Advertise on podcast: Matters of Policy & Politics

With polls showing the public wanting more government oversight of artificial intelligence – AI leaders themselves begging Congress and the White House to step in – what’s a sensible path forward at both the federal and state levels? Patrick McLaughlin, the Hoover Institution’s Shepard Family Fellow in Economics, discusses how to avoid what he calls “the 50-state tollbooth problem” for AI – as in shipping on the Rhine in medieval Germany, a challenge in keeping traffic moving without too many inconveniences. Also discussed: why regulatory reform and the concept of lowering consumers' prices by thinning red tape isn’t part of the election-year conversation, how Idaho, Virginia and British Columbia made deregulation work in their respective lands, and what a pair of November ballot initiatives in California – one promising more affordable housing, the other addressing a notorious environmental statute – say about life in America’s most regulated state. RELATED SOURCES FRONTIER Act TAKE IT DOWN Act The Fifty-State Tollbooth Problem for AI Data Transport, AI and Growth How Do Federal Regulations Affect Consumer Prices? An Analysis of the Regressive Effects of Regulation Regulation and the Cost of Moving Goods 2026 Economic Report of the President The Cumulative Cost of Regulations

Robert E. Hall, the Hoover Institution’s Robert and Carole McNeil Senior Fellow (Emeritus) and Stanford professor of economics, has been named a co-recipient of the 2026 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to understanding macroeconomic stabilization. Hall becomes the sixth Hoover economist in the past half-century to receive the honor, continuing a tradition that began with Milton Friedman. In a new episode of Matters of Policy & Politics, Hoover senior fellow Valerie Ramey, who once served as Hall’s graduate research assistant, discusses how his pioneering work in New Keynesian economics has shaped modern economic research and influenced monetary and fiscal policy. Ramey also explores Hall’s contributions to understanding economic shocks, his distinctive approach to explaining complex economic ideas, and his lasting influence on generations of economists.

A vestige of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”, the federal Medicare healthcare program has expanded in ways its architects perhaps didn’t foresee – a growing constituency (nearly 70 million elderly Americans now rely on Medicare for their healthcare needs, with that number climbing as more Americans reach their golden years) and senior healthcare occupying a growing chunk of the federal budget (Medicare now accounting for one in every seven dollars Washington spends). With the entitlement going bankrupt as soon as 2033, what reforms can “rescue” Medicare – not to mention Social Security, which could run out of funding as soon as 2032? Tom Church, a Hoover policy fellow who’s done considerable research on entitlement and healthcare reform, discusses why Medicare reform went nowhere a decade ago, policy avenues for driving down costs, plus limitations imposed by the current political lineup in Washington – a Republican president famously averse to entitlement reform and an opposition party championing a single-payer “Medicare for All” alternative, suggesting the looming crisis will be tabled until 2029 or later. Also discussed: Church’s work with Hoover’s ambitious and bipartisan Tennenbaum Program for Fact-Based Policy.

A divided America agrees on one thing: most folks don’t want new data centers in their communities. But do data centers live up to their sour reputation as water and electricity gluttons? Or are they, in fact, a 21st Century version of the automobile – an innovation deemed dangerous at first, but eventually a means to community advancement and prosperity? Steven Koonin, the Hoover Institution’s Edward Teller Senior Fellow and an energy policy expert, discusses what’s behind data-center NIMBYism and whether America will rise to the challenge of a greater demand for electricity in the near future as artificial intelligence and the needs of an increasingly information-intensive society and economy continue to reshape the nation’s landscape. Also discussed: the US Energy Department’s embrace of a “golden age of nuclear energy” (speaking of technology that once spawned NIMBY discontent), an evolving climate change debate (why does the UN bother to celebrate “climate weeks”?) and an emergency-mode California bracing for an El Niño event that’s expected to submerge vast portions of the Golden State in the coming months.

Among the latest happenings in the Golden State: choosing California-based “winners” and “losers” in the aftermath of the settlement of the state attorney generals’ antitrust suit blocking the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger (a good day for Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison, not one of California AG Rob Bonta’s better moments, and mixed results at best for Hollywood-based entertainment); what an audit exposing consultants’ expenses says about the troubled state of the Golden State’s high-speed rail project (life’s been good for tiki bars and “escape rooms”); and a river-wading Gavin Newsom fishing for attention in Montana (though California’s governor looked like a fish out of water while fly-fishing). Also discussed: what’s at stake in the upcoming gubernatorial debate between Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton and a California governor’s race that’s been mostly quiet since a contentious June primary.

The beginning of a new K-12 year across the United States means the continuation of a learning-loss problem that predates COVID’s disruption of America’s educational system, as well as a new concern in more recent times: artificial intelligence interfering with students’ intellectual curiosity and development and teachers’ ability to do their job. Eric Hanushek, the Hoover Institution’s Paul and Jean Hanna Senior Fellow and an education policy expert, revisits a paper he recently co-authored on AI’s promise and perils. Also discussed: lessons learned from Texas’ decade-long experiment with teacher merit and unions’ reluctance to go along with said reform, plus how to close a learning gap that ultimately will compromise future workers’ earning potential.

Twenty-five years ago, the Free World was shocked by an attack on America in which three airliners struck New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon – a fourth plane crashing in rural Pennsylvania presumably on its way to strike the US Capitol. What did we learn from that attack, and is America better prepared to handle terror that can take more sophisticated forms? Philip Zelikow, the Hoover Institution’s Botha-Chan senior fellow and executive director of the bipartisan panel that examined the root causes of 9/11 and ways America could better defend itself, discusses the 9/11 Commission’s findings and the challenges in preventing future attacks from occurring (terrorists possibly taking advantage of emerging technology and finding safe haven in the likes of northern Africa). Also: Zelikow’s role in launching Hoover’s ambitious Commons Initiative, which studies how America can lead free societies to adapt and survive in a changing world.

A recent AI analysis conducted by a team of Hoover fellows finds the US at greater risk of great-power hostilities with China than in recent decades, thus necessitating America to step up its deterrence capabilities. That includes the interaction between the Pentagon and venture capitalists who finance defense-related start-ups and ventures, the topic of a Hoover Institution briefing entitled Mobilize the Modern Defense Industrial Base. Co-authored by Hoover distinguished research fellow Dan Berkenstock, the briefing concludes that the US government needs to learn how to “talk the language of capital markets” and better connect America’s venture-backed industrial concerns with broader US goals in hopes of avoiding a hot war with devastating consequences at home and abroad. Also discussed: Berkenstock’s background in space-imaging, the “1491 moment in outer space featuring a new race to the moon by the decade’s end, and the significance of China’s “SpaceSail” satellite-constellation alternative to Starlink.

The beginning of a new college year across the United States begs the question of the health of liberal education in America – the ongoing concern that tomorrow’s leaders aren’t receiving the intellectual grounding and diversity of thought that reflects a free society and whether campus life embodies the principles of a rights-protecting democracy. In his new book Reclaiming Liberal Education, a complication of a decade’s worth of columns highlighting various problems plaguing America’s elite institutions (racism, stifling free speech, professors promoting progressive agendas), Hoover senior fellow Peter Berkowitz insists all isn’t lost: universities are being held accountable for their misdeeds; alternative campuses (the University of Austin) and programs (the University of Florida’s Hamilton School) have materialized, and scholars who dare to think differently are in the academic pipeline. As for a reform agenda, Berkowitz insists universities should be open to curriculum reforms and encourage free speech and open debates both on campuses and inside classrooms, but patience will be needed as change won’t happen overnight.

Ordinarily, summertime in Sacramento in an election year coinciding with a governor’s last year in office makes for plenty of intrigue (what bills are forwarded to the governor; how does it affect his legacy)? But in 2026, the leadup to the August 31 deadline for passing legislation seems humdrum. Are a docile legislature and an oftentimes absentee Gavin Newsom (mostly recently stumping in early-primary Michigan) to blame? Meanwhile, the annual batch of legislative remedies for California’s chronic homeless problem begs the question of why the plight continues. Also discussed: is the campaign to defeat the Proposition 40 wealth tax making the same tactical error as did then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in California’s 2005 special election (too many measures on the same ballot); will Paramount CEO David Ellison call California’s bluff and make good on his threat to move operations to a friendlier red state (Austin, Texas, reportedly in the mix). Finally, what does Team Sussex’s surprise decision to quit the Golden State and return to the UK say about Harry and Megan’s success (or a lack thereof) in achieving “the California Dream”?

Fifty years ago, three young men working out of a modest ranch-style home in Los Altos, California, changed the world by creating Apple Inc. But is Apple’s success (at one point this year, a $5 trillion market cap) a one-off or yet another example of how innovation has flourished in the 250 years of the American republic? Stephen Haber, the Hoover’s Institution’s Park L. Loughlin senior fellow and co-author of an upcoming book on innovation, explains why Apple has flourished and how the tech giant’s operation reflects the uniqueness of America’s ecosystem as an incubator of emerging technologies. Also discussed: battery development as an innovative “sleeper”, the promise and peril of artificial intelligence, and why Haber, in his capacity as a Stanford University professor, plans to keep screens and electronic devices (sorry, Apple and its competitors) out of his undergraduate classroom.

To the notion of a vast and empty outer space, imagine instead the lower orbit of planet Earth cluttered by thousands of aging tracked objects losing their functionality and far too much debris – some of it moving at speeds of kilometers per second, posing a threat to satellites and mankind’s ability to communicate and make scientific, economic and climate forecasts, not to mention great powers’ national security. Simone D’Amico, a Hoover Institution science fellow and founder of Stanford’s Space Rendezvous Laboratory, discusses his recent report on space safety and offers ways to make the heavenly objects safer, securer, and more sustainable. Among his suggestions for easing a stressed space domain: harnessing emerging technologies, improving communications between satellite operators, and seeking greater consensus among the world’s space powers in terms of traffic coordination.

In a year full of talk about revolutions past (1776) and present (AI), there’s yet another upheaval to ponder: an emerging “quantum revolution” that will change the boundaries of science and industry as it deeply impacts global commerce and geopolitics -- the US, China, and European nations are all making advancements in the field. Hoover fellow Eyck Freymann and three co-authors discuss their recent Hoover Institution paper detailing how America and its global friends and allies can win the “quantum race”. Among the topics visited: quantum’s promise in terms of improving current living conditions (for example, studying climate change) and its myriad challenges (most notably, data privacy and international espionage). Also discussed: the need for considerable investments in research, an emphasis on diplomacy and greater international cooperation, plus lessons learned from the semiconductor industry regarding supply chains, intellectual property, and geopolitical vulnerability. Recorded on July 14, 2026.

California is one of 24 states that allow voters to decide whether initiatives and referenda can become law – i.e., direct democracy. But what does California’s slate of 14 initiatives on the November ballot –  including a “wealth tax” on billionaires, new voter-ID requirements, plus proposed changes to the recall of elected officials – say about the Golden State’s priorities, special interests’ influence, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s presidential ambitions? In the first of a series of conversations about the practice of politics and policies in America’s most populous state, Hoover fellow Lanhee Chen, a keen observer of California’s policy landscape and a past candidate for statewide office, offers a snapshot of this year’s ballot slate, how California’s wealth-tax fight factors into national politics (not to mention the near-term future of California’s tech sector), and suggests a few reforms that would re-instill the public’s confidence in the initiative process. Recorded on June 26, 2026.

As America prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday, it’s not so much “taxation without representation” at issue as it is the question of what modern taxation represents – For some, a chance to strike a blow against wealth disparity while pursuing a socialist dream of expansive government. Nowhere is that more evident than in California and a ballot initiative which, if approved by voters in November, would impose a 5% “wealth tax” on the Golden State’s resident billionaires – 90% of the proceeds going to state healthcare programs. Joshua Rauh, the Hoover Institution’s George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics and an expert on California-style taxation, discusses America’s current fascination with socialism and economic class warfare as well as all that’s at stake in the Golden State. Will a voter-approved wealth tax prompt billionaires to flee California for the likes of Austin and Nashville, taking with them needed tax revenue? Would the one-time tax lay waste to Silicon Valley as an incubator of innovation (and revenue stream)? Moreover, if the promised revenue doesn’t materialize, is California likely to apply the tax to millionaires as well (and perhaps expand it beyond a five-year period, as happened a decade ago when the Golden State extended a “temporary tax” on California’s upper earners)? Recorded on June 29, 2026.