As far as I know, at least for a significant period of time and probably even now, the Washington field office just doesn't have a federal public corruption squad, which if you consider that it sits in the nation's capital is utterly insane. So these cases have been deprioritized in general. The fact that this one involved a Republican senator whose presence is very much needed to maintain a majority for the Republicans doesn't pass the smell test. So, you know, I hate to say it, but if you're outraged with this sort of case getting dropped, just get used to it because the people who would run this case or others like it aren't there anymore. - All right, forgotten also about another case that was dropped. If I'm not mistaken, it was also the public integrity section that reportedly caught Tom Homan with accepting a bag of cash, which just doesn't get more cartoonishly corrupt, essentially, than that. And I remember the shock and outrage at the time and this is just another extension of over-tin window pushing or just desensitization, whatever it is, because I saw this. The story was a bombshell, the Susan Collins story, but I did feel at less of a sting than, you know, each case being dropped with Homan, Adams, now Collins. There is a desensitization that happens, I think, naturally. - What's particularly enraging about the Homan case is that it's a ledge that they have the actual act of bribery on video or audio. I've heard conflicting reports. Not a single person from the FBI or the Department of Justice or even Tom Homan himself has denied those reports. They have made melee mouth statements like nothing illegal occurred, we do not think a crime was committed, but nobody has denied the actual transfer of cash. That would have been a real simple way to lay a lot of doubt to rest and the fact that they haven't speaks volumes. - It is really like an extraordinary and under-appreciated club, precisely because of the reason that these things are kept so close held. As only when we see these reports come out about some of these cases that are, you know, we'll inevitably, slowly, like out, that people can realize the consequences of this. But I think maybe we're beginning to see some of the positive, or not the positive, the implications of this that exist outside from just dropped cases. I mean, we do have this case of the Donald Trump wedding, Donald Trump Jr. wedding, which is, you know, I don't want to jump on it. In Pumbaa, it is getting disproportionate tension because of the optics around it, 'cause it is an extravagant, you know, private, tropical island wedding. But the idea that you have, you know, a foreign national tide to a fairly hostile foreign regime completely underwriting a, you know, millions of dollars for a private event for the president's son and his kids, it's extraordinary. Now would that be something in this public interest, integrity investigation? I don't think it would. He's not a public official. Maybe there could be some nexus, particularly if the president were involved. Maybe that's why the president chose not to attend the wedding. Maybe that was actually a moment of good judgment on the president's part. But the willingness, the brazenness to do things like that. And to be pretty, frankly, unapologetic about it just strikes me as a consequence of this. And I, you know, off-base Mike, I mean, do you have a sense that we're seeing more and more people willing to push the envelope more because they understand these cases, the capacity under the will to really bring these cases is there. I guess particularly if you're maybe an ally of the president. So I'm going to push back against one of your main assumptions in that. And that is that you said this is maybe getting even too much attention given that he's a private citizen. And I'm going to argue it's not getting enough attention. And it is because this sort of scenario is precisely the part of the Venn diagram where public corruption and counterintelligence concerns overlap in a way that is acutely dangerous for our country. There is some sense in which Don Jr. is a public citizen. But, you know, if we're casting off legal definitions and actually dealing with reality, he's also the president's son. And he is also a figure who has used that relationship to enrich himself through the world of defense contracting, which means he has ties to the White House, he has ties to the Pentagon and some of the guests at the wedding, such as Jared Kushner, were people who despite not being government employees are entrusted to do some of our most sensitive diplomacy in global conflicts. And what we had here was not just an individual from an adversarial country paying for the wedding or paying for the wedding's multi-day after party, I believe. But it was done. The individual came from the country against which there have not only been repeated allegations, but actual guilty pleas from campaign staffers in, during the Mueller inquiry, because of untoward contacts between that country and individuals in Trump's orbit. So this isn't just run-of-the-mill somebody accepting a gift. What this is is a member of the president's family and somebody with over $600 million in defense contracts with the U.S. military accepting a gift from somebody who is inextricably intertwined with a nation-state great power rival with whom were engaged in a proxy war in Ukraine. There is nothing appropriate about this whatsoever. And in any sane world, this would be resulting in congressional hearings and potential