The beginning of the 2024 election cycle begins this Monday, January 15th with the Iowa Caucuses. Newt discusses the candidates, the polling data and what he thinks the key issues will be in the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.

The beginning of the 2024 election cycle begins this Monday, January 15th with the Iowa Caucuses. Newt discusses the candidates, the polling data and what he thinks the key issues will be in the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.

Join Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Speaker of the House and Ph.D. historian, for the most diverse, informative, and entertaining podcast available. Every episode is an education.

Join Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Speaker of the House and Ph.D. historian, for the most diverse, informative, and entertaining podcast available. Every episode is an education.

Newt's World

Episode 651: Election 2024 – Iowa and New Hampshire

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/f44a443f-0685-4033-8c31-b0f501523bb4/transcript

Newt talks with Wayne Crews, the Fred L. Smith Fellow in Regulatory Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. His work explores the impact of government regulation of free enterprise. They discuss CEI’s annual report “Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State.” Crews argues that rising federal spending and regulation move together, citing post-COVID laws such as the CARES Act, CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act as examples of “hyper-regulatory” spending that expands the administrative state even before agencies write rules. Crews contends that government is ill-suited to pick market winners, set prices, or manage sectors like energy and finance, and that market forces—suppliers, customers, investors, media, and civil society—already discipline firms without heavy-handed regulation. He stresses that rejecting overregulation does not mean “no regulation,” but rather preferring competitive over political discipline. Crews warns that massive federal spending has weakened the coalition for regulatory reform by aligning businesses, governors, and mayors with Washington through funded mandates and programmatic strings tied to priorities like DEI, climate, and the “care economy.”

Newt talks with Wayne Crews, the Fred L. Smith Fellow in Regulatory Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. His work explores the impact of government regulation of free enterprise. They discuss CEI&rsquo;s annual report &ldquo;Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State.&rdquo; Crews argues that rising federal spending and regulation move together, citing post-COVID laws such as the CARES Act, CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act as examples of &ldquo;hyper-regulatory&rdquo; spending that expands the administrative state even before agencies write rules. Crews contends that government is ill-suited to pick market winners, set prices, or manage sectors like energy and finance, and that market forces&mdash;suppliers, customers, investors, media, and civil society&mdash;already discipline firms without heavy-handed regulation. He stresses that rejecting overregulation does not mean &ldquo;no regulation,&rdquo; but rather preferring competitive over political discipline. Crews warns that massive federal spending has weakened the coalition for regulatory reform by aligning businesses, governors, and mayors with Washington through funded mandates and programmatic strings tied to priorities like DEI, climate, and the &ldquo;care economy.&rdquo;

Episode 968: CEI’s Annual Report of the Federal Regulatory State

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/74f084c1-1914-4745-b3c6-b42f0169eb30/transcript

Newt talks with former Congressman and physician Dr. Greg Ganske about the growing public health risks posed by online sports betting and emerging prediction markets, framed by a broader discussion of sports’ role in personal development and community life. Dr. Ganske argues that sports uniquely teach discipline, teamwork, goal setting, and community cohesion. He warns that the rapid expansion of online betting, driven by ubiquitous smartphone access and aggressive advertising campaigns featuring major sports leagues and star athletes, threatens this integrity by increasing incentives for cheating, point shaving, and manipulation at both professional and collegiate levels. Dr. Ganske highlights gambling disorder as a medically recognized condition associated with loss of control, financial ruin, deception, and bankruptcy, affecting an estimated 2-4 million Americans, with another roughly 10 million people at high risk. Their conversation also examines prediction markets on platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, which position themselves as regulated futures markets under the CFTC but, in Ganske’s view, exploit regulatory gaps while enabling betting on elections, assassination risks, and other sensitive events, compounding incentives for abuse. Dr. Ganske outlines potential federal responses, favoring regulation over outright bans due to constitutional and First Amendment concerns.

Newt talks with former Congressman and physician Dr. Greg Ganske about the growing public health risks posed by online sports betting and emerging prediction markets, framed by a broader discussion of sports&rsquo; role in personal development and community life. Dr. Ganske argues that sports uniquely teach discipline, teamwork, goal setting, and community cohesion. He warns that the rapid expansion of online betting, driven by ubiquitous smartphone access and aggressive advertising campaigns featuring major sports leagues and star athletes, threatens this integrity by increasing incentives for cheating, point shaving, and manipulation at both professional and collegiate levels. Dr. Ganske highlights gambling disorder as a medically recognized condition associated with loss of control, financial ruin, deception, and bankruptcy, affecting an estimated 2-4 million Americans, with another roughly 10 million people at high risk. Their conversation also examines prediction markets on platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, which position themselves as regulated futures markets under the CFTC but, in Ganske&rsquo;s view, exploit regulatory gaps while enabling betting on elections, assassination risks, and other sensitive events, compounding incentives for abuse. Dr. Ganske outlines potential federal responses, favoring regulation over outright bans due to constitutional and First Amendment concerns.

Episode 967: Regulating Online Sports Betting

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/35ebcf6f-7091-460a-a4cc-b42d015d36d6/transcript

Newt talks with Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, about Trump v. Barbara, also known as the birthright citizenship case. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 1, 2026, to determine if President Trump’s executive order violates the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Trump’s order seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary visa holding parents. The key issues include the meaning of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language in the 14th Amendment, which the Trump administration argues was intended to only grant citizenship to children of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, not to those born to temporary or illegal residents. They also discuss whether the historical context and original understanding of the 14th Amendment at the time of its adoption supports the administration's position, or the broader interpretation of birthright citizenship. Modern issues like "birth tourism" and the ability for large numbers of people to easily travel to the U.S. to give birth, are discussed in the context of the intent of the 14th Amendment's framers. The Court appeared divided during oral arguments, with some justices seeming skeptical of the administration's position, but Smith notes it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcome. A decision is expected by the end of the Court's term in late June 2026.

Newt talks with Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, about Trump v. Barbara, also known as the birthright citizenship case. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 1, 2026, to determine if President Trump&rsquo;s executive order violates the 14th Amendment&rsquo;s Citizenship Clause. Trump&rsquo;s order seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary visa holding parents. The key issues include the meaning of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language in the 14th Amendment, which the Trump administration argues was intended to only grant citizenship to children of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, not to those born to temporary or illegal residents. They also discuss whether the historical context and original understanding of the 14th Amendment at the time of its adoption supports the administration's position, or the broader interpretation of birthright citizenship. Modern issues like "birth tourism" and the ability for large numbers of people to easily travel to the U.S. to give birth, are discussed in the context of the intent of the 14th Amendment's framers. The Court appeared divided during oral arguments, with some justices seeming skeptical of the administration's position, but Smith notes it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcome. A decision is expected by the end of the Court's term in late June 2026.

Episode 966: Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/8f46ee1f-36b7-4f3b-9c88-b42a002a110d/transcript

Episode 651: Election 2024 – Iowa and New Hampshire

In 1 playlist(s)

Newt's World

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips