Can the Cease-Fire in Gaza Hold?

Today, the Supreme Court begins hearing arguments about whether the Trump administration acted legally when it tried to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The Obama-era program known as DACA shields immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, known as Dreamers, from deportation.In this episode, we explore why the outcome of the case may turn on a small act of rebellion by one of President Trump’s former cabinet members. Guest: Julie Hirschfeld Davis, the congressional editor of The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Elaine C. Duke, a former Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, refused to echo the White House’s policy justifications for ending DACA. Her decision led to a Supreme Court case addressing presidential power over immigration.Meet two of the nearly 700,000 Dreamers whose families, homes and jobs may be affected by the justices’ ruling. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

12 Nov 201919min

The question of whether President Trump leveraged military assistance to Ukraine for personal gain is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. Today, we speak with our Ukraine correspondent on why that assistance was so important to Ukraine — and the United States — in the first place.Guest: Andrew E. Kramer, who covers Ukraine for The New York Times and is based in Moscow. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Petro O. Poroshenko, who was Ukraine’s president until May, knew his country’s independence hinged on American support. So he waged a campaign to win over President Trump.As vice president, Joe Biden tried to press Ukraine’s leaders to clean up corruption and reform the energy industry. The story of that effort has been overtaken by his son’s work for a Ukrainian gas company. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

11 Nov 201923min

Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, told impeachment investigators he knew “nothing” about a quid pro quo in Ukraine. Now Mr. Sondland, a blunt-spoken hotelier, has changed tack. In a new four-page sworn statement released by the House, he confirmed his role in communicating President Trump’s demand that Ukraine investigate the Bidens in exchange for military aid. Today, we discuss the road to Mr. Sondland’s sudden reversal, and what his new testimony means for the impeachment investigation.Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, a Washington correspondent for The Times who covers national security and federal investigations. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Mr. Sondland’s reversal offers a potentially critical piece of evidence to investigators trying to determine whether Mr. Trump abused his power.Late-night show hosts mocked Mr. Sondland, saying he had reversed his testimony after remembering “one important detail: that I don’t want to go to jail for perjury.” Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

8 Nov 201928min

In 2013, Aimee Stephens watched her boss read a carefully worded letter.“I have felt imprisoned in a body that does not match my mind. And this has caused me great despair and loneliness,” she had written. “With the support of my loving wife, I have decided to become the person that my mind already is.”Ms. Stephens was fired after coming out as transgender. Now, she is the lead plaintiff in a Supreme Court case that will determine the employment rights of gay and transgender workers across the nation. Guests: Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times, and Aimee Stephens, the lead plaintiff in the transgender discrimination case heard by the Supreme Court. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: The forthcoming Supreme Court ruling hangs on justices’ interpretation of wording in the Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination “because of sex.”The case came to the Supreme Court from a federal appeals court, which found in favor of Ms. Stephens last year. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

7 Nov 201927min

Kentucky’s unpopular Republican governor, Matthew G. Bevin, was facing a losing battle. So he turned to President Trump, and a polarized political landscape, for help. Today, we look at why Tuesday’s race for governor in Kentucky is drawing outsized attention, what it may tell us about the politics of impeachment, and how a state race became a national test. Guest: Jonathan Martin, a national political correspondent for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Matthew G. Bevin, the incumbent governor in Kentucky, was deeply unpopular after blaming striking teachers for violence against children.Mr. Bevin pivoted away from his own agenda to make the race for governor a referendum on national politics.Andrew G. Beshear, Mr. Bevin’s Democratic challenger, has claimed victory, but Mr. Bevin has not conceded. Explore our map of the results: A few thousand votes separate the candidates after all precincts reported. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

6 Nov 201922min

The New York Times and Siena College conducted a major new poll, tackling the biggest questions about the 2020 presidential race: How likely is President Trump to be re-elected and which Democrat is best positioned to defeat him? The results reveal that the president remains highly competitive in the battleground states likeliest to decide his re-election, with Democratic candidates struggling to win back the support of white working-class voters who backed Mr. Trump in 2016. The poll also presents a snapshot of how the top Democratic candidates might fare in the general election — a critical question for Democratic voters hoping to take back the White House. Guest: Nate Cohn, a domestic correspondent for The Upshot at The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: The new poll suggests Senator Elizabeth Warren might struggle with some battleground swing voters, and found evidence that both gender bias and ideological doubts were hurting her.The top Democratic presidential candidates are locked in a close race in the Iowa caucuses, a key early test in the nomination race. But there, Ms. Warren currently has a slight edge. Here are five theories about what “electability” means in the 2020 race. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

5 Nov 201922min

In just three months, the first election of the Democratic presidential race will be held in Iowa.Over the weekend, the party held its most important political event yet in the prelude to that vote — including a fabled annual dinner attended by almost every remaining candidate in the campaign. At this dinner in 2007, Barack Obama, then a senator, delivered a searing critique of Hillary Clinton’s electability, helping him pull ahead in the polls. Candidates this time around were hoping for a similar campaign-defining moment.We traveled to Des Moines to find out how the candidates are trying to stand out in a crowded field and to try to discern who might have the political support, financial might and organizational prowess to become the nominee.Guest: Reid J. Epstein, a campaigns and elections reporter for The Times based in Washington D.C. Clare Toeniskoetter and Monika Evstatieva, producers for “The Daily,” who traveled to Des Moines to speak with campaign supporters.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: With the Iowa caucuses fast approaching, the ideological debate has remained the same, but the key players have shifted, with Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Elizabeth Warren appearing to have gained momentum. The latest poll in Iowa suggested that Ms. Warren had seized much of Bernie Sanders’s youthful following. Here are five takeaways from the survey. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

4 Nov 201928min

The House of Representatives voted to begin the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump — one which will be open to public scrutiny. Two Democrats in the House broke ranks and voted against the resolution, which outlined rules for the impeachment process. That was the only complication to an otherwise clean partisan split, with all House Republicans voting against the measure. The tally foreshadowed the battle to come as Democrats take their case against the president fully into public view. Today, we discuss what the next phase of the inquiry will look like. Guest: Julie Hirschfeld Davis, the congressional editor for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: House Democrats decided they now have enough confidence in the severity of the underlying facts about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine to open the inquiry to the public, despite the risk that doing so would further polarize the electorate. This is a timeline of the events that prompted the impeachment inquiry.Here’s how Democrats and Republicans voted on the impeachment rules resolution. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

1 Nov 201929min