investigations. I just Tyler mentioned the Overton window earlier. This is insane to me that both parties don't have their hair on fire over a Russian government affiliated oligarch paying for parties for the president's son when that very son is involved in defense contracting. Trump, I believe, told reporters that he is going to tell his son to pay the money back, which maybe will make Mike fully jump out of the overton window, but because paying the money back is an implicit admission that taking it in the first place was inappropriate. I personally just really upset that this scandal happened with one of the Trump children's weddings and not the Alina Haba wedding, which is the wedding I really want to talk about, because there were so many flowers there. There were counterintelligence concerns that Alina Haba's wedding as well. There were a number of individuals who were captured in a photograph with Alina Haba. And one of those individuals, the FBI actually recommended be deported because while allegedly an FBI source, he was actually working for a foreign country. Somebody else said this on, I forget whether it was extra blue sky, but it's the best way I could describe it. Maga gatherings are fundamentally the Moz-Isli Cantina equivalent of counterintelligence concerns. You can't get these people together without there being something suspect from a counterintelligence perspective. Wow. Mike, I cannot believe that you managed to, that there actually is a law fair angle to Alina Haba's wedding. That's fantastic. I'm more to come, honestly. We haven't gotten a look through all the photos yet. I can speak from experience. Those wedding photos, you get a couple up front, pretty quick, the rest don't come for weeks. So give it a couple more weeks and we'll see what's in the rest of those photos. Well, trust me, I will see them because I have been really going through all the Instagram reels of her wedding because the flowers alone must have cost over a million dollars. I've never seen so many flowers at a wedding, but that doesn't raise counterintelligence. Let's give credit to the Magus fear for one thing. They really are inhabiting the American tradition of downplaying one's own wealth, almost like the Hariman family or Andrew Carnegie giving all this money to charity. These are people who do not want to be ostentatious in their presentation of good fortune, and very much follow and no bless oblige philosophy. So let's not be too hard on the flowers. They're allowed and excess every now and then. There was also a Nellie performance for the elder millennials out there. Hey, there you go. Thank you for bringing us into the folder. I appreciate it. I just want to know if Nellie's still worth a bandaid. That's my main question. Wasn't he the bandaid guy on the cheek? I'm pretty sure he was. Yeah, I think he was and I feel like I could answer this by looking at the Alina Habba's wedding videos. God, so I will get an answer on it here. I hope so. Presumably. I think he did. I saw a video of it. I love it. Oh my gosh. Okay, this I need to check. I've not checked out the video recordings of the wedding. Well, we will have to leave wedding planning and ogling aside. We still want more topic and a little bit of time. I want to spend on it. Let us go to our third topic, kind of two topics for bringing together, but they have a common theme because we've kind of seen two just weird things happen in the last week and change coming out of the White House. On the one hand, you saw the White House get in a pretty epic spat with some pretty major media outlets kicking them out of the White House, taking away their passes, triggering a pretty robust response from the whole White House media apparatus, including Fox News and a couple other mainstream, but you know, right wing outlets generally pretty friendly to the president, a unified response or not for the first time, even during this administration or either Trump administration. And that where the administration under a judicial order has back down for the moment, although we'll see where that goes exactly. On the flip side, we've seen the president while he's trying to control who gets to tell his story and his narrative internally from in terms of managing the press who accused of poor press coverage. He's kind of taking the reins in his own hand with taxpayer money because anybody who's been on the right channels, look at the White House, look at the social media. I've seen these ads roll out that look like not even subtle campaign ads for President Trump. It's mostly just pictures of his face walking through crowds of people cheering or out of Air Force One. One of them has a campaign speech going on in the background, but they're being fun. And they all say at the end, funded by the US government, which is pretty extraordinary. Tyler talked to us about these things we're seeing. What is your reaction? Where does it strike you? Is it shocking? Is it something where it like been a little numbed to at this point? And what it both explains, why the administration is doing these things? And what do you think the consequences are? I mean, on the one hand, it's classic Trump. This is his sort of, I think, comfort area in this battle position against the press, which with, you know, it's both always, I think, worked in a sense for him in terms of distraction and firing up his base. And it also wasn't was some of his earliest victories and sort of, you know, big, big catchphrases like fake news. And his war on the press is kind of this, this thing that he's always been able to return to. Sometimes get tough for him. But, but it's it's interesting. I think one other point I wanted to add to the this, these White House funded ads campaign ads is the White House is saying that, you know, these can't be campaign ads because he's Trump is not on the ballot, which is a bit difficult to hear when at every other, every time there's a crowd in front of him over the past couple of months, essentially, Trump has begged people to pretend like he's on the ballot, almost, almost verbatim. So those, those defenses don't, don't ring as true. But it's, it's part of, I think, just an overall very strange, sometimes uncanny media strategy coming out of the White House. If anyone has looked at the Department of Homeland Security's social media feeds over the past year and a half, this is very strange, like, messages of existential struggle over Western civilization, very overtly Christian themes and messaging from official, official accounts. So it's, I think, completely unsurprising. It is, I, I guess, a bit of an escalation, but it's one of the few, I think, through lines of Trumpism is this posture toward the press. Yeah, but I don't know. I'm curious what others make of it and what it, there is to say sort of new about Trump's disposition toward, toward the mainstream media. I will say, though, it is, you know, it is a bit of a toxic relationship in the sense that he has a, can't live with him, can't live without him, kind of, idea toward the press because he courts these same outlets that he's tossing out of the White House. There's this, I guess, sort of open secret that just about every reporter in DC has his phone number and he will answer the call. So he loves the press. He hates the press. He needs them. He doesn't need them. He can go direct to the people with Trump TV. It's, it all gets a bit muddled if you think about it too hard. Yeah, it is really just a fascinating thing to watch. And what, what was your kind of reaction? I mean, like, to some extent, I'm kind of curious how you think people, uh, and the response is likely to be to present Trump taking these steps. My sense is that the media fights, I doubt many voters feel that strongly about, uh, ironically, like, but I think the media coercive, like collectively carries race strongly. And we have the strong, strong pushback. But the ads strike me as a very different thing where you might see a lot more public reaction to in part because they're like taxpayer funded, like they say right on there. You're paying for this, which I feel like kids do you do you think so sensitive way? I really think so. Yeah. Okay. So it's, and it's because you, it's because of the tax, you know, your taxes are paying for this. But isn't that true of, of, I mean, I guess it's just more blatant, right? That, you know, because it says you, you have that like little line at the bottom, right? Paid for by the US government. I mean, in some ways, this isn't that different from Trump, like hanging his face from every federal building in Washington, DC, which for listeners who have not been here, literally that's what it's been for the last year and a half. Maybe it's like tamped down slightly. I think some of the banners have tattered or gotten dirty and they haven't replaced them. But it's fundamentally different. It's being beamed into your house and kind of rubbed in your face. I, I just think that I, I trust people in different ways. I'm going to, I'm going to play the law fair in house HL mangan missing throat. I think you are giving the public much, much too much credit for both whether people are paying attention to this. If they're paying attention, to it whether they're fully comprehending the chain of events that led to the ad and having comprehended that, whether they care. I think, unfortunately, and I realize we're getting to just sort of general political territory here, but the public has shown that when it comes to the rule of law issues, they're sort of willing to look the other way until it hits them in the pocket book. And I think the relatively muted response to this ad outside of the beltway reflects that. Yeah, I think the vast majority of people don't even know about this. That's my take. I was going to say I'm trying to imagine the profile of the the MAGA voter who says, you know what, I'm drawing the line here. He's commercially this is the bridge too far. But I mean, but like, I think another point here is that every speech that Trump gives no matter the venue, no matter the, if it's a funeral for a service member, if it's at the UN, it is a campaign speech. In essence, every speech that he gives is a Trump rally is a campaign speech. And so, yeah, I just see this as a continuation of that. I mean, I will say I think as much as we may underestimate the attention level people the outside, I also think things we may overestimate the disproportionate attention and caring level of people on the inside of the bubble. Like, you know, this, this has triggered a different response, right? And now part of that is because of the different political moment. But you've seen John Thune come out and say, I like the ads, but taxpayer money shouldn't be used to pay for these. And we've seen numerous Republican legislators have to come out and make public statements about that. I think it's kind of telling. I also think it's like an indicator of where the administration is with its congressional allies and the broader Republican apparatus, because God knows, I