Harvard's Face-Off With the White House, and a Disturbing Pattern in Organ Donations
Produced by Will Jarvis and Ian Stewart
Edited by Ian StewartJessica Metzger and Tracy Mumford
Featuring Alan Blinder and Aaron Boxerman
Trump Administration and Harvard Face Crucial Court Test, by Alan Blinder
A Push for More Organ Transplants Is Putting Donors at Risk, by Brian M. Rosenthal and Julie Tate
Israeli Troops Kill Dozens Seeking Food Near Border, Gazan Officials Say, by Aaron Boxerman, Isabel Kershner and Ameera Harouda
Japan's Long-Dominant Party Suffers Election Defeat as Voters Swing Right, by Martin Fackler, Hisako Ueno and Kiuko Notoya
This K-Pop Band Is Making Waves With Sign Language, by Ephrat Livni
Tune in, and tell us what you think at theheadlines@nytimes.com. For corrections, email nytnews@nytimes.com.
For more audio journalism and storytelling, download the New York Times Audio app — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Former senior Shin Bet official: 'This is the only way Israel can bring the hostages back'
In an interview with Maariv, former Shin Bet official, Yossi Amrusi, criticizes Israel's current negotiation strategy and lays out his own plan to bring the hostages home. As negotiations to release the hostages continue to stall and intelligence reports warn of a prolonged deadlock, Yossi Amrusi, a former senior Shin Bet official, voiced strong criticism of Israel's current strategy toward Hamas in a recent interview with Maariv. 'Israel needs to declare that it is no longer willing to conduct negotiations in this way,' Amrusi stated, calling for a strategic shift in Israel's negotiation tactics. According to Amrusi, Hamas benefits from stalling: 'A clever Persian trader once told me in the market: 'You'll win the deal when you're willing to lose it.' And why? For several reasons. One, Hamas benefits from dragging things out. It continues to hold the key to its survival, and in the meantime, who knows what could happen? European pressure, a false starvation campaign, Trump might flip on Israel, internal pressure on the government. All of these, and each on its own, are good for them.' Amrusi also expressed doubt regarding the effectiveness of the mediators working with Hamas, 'I'm not sure that Qatar, the mediator, even has the ability to decide anything. And it's not even certain they have communication with Hamas's internal leadership for consultations and decision-making." "It's important to ask: is there anyone in Hamas' Gaza who can make decisions? Who has control over those holding the hostages? Doe they even know where they are and what condition they're in? After all, some of the hostages aren't even in their hands…' 'I've always said Hamas will release the hostages when we force them to release them," he went on to argue, "but we don't know how to do that. Military pressure isn't being applied to its full extent, and our soldiers' hands are pretty tied. We're bringing in humanitarian aid that gives Hamas life – oxygen, fuel, and money.' 'Government constraints and fears are holding back the opening of immigration offices and the establishment of humanitarian zones. We simply don't know how to win,' he warned. Amrusi's twofold solution According to Amrusi, the solution lies in two parallel actions: 'Today, in my estimation, Israel must declare that it is no longer willing to negotiate as it has been. Then, it must do two things simultaneously." "First, push as much as it can for separating Gazans from Hamas through designated humanitarian zones. That will also lead to control over humanitarian aid, so that it doesn't reach Hamas. And second, since it is estimated that hostage locations are known – we must conduct local negotiations with those holding the hostages. Offer money and their lives in exchange for the hostages.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump looms large over a Fed likely to again defy his call for cuts
President Trump will loom large over the Federal Reserve's policy meeting this week, even if the central bank does what the market expects and keeps interest rates on hold. Trump and other top White House officials have been hammering Fed Chair Jerome Powell for months over his wait-and-see rate stance and his insistence that more time is needed to assess how the president's tariffs will affect the path of inflation. The president took that message directly to the Fed last Thursday as he toured a $2.5 billion renovation of the central bank's headquarters and confronted Powell in person while the two argued in front of reporters over the true costs of the project. "I just want to see one thing happen, very simple: Interest rates have to come down," the president told reporters. Traders widely expect the Fed's Federal Open Market Committee to defy Trump and once again keep rates unchanged this Wednesday, as they have for every other meeting so far in 2025. The market expects the first cut of 2025 to happen on Sept. 17, the third-to-last meeting of the year. But at least two of Powell's colleagues are warming to Trump's near-term rate cut call, which could produce some disagreement this week behind closed doors in Washington. One Fed governor, Christoper Waller, has already hinted that he may publicly dissent Wednesday if his colleagues vote to keep rates unchanged. His opinion is that any inflation from Trump's tariffs will prove to be temporary, and he's concerned that the labor market may soon worsen. But many other Fed officials have backed Powell in his view that more time is needed to assess the impact of Trump's tariffs on inflation. They also note that the labor market is holding up, removing any urgency to act in the way that Trump wants. Read more: How the Fed rate decision affects your bank accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments "This is a campaign of undermining the chairman's credibility and really trying to undermine his public support in the face of what I think is the real objective, and that is to get a lower rate environment in place," former Kansas City Fed president Esther George said. A Powell press conference following the meeting on Wednesday gives the Fed chair a new chance to respond to the White House's escalating pressure campaign and mounting questions about the $2.5 billion renovation of two Fed buildings along the National Mall. Trump considered firing Powell in recent weeks but has now appeared to back away from doing so, telling reporters this past week that "he is going to be out pretty soon anyway" — a reference to the fact that Powell's term as chair is up in May. While touring the Fed's construction site on Thursday, Trump said of firing Powell: "To do that is a big move, and I just don't think it's necessary." Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates? New headaches But that doesn't mean the White House is going to let up on Powell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this past week called for a review of the central bank's $2.5 billion project and an "exhaustive internal review' of its non-monetary policy operations. He argued that "significant mission creep and institutional growth have taken the Fed into areas that potentially jeopardize the independence of its core monetary policy mission." The Fed also got another new headache last week when a money manager — and Trump ally who recently served as an adviser to the Department of Government Efficiency — filed a lawsuit arguing that the central bank is violating a 1976 federal law by keeping its policy meetings behind closed doors. That money manager, Azoria Capital, is asking for a Washington, D.C., federal court to issue a temporary restraining order compelling the FOMC to open its deliberations to the public this week. Some on Capitol Hill are also getting louder about more scrutiny of the Fed. Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania, a subcommittee chair on the House Financial Services Committee, is reportedly moving forward with a congressional investigation of the Fed, according to PunchBowl News, even as many of his Senate colleagues have shied away from that idea. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, another Trump ally, formally requested that the DOJ investigate Powell for perjury over June comments about the renovations, although that is seen as a long shot at best. House Speaker Mike Johnson said in an interview with Bloomberg reporters and editors last week that he is "disenchanted" with Powell and is even open to modifying the 1913 act that created the Fed. That would be a major change, but it is not expected to come before Congress in the near term, as the House of Representatives went home Wednesday evening for a recess that is scheduled to last for the rest of the summer. Powell has repeatedly stated that he does not intend to leave as chair until his term is up, that his removal is "not permitted by law," and that he was honest and transparent about the Fed's construction project while testifying before Senate lawmakers on June 25. In a July 17 letter to White House budget director Russ Vought, Powell wrote that "we take seriously the responsibility to be good stewards of public resources" and offered a point-by-point response to Vought's concerns about cost overruns and certain design elements. Read more: What experts say about the possibility of additional rate cuts 'I do think it's damaging' Trump and his allies have taken to several new lines of attack against Powell, even beyond the building renovation, as they argue for rates to be as many as three percentage points lower. They cite what they predict will be savings on US debt if the rate is lower, as well as how a lower rate would make borrowing for a home less expensive in the US. Trump has even hinted that he has more than just Powell to blame for the fact that rates have remained unchanged since he took office. "The Board should act, but they don't have the Courage to do so!" Trump wrote on his social media platform this past week, referring to the larger Fed Board of Governors on which Powell serves. StoneX senior adviser Jon Hilsenrath told Yahoo Finance that he expects Trump's attacks to eventually extend to the regional Fed presidents based around the country. They have rotating positions on the Fed body that makes the final call on rates. The president does not appoint the regional Fed bosses, who are instead chosen by banks in those Fed districts. One of them, Chicago Fed president Austan Goolsbee, defended Powell in a July 18 interview with Yahoo Finance, calling the Fed chair a "totally honorable guy." He also expressed concerns about Fed independence. "It pains me to hear people actively discussing whether the central bank should be independent. There's nothing good can come of discussion like that." George, the former Kansas City Fed president, said of the president's pressure campaign targeting building renovations: "I do think it's damaging." "It's when we undermine institutions and create suspicion in the public that something is wrong here, I think credibility suffers," she said. "This is a time when the Fed needs its independence," George added. "It is a time when, yes, lower rates would help the federal government, but we know countries that have gone down that path, and we know in this country going down that path does not produce good outcomes in the long term." Last Thursday, though, Trump sounded confident during his tour of the Fed's headquarters that Powell would see things his way. "I think he's going to do the right thing,' the president said. "Everybody knows what the right thing is.' Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
Fast Company
30 minutes ago
- Fast Company
The coming battle among YIMBYs
The YIMBY ('yes in my backyard') movement has achieved remarkable growth in the past few years, uniting people across the political spectrum who share a common belief: It should be easy to build more housing. You can find shared interests among unlikely alliances when you step out of political tribes. People who label themselves as socialists and capitalists are standing at town hall podiums to support and promote abundant housing. High fives! Hooray for unity, right? Insert record scratch. Socialists and capitalists have economic worldviews that are incompatible with each other. There's definitely consensus about the ends (plenty of homes), but the means will be hotly debated. The clash was inevitable, and the recent book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, Abundance, has keyboard warriors starting to realize there are a host of competing opinions on how to get past the gatekeepers who would have homes remain scarce. You might think something as apolitical as a townhouse wouldn't be a lightning rod for a populist left-versus-right debate. The reason is economics. Considering the surge in populism in recent years, it's worth understanding why economics, not 'neighborhood character,' is at the heart of the argument. The Socialist YIMBY Socialist YIMBY advocates believe housing should be universally accessible, treated fundamentally as a human right rather than a commodity to be bought and sold for profit. Prominent democratic socialists, like New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and Minneapolis mayoral candidate Omar Fateh, argue for 'decommodifying' housing, where the government would guarantee homes. Market forces are not part of the equation. A socialist YIMBY is going to want state-managed housing solutions, price controls, rent freezes, and strict regulations on private ownership. Mamdani even said he'd be open to the abolition of private property if it meant getting people places to live. Socialist YIMBYs build their case on fairness, social justice, and community stability. They argue that a free market creates disparities, displaces vulnerable populations, and commodifies essential human needs. The belief here is that removing profit motives from housing reduces speculation, stabilizes communities, and ensures housing stability and equity, prioritizing human dignity and communal well-being above private gain. The Capitalist YIMBY Capitalist YIMBY advocates believe in leveraging market mechanisms. To them, the root cause of housing shortages lies in artificial restrictions imposed by zoning laws, burdensome permitting processes, and other bureaucratic interference. Their economic rationale hinges on the concept of supply and demand, and prices as crucial signals. Capitalist YIMBYs argue that when the price of a type of home goes up in an area, it signals to developers, investors, and builders that demand is high and supply low. Rather than suppressing these signals through artificial price controls, they propose getting rid of laws that prohibit housing and streamline approval processes in order to spur rapid and flexible housing production. They argue that robust competition among builders and investors inherently leads to diverse housing options, lower overall costs, and more innovation in housing solutions. The Perplexed YIMBY A person is standing at the philosophical crossroads to abundant housing and two fellow YIMBYs are giving conflicting directions: 'We have to go left.' 'No, we have to go right.' Socialists look at capitalist solutions as inherently exploitative, always creating more inequalities, and they believe profit motives are what make homes too expensive. Capitalists look at socialist solutions as inevitably leading to inefficiencies, housing shortages, and stagnation. When I've asked people about their take on this conflict, a common response is something like 'We'll have enough homes for everyone if building regulations are relaxed and the government is in charge of low-income housing.' I believe that's wishful thinking, since it brings us right back to the fundamental disagreement on economics. A capitalist will say, 'There is a market for small and modest housing, so get the government out of the way.' The socialist will say, 'We don't believe you.' I truly believe that populists on the left and the right want there to be enough homes for everyone. But it's also clear that the populist left and right will forever treat each other like they're living in a cartoon or comic book. 'I'm the good guy and you're the bad guy.' In spite of their shared interest in abundant housing, the socialist YIMBYs and capitalist YIMBYs are never going to agree on the means to the end. The best first step is something both sides claim to support: getting rid of the local regulatory barriers that are preventing anyone from building a granny flat, a townhouse, a duplex, etc.
