Open to Debate

The new Trump presidency has led to pressure on the First Amendment, and the lines between free expression and political enforcement are blurring. Those who say speech is now freer argue that his actions are restoring viewpoint diversity. Those who argue it’s more restricted argue it’s a crackdown on speech that doesn’t align with the administration’s views, especially in Harvard’s case. In partnership with the Cascades PBS Ideas Festival, we debate free speech’s evolution in the Trump 2.0 era. Nadine Strossen, Senior Fellow at FIRE; Former President of the ACLU  Brandi Kruse, Host of "unDivided with Brandi Kruse”  Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason, is the guest moderator.    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In light of today's breaking news—Israel’s targeted airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, and Iran's retaliation—we are re-releasing our episode that confronts one of the most urgent questions of our time. Originally aired in January 2025, this debate has only grown more relevant, with our two experts offering insights critical for understanding the road ahead. Iran is getting closer to developing its first nuclear weapon. With tensions rising in the Middle East, should the U.S. and its allies take a stand? Those calling to stop Iran now argue this is a “now or never” moment for the region. Those calling for tolerance say while it’s not ideal, it is manageable, and maintaining diplomacy should be the focus. Now we debate: Can America and Its Allies Tolerate A Nuclear Iran, or Is It Time to Stop Them Now?    Arguing STOP NOW: Behnam Ben Taleblu, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies  Arguing TOLERATE: Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As he did in this first presidential term, President Trump has continued to signal closer alignment with Vladimir Putin. This included a tense February Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, where he claimed Ukraine was responsible for the war.   The U.S. also joined Russia in voting against a UN resolution condemning Russia’s action in Ukraine and Vice President Vance has called for a re-evaluation of the U.S.'s relationship with NATO. Could these actions, and others, help chart a return to a state of improved U.S.-Russia diplomatic relations or lead America toward defeat in the region and beyond? Those who argue that Trump’s actions signal a return to normalcy say that European security should be Europe’s responsibility, which could lead to a stronger, more self-sufficient NATO, and that recent years of antagonism have failed to alter Russian behavior. The Trump administration could help bring U.S.-Russia relations into constructive focus at a high-stakes moment.  However, those who declare this a defeat for America argue that Trump warming up to Putin will only encourage Russian aggression, hurt Ukraine, and erode our allies’ trust.     With this background, we debate Trump’s Russia Policies: Return to Normalcy or Defeat for America?  Arguing "Defeat for America":  Bill Browder, Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign   Alina Polyakova, President and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA)  Arguing "Return to Normalcy":   Jeffrey Sachs, Economist, Public Policy Analyst, and Professor at Columbia University  Thomas Graham, Distinguished Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; Co-founder of Yale University’s Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies Program     Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Coming off the long weekend, an early release of this week's episode: The first 2024 presidential debate was a turning point in President Biden’s candidacy. In this episode, moderator-in-chief John Donvan and chief content officer Lia Matthow sit down with CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios’s Alex Thompson to discuss the book that has Washington buzzing: “Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.” They discuss what transpired before, during, and after that debate and what it might mean for the future of journalism, the Democratic party, and politics overall.    Our Guests:    Jake Tapper, News Anchor; Host of CNN's "The Lead"  Alex Thompson, National Political Correspondent at Axios    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan & Lia Matthow, Open to Debate's Chief Content officer, moderate    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With Trump’s return to office, some have high hopes for his relationship with Israel. But amid the Gaza war, will his policies help? Those arguing “yes” say Trump has given Israel unprecedented backing and would continue shifting U.S. policy in favor of Israeli sovereignty and security. Those arguing “no” are concerned that his policies would result in trouble for Gaza and make a two-state solution less feasible. Now we debate: Is Trump Good for Israel?  