don't think any of them want this ad right now. I mean, they don't even want Trump appearing at events for them because he's wildly unpopular. And a big contributor that reason why he's become wildly unpopular, the most unpopular he's ever been, most unpopular, really, I think almost any president has been at the stage, like he's more unpopular now than George W. Bush was in 2006, right, which was a, a, a leader at the time is because a big sense that his personal interest affect his government decision making. You have, I think it was 69% of Americans in a Reuters poll, 90% of Democrats, two thirds of independent voters. And like, you know, Republicans don't agree with that. And as I know, I think something like close to 50% of them do. But like those are the voters that if you're a member of Republican member of Congress in a remotely competitive district, and they are still out there despite best efforts, like those people got to win over. So I think this is like an example of what happens when you fill your media room with true believing internet trolls, right? Like, you end up with a weird media strategy that's not clear. It's doing what you think you're doing. There's a sort of part of the internet that's loud and that loves it. But it's the part of the internet that's going to probably vote for you anyway. So like, how does this actually expand or do anything with this? And I think the real secret is, I think you're probably right, they're not actually running these ads that far, that broadly as far as I can tell. But like, that's just an indicator that what's the point of them anyway for not actually able to use them. It's very expensive, like, you know, scrap a meat that throw to your base. I'll also say, I mean, the one piece of reporting that we, I don't believe we mentioned yet, going back to the initial topic of throwing MSNOW, CNN, and political out of the White House, was that it was reported that it was possibly Natalie Harp's idea, or at least it was fueled by Natalie Harp showing the president's unfavorable coverage from these outlets. So it's also, I mean, that just also adds to this idea of personal interest in interfering when it's the, you know, the classic last person in front of him has the most influence idea. But that also, it's not even sometimes the media people that he's surrounded with. It's kind of anyone given his, his, like, directness. Maybe the printer lady is just committed to print media. New York Times wasn't on that list, wasn't supposed to, wasn't on that list. Maybe that's the deal. Now these new formed internet people, give me a break, guys. Well, we are out of time for today. We will have time to come back to this on many of these topics in the weeks to come. But this would not be rational. It's great if we did not leave you with some object lessons to ponder over in the week to come. Mike, what did you bring for us this week? So all the talk about super intelligence and my personal concerns about AI developing more quickly than we can process what it means for human input in the arts and literature and sort of soft field, as opposed to mathematics and physics and medicine biology reminded me of two books by the author Benjamin Lovatoot that I read some time ago and loved and was inspired to pick up again recently. The first book entitled When We Seize to Understand the World is a series of stories based up on the life, lives of various pioneers in quantum mechanics who did not fully understand the ramifications of what they would be doing. And the second book, a novel called The Maniac, is about John Von Neumann, one of the most interesting polymath strategists of the Cold War, who played a major role in the development of modern computing as well as other fields. And both serve as cautionary tales about letting your knowledge get ahead of your wisdom. Michael, I'll just say briefly for listeners out there, when we ceased to understand the world, not a B-tread. I read it to the B-tread, and I'm like page five when we were talking about cyclone B, I was like, maybe I should have grabbed a Sally Rooney book or something else. But it's a great book. There you go, there you go. What did you bring with you on your vacation? Or what do you have as an object lesson for this week? Well, yeah, I saw I was ever on this call nose, but I recently hiked the West Coast trail, and it was my first real backpacking trip in a while, and I hadn't realized just how far camping and hiking gear has evolved and technologically advanced since I haven't paid attention. So this set me down a very long, potentially financially ruinous rabbit hole of just getting so into this new gear, ultra-like gear. And now there's these hardcore collaborations between like fashion houses and the North Face. So I've been spending a lot of time on, I want to get this right, it's a new-ish magazine called FieldMag. They write a lot about these collaborations and the design side of it, and they test out all the gear. It's just a really great read, and again, probably one that will lead to my financial ruin, but ultimate happiness. I love it. It's a real head start in like, you know, becoming middle-aged dad that you're getting on there, Tyler, because this is it. It's just like, what new sort of gadgets can you get obsessed with and start buying during your only free hour between like 11 and 11.30 p.m. Just Amazon order that stuff. It's a great, you know, psychological little assuagement. I'm taking my son on his first camping trip this weekend, but I realize like, while I have invested in like a selection of like ultra-like gear, which I have barely used, any of it, for certainly for camping, I'm just interested in it. I realize it's not really great for a five-year-old who want to commit to camping is fun. You want kind of like the giant cushy tents for that. So now I'm about to invest in the opposite end of the spectrum, the maximalist camping gear. And so yeah, it is a, it's a fun, it's a fun little thing to dip and do if sometimes a little hard on the pocket book. Well, for my object lesson this week, I went back recently to one of my favorite things to read that is, I think I mentioned a couple of times I was like some before. That is McSweeney's internet tendency. I think the funniest thing on the internet, I love it, because it was of course fall. So, of course, was going to, for my annual reading of the It's Decorative Guardsies and Motherfucker essay, which is a phenomenal classic, which I've mentioned, I think, pretty sure as an object lesson in the past. But I found it McSweeney's internet tendency article that I so often do, because I think the writers are mostly about my age, and my generation, and my demo, that hits everything about me in a way that is very, I practically this time of year, that was really hard to beat and I had to share it. The title is by Willem Doherty from a couple of, or just her last week. And the title of its fantasy football punishment for your work league that violates the Geneva Convention, which is both a couple of, actually very real. Most of them I've heard of before punishment. Some people do a further fantasy football league, and I'm a big fantasy football fan this time of year. But also, actually does a pretty solid legal analysis of whether they violate specific parts of the Geneva Convention, if you happen to work at a POW camp, or in a military around a bunch of protective persons, there is that kind of like, you know, jurisdictional element of it that Willem kind of skirted over. But it's a great read all around internet tendency, my favorite. I think this one is particularly worth checking out if you are in the fantasy football international lawyer overlap of the Venn diagram like I am, of which there has to be at least one other of you out there. And with that, Anna Bauer, bring us home. What did you bring for your object lesson this week? Yeah. So like two weeks ago in New York City, I went to a robot cage fight. Very New York. And it was, I don't write. It's kind of like a post apocalyptic New York. Next time, Tyler, for sure. They had different weight classes, three, 12, and 30 pound weight robots who are like put in this big gloss cage and they fight each other. And it was incredible. I had so much fun. So I highly recommend the next time that the robot fights is in town that people go to it. This particular fight, there are some robot fights that are kind of like anthropomorphized versions of robot. Like it's like humans, but they're robots, but this is not that. This is like like basically R2D2 fighting, you know. So and it's called the national havoc robot league, the NHRL. And so if it's if it's coming to your city, I don't I don't know if they're touring or not, I have no idea. But if it is coming to your city, check it out because it was a really fun time. I love it. This was a thing kids did in my I went to like an engineering high school and there were a team of kids that they built robots to fight each other in an arena. Now we're all kind of at the time, like remote controlled cars, but you attach like a buzzsaw to them. We're like a hammer that would flip over trying to hammer the other one. It was kind of amazing fun. I think some of those kids may have grown up and now started this national robot league. Yeah, they're they'd seems like it's like a bunch of like 20 something year olds who remarkably like everyone was from Cambridge, Massachusetts or Atlanta. Not not the total coincidence there probably. But yeah, go see robot fight. Robot fight. I love it. Well, folks, that brings us to the end of this week's episode. Rational security is of course a production of law fair. So be sure to visit law for mini.org for our show page for links to best episodes for written work and the written work of other law fair contributors and for informational offers other phenomenal podcast series. While you're at it, be sure to follow law fair on social media wherever you socialize your media. Be sure to leave a rating review wherever you might be listening and sign up to become a material supporter of law fair on Patreon for an ad free version of this podcast among other special benefits. For more information visit law for media.org/support. Our audio engineer and producer this week was me of me and our music as always was performed by Sophia Ann. We are once again edited by the wonderful Jen Pacha. On behalf of my guest Anna, Mike and Tyler, I am Scott our Anderson. We will talk to you next week. Until then, goodbye. What if there were a more affordable way to pay for healthcare built around Christian community instead of insurance company profits? There is. It's called healthcare sharing and more than 1.7 million Americans have already chosen as an alternative to traditional health insurance. We share health is a nonprofit Christian healthcare sharing organization. So if you're tired of paying too much for health insurance, maybe it's time to try a more affordable faith based approach built around Christian values and community. We get better healthcare when we share.