Arguing Yes: Einat Wilf, Former Member of Israeli "Knesset"; Co-author of "The War of Return"  Arguing No: Jeremy Ben-Ami, Founder and President of J Street  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The AI revolution is underway, and the U.S. and China are racing to the top. At the heart of this competition are semiconductors—especially advanced GPUs that power everything from natural language processing to autonomous weapons. The U.S. is betting that export controls can help check China’s technological ambitions. But will this containment strategy work—or could it inadvertently accelerate China’s drive for self-sufficiency? Those who think chip controls will work argue that restricting China’s access gives the U.S. critical breathing room to advance AI safely, set global norms, and maintain dominance. Those who believe chip controls are inadequate, or could backfire, warn that domestic chipmakers, like Nvidia and Intel, also rely on sales from China. Cutting off access could harm U.S. competitiveness in the long run, especially if other countries don't fully align with U.S. policy.  As the race for AI supremacy intensifies, we debate the question: Can the U.S. Outpace China in AI Through Chip Controls?  Arguing Yes:   Lindsay Gorman, Managing Director and Senior Fellow of the German Marshall Fund’s Technology Program; Venture Scientist at Deep Science Ventures   Will Hurd, Former U.S. Representative and CIA Officer     Arguing No:  Paul Triolo, Senior Vice President and Partner at DGA-Albright Stonebridge Group   Susan Thornton, Former Diplomat; Visiting Lecturer in Law and Senior Fellow at the Yale Law School Paul Tsai China Center  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  This debate was produced in partnership with Johns Hopkins University.  This debate was recorded on May 14, 2025 at 6 PM at Shriver Hall, 3400 N Charles St Ste 14, in Baltimore, Maryland.  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The first 100 days of President Trump’s second term have come with a wide range of changes for the nation’s economy and global supply chains. Could these changes lead to a more prosperous America, or hardship for individuals and businesses? In partnership with Bloomberg, five renowned economists look at President Trump’s economic agenda during his first 100 days and discuss tariffs as a strategy, whether deregulation is good for growth, and whether the President's "medicine" means a recession.  Jason Furman, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government    Allison Schrager, Economist, Bloomberg Opinion Contributor & Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute    Stephen Moore, Former Senior Economic Advisor to President Trump; Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation; Co-founder of Unleash Prosperity    Mariana Mazzucato, Professor of Economics at University College London; Author of "Mission Economy"  Jeff Ferry, Chief Economist Emeritus at the Coalition for a Prosperous America; Previous Tech Executive  Mishal Husain, Editor-at-Large for Bloomberg Weekend, is the guest moderator.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From modest beginnings to a distinguished career, Robert Rosenkranz, the chairman of Delphi Capital Management and founder of Open to Debate, has used Stoic wisdom to navigate challenges, innovations, and business relationships. In this conversation, John Donvan speaks with Rosenkranz about his new book, “The Stoic Capitalist: Advice for the Exceptionally Ambitious,” how ancient philosophy shaped his pivotal moments, why he launched Open to Debate, and how disciplined thinking can unlock enduring accomplishment and serve as a guide for anyone seeking success and a life well lived.    Our Guest: Robert Rosenkranz, Author, Chairman of Delphi Capital Management, and Founder and Chairman of Open to Debate    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For decades, China has been central for global supply chains and a primary U.S. trade partner, but as China’s influence grows, should the U.S. cut economic ties, or stay engaged? Those in favor of decoupling say it is vital for protecting national security and reducing reliance on China’s supply chains. Those against decoupling argue doing so would harm U.S. businesses, stall innovation, and deepen global divides. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Decouple from China? Arguing Yes:   Derek Scissors, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute      Isaac Stone Fish, CEO and Founder of Strategy Risks    Arguing No:   Benn Steil, Senior Fellow and Director of International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations    Susan Shirk, Research Professor and Director Emeritus of the 21st Century China Center at UC San Diego School of Global Policy    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The U.S. has long balanced military strength with soft power in the Middle East through agencies like USAID. With the Trump administration reversing these policies, is this a necessary realignment—or a costly retreat? Those against these changes argue this will boost rivals like Iran and China and harm America’s image. Those hailing them argue it’s a necessary correction, favoring clear, transactional geopolitical goals over costly diplomacy. Now we debate: Was Trump Right to Be Hard on Soft Power in the Middle East?        Arguing Yes: Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, President & Founder of Ideas Beyond Borders   Arguing No: Jeffrey Gedmin, President & CEO of the Middle East Broadcasting Networks    Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist, moderator at Wickett Advisory, and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices