Amina Srna: It's the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. I'm Amina Srna, a producer for the Brian Lehrer show, filling in for Brian today. Congestion pricing has been a reality for just over a month now. The tolling program faced plenty of opposition as it went into effect, but a new poll shows it might be winning some converts. We'll talk about that as President Trump is still talking about ''killing'' the program. Plus, later in the show, our centennial series, 100 Years of a Hundred Things, looks at the history of one family specifically, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David Levering Lewis's family history. It's his story, but as you'll hear, it's really many people's stories as he traces the complexities of race, power, and identity in America. Have you heard New York City is getting a new area code? We'll wrap up today's show by having you call in to rep your area codes. People apparently have a lot of strong feelings about this. First, in the span of one week, the Trump administration, under the influence of billionaire Elon Musk, has targeted several federal agencies and millions of federal employees in moves that might not hold water legally. Since Friday, President Trump has said he would impose a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports starting today. That tariff includes tariffs towards Mexico and China, the United States' largest trading partners. The agency that protects Americans from financial abuse is in Elon Musk's DOGE crosshairs. He and newly confirmed director of both the Office of Management and Budget and the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Russell Vought, are moving to shut down the agency. Unions and other groups are filing lawsuits to try to stop some of what DOGE and President Trump are doing.

Democrats are trying to use what little leverage they have to block them. Republican members of Congress don't seem to have much of an appetite to push back on any of President Trump's moves. Joining us now to talk about the latest as President Trump enters week four of his second administration is Susan Page, USA Today Washington bureau chief and author of several books, including The Rule Breaker: The Life and Times of Barbara Walters. Welcome back to WNYC, Susan.

Susan Page: It's great to be with you and I cannot believe it's just week four of the Trump administration. That was the most surprising thing you said in that introduction.

Amina Srna: I was going off of your account from your article last week, so that's how I got to that. Let's start with the new tariffs. Speaking at Air Force One on his way to the super bowl yesterday, President Trump said he'd impose a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, including Mexico and Canada. Susan, didn't Trump just play the tariff card with our neighbors last week?

Susan Page: He did and agreed to delay the imposition of tariffs on Canada and Mexico, pending responses from them, but this would affect Canada and Mexico and everybody else, Brazil and other nations from whom we import steel and aluminum. He says he's going to impose more tariffs tomorrow, reciprocal tariffs, so that any nation that imposes tariffs on US Goods is going to have the same tariff imposed on them. We are deep into tariff wars.

Amina Srna: I think you were just touching on this, but Trump said that this tariff would be on all foreign steel. Even though I singled out Mexico and Canada, it's worldwide, basically. Is that how you understand it?

Susan Page: It's worldwide. Brazil, South Korea, Vietnam. We import a lot of steel and there have been threats before, including by President Biden to try to impose tariffs on the import of steel, but nothing has gone as far as Trump is prepared to go today.

Amina Srna: We know from Trump's near daily tariff threats that this is his preferred way of negotiating with countries. Is there a country that's being targeted or how do you read this as a political tactic?

Susan Page: His number one target, I think is always China. He did last week impose a 10% additional tariff on Chinese goods. He had imposed tariffs before on China during his first term that President Biden left in place, but there is no country that is exempt from his threat of tariffs. President Trump sees to call tariffs a beautiful thing. He describes it as the core of his economic policy.

Now, economists warn that tariffs can be a dangerous weapon, that they can affect growth, that they can fuel inflation, that they end up costing American consumers more, not the foreign companies that are importing goods more. We are going to find out who is right about the impact of tariffs because it is something that Trump clearly believes in.

Amina Srna: As you were just saying, Trump, this decision to impose tariffs goes back to his first term. The New York Times reports that the Biden administration was able to roll back some of those tariffs, especially with the European Union, the UK, and Japan. Some of those Trump tariffs still remain. Do we yet know how this additional tariff would work? Is it on top of the tariffs from the first term? Are they compounding or do we not know yet?

Susan Page: He's calling for imposing tariffs that are not now imposed, including these reciprocal tariffs that would affect the European Union, among others. One of the interesting things we see happening in the world in the wake of President Trump's election to a second term is we see several parts of the world now negotiating trade deals among one another without including the United States. This is in response to the threat of US Tariffs, a desire to protect some of their foreign trade with one another, even if the US Becomes a less friendly market or at least a more threatening one where you're constantly threatened with the prospect of additional tariffs.

Amina Srna: I see a few listeners are already calling in, so let me open up the phones for the rest of you. Listeners, if you're just joining us, we're catching up on the political news from over the weekend with Susan Page, USA Today Washington bureau chief. We can take your calls on the latest Trump administration's moves at 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. You can also text that number. As we'll talk about in a bit, any federal workers listening or people who interact with government workers or agencies, we'd love to hear from you.

Give us a call or text at 212-433-9692. Moving on from the tariffs, since we have so much to cover, as we covered last week, the Trump administration is moving to dismantle several government agencies at a speed that neither courts nor Congress seem to really be able to keep up with. Yesterday, the employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that's the CFPB for short, were told that their headquarters would be closed for the week. First, just as a way of background, can you give us a brief explanation of what the CFPB actually does for Americans?

Susan Page: This is a bureau that was created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial meltdown that affected so many Americans across the country with their mortgages, with the resulting economic chaos. This was an agency that was created in 2011 by Congress. Created by Congress, that may be important as we talk about this to where consumers can go if they feel like a bank isn't treating them fairly or they're a victim of fraud or there are junk fees that have been unfairly imposed. This agency investigates complaints by consumers. I'd be curious if any of your listeners have ever filed a complaint or sought help from this agency, and if they've received help. That'd be interesting to hear. It's resulted in billions of dollars being returned to consumers when they have been found to be treated unfairly. Now, it's created by Congress, so you'd assume it could only be dismantled by Congress. That is probably true, although I think a lot of these issues are going to be tested in court. The government can basically stop the agency from doing much of anything.

The director of the agency can tell people not to enforce the law or not to respond to consumers, or they can change the regulations. There's a lot that the administration can do to undermine the agency, although we're not sure at this point whether it is actually legal for them to formally dismantle it.

Amina Srna: This does come at the direction of Russell Vought, who now leads the Office of Management and Budget. He was appointed late Friday as the consumer bureau's acting director. For listeners who are just trying to keep up, who is Russell Vought?

Susan Page: Just keeping up has become a full-time job. We've really never seen the flood of action and controversial action by a president that we've seen from President Trump in the first three weeks of his tenure. It's been unprecedented, certainly in modern American history. Russell Vought is a conservative thinker and analyst and activist who was one of the forces behind the 2025 Project that was the blueprint for a very ambitious takeover of the government. It became controversial during the campaign.

Trump then said he had never read it and he wasn't going to pay any attention to it. Many of the things that we've seen happening in the past several weeks echo what was in the 2025 blueprint. Russell Vought is, as you said, ordered this agency to stand down. Another force behind dismantling is Elon Musk, who just a couple days ago posted a tweet that said that the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, RIP, rest in peace. That came even before the orders from Russell Vought.

Amina Srna: I wanted to ask you a technical question. While the headquarters are shuttered, it appears that employees will be working remotely. Initially, I wanted to ask you if that was your understanding, but over the weekend I was reading that now that you bring up Musk, that sort of one of the driving forces or one of the, if you will, tactics of the way that Musk runs companies or would like to is making workplaces unbearable. They would like to shrink the amount of property that the government actually holds, and that means getting rid of a lot of physical locations. Did you catch that story from over the weekend? Are you familiar?

Susan Page: I didn't see that exact story, but we know that Elon Musk has said that there are way too many federal facilities that some of them aren't used. We also know that Elon Musk's tactic when he took over X and other companies is basically to dare everybody to quit or to fire a bunch of people, and then if you find out you really needed them, you can hire them back. It's a way to keep a-- what you might call a very lean workforce and to get rid of people who might not agree with the direction that you're going.

We've seen that happen. It's one thing for that to happen in a private company. We have not seen that happen before with the federal government. Today is the first day that federal employees are required to be back in the office for five days a week. That's something that they haven't seen since the COVID pandemic sent a lot of people working remotely. The Financial Protection Bureau workers were told to stay home and to not do anything. This is presumably a prelude to trying to push them out of employment altogether.

Now, the union that represents them has filed a lawsuit just last night, and we'll see if that has an effect. We see on so many of the activities that so many of the orders that President Trump has given in the last several weeks, it's been interesting that Congress hasn't been the avenue to defy them or to oppose them. It has really been the court action here, there, and everywhere to try to enjoin or reverse actions that the President is taking.

Amina Srna: Let's go to a caller. Elliot in Roosevelt Island. Hi, Elliot, you're on WNYC.

Elliot: Hi, thank you. Let me take you off speaker.

Amina Srna: So we can hear you better.

Elliot: Hi. Thank you. You were wondering if anyone has had experiences in CFTC, and so I actually have very little amount of money and something that is, was, I guess, regulated by the CFTC and that is online prediction markets where somebody puts money down saying RFK is only going to get 52 senators to vote for him. I say, ''Well, I'll put money down saying he'll get 53 senators''. Then we wait and see what happens. Then whoever is right gets a dollar. Got it. The CFTC was regulating this aggressively, and so eight people took it to court.

There's several of them. I have a little money in one of them. There's others, though, that are also regulated. I could tell you the names, but it's a weird little niche on the Internet and I really have no idea why the CFTC was involved in this.

Amina Srna: Got it. Thank you so much, Elliot. Susan, are you able to answer Elliot's question? Are you familiar with why the CFPB would be-- I guess there would be oversight on sort of betting, which is essentially what online prediction markets might be?

Susan Page: The Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau would come into play if a consumer complained that something was being handled unfairly. That may be the allegation here. Also, I don't know about these prediction markets. I would like to hear more. I don't know what kind of money you can make on that, but it's also true that my predictions on what happens is often quite wrong, so maybe I should stay away from them. Anyway, I think that's a situation in which the bureau might have been involved in overseeing these.

Amina Srna: Got it. Let's move on to-- Listeners, if you're just joining us, we're catching up with the political news from over the weekend with Susan Page, USA Today Washington bureau chief. We can take your calls on the latest Trump administration moves at 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. You can also text that number. Let's talk about what Congress actually has been up to. Before President Trump and congressional Republicans can enact their legislative agenda, they have to finish the current budget year's spending bills. By all media accounts, that doesn't appear to be going too well. Can you catch us up on what's going on there?

Susan Page: We've seen a lot of meetings by Republicans who now control Congress about how to come up with a budget resolution that can keep the government funded when it runs out of money next month. They're having a lot of trouble because there are divisions within the Republican Party about how much money the government should spend. We haven't yet seen the president's budget submission come in. There are some Republicans who, particularly in the House, who are fiscal conservatives who want to see deep cuts. There are others who don't want to have the pain of those deep cuts.

That is not untypical, but the reason it's so difficult this time is that Republicans have such an incredibly narrow majority in the House of Representatives, and there are some Republicans who are considered hopeless in terms of getting to support a budget resolution and in addition, effort to raise the debt ceiling when that becomes necessary. There's a debate among Democrats about whether to offer some votes to get a budget going to have to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government open and operating.

Just yesterday, we saw two senators on the Sunday shows, two Democratic senators suggesting that Democrats would not help. The Republicans are in control and therefore let them figure out how to fund the government. This would be a hardball tactic. It could well result in the government shutting down, and the question would be, would Democrats be blamed because they didn't provide any votes to help, or will Republicans be blamed because they, in fact, have control of Congress?

Amina Srna: Actually, Susan, we have that clip. Just for a little bit background, the stopgap measure lasts through March 14th, and without action, there would be a partial shutdown. This is where, as you were saying, congressional Democrats believe that they have leverage over Trump. Here is New Jersey Senator Andy Kim from yesterday speaking with Meet the Press.

Andy Kim: Yes, look, if we have to take steps to be able to hold them accountable, use the leverage that we have to force it, I cannot support efforts that will continue this lawlessness that we're seeing when it comes to this administration's actions. For us to be able to support government funding in that way, only for them to turn it around to dismantle the government, that is not something that should be allowed.

Amina Srna: I was reading elsewhere that Democrats have two significant points of leverage. There is that paper-thin House majority and then the Senate 60-vote threshold. Can you just tell us a little bit more about what Democrats could potentially do?

Susan Page: Democrats are in a very sorry state. Democrats have no base of power in Washington. They've lost the White House. They've lost control of the Senate. They failed to regain control of the House, which they had hoped to do in November. They found no help from centrist Republicans. We've seen that in the confirmation battles in the Senate. None of Trump's nominees that have come up before committees have been defeated. When you talk about Democratic levers for power, they're pretty limited. Democrats really have the power of their own voice.

So far, they haven't been in complete agreement about what that voice ought to be saying. Here comes this budget resolution to try to fund the government, and it is one of the few places where Democrats could make a difference if they hang together. Democrats are not united on the tactic that you heard Senator Kim talk about in that clip. There are some Democrats who don't want to shut down the government and who think that would be a terrible thing, and there are some Democrats who have supported some of the immigration initiatives that have already come up before the House.

It's not guaranteed that Democrats will do this, but one reason it looks so appealing is because there are so few avenues for Democrats to actually influence what is now happening in Washington.

Amina Srna: You mentioned that the Democrats are not united in terms of whether or not they would use the bill as leverage, but do they seem united, at least in what Trump measures they would actually want to oppose?

Susan Page: There is, I think, Democratic unity in opposing a lot of what Trump is doing. I think this is actually a Trump strategy. There are so many things he's doing that you have to triage your outrage. Democrats have to figure out what they want to unite on opposing because it is hard to oppose every single thing because there is just so much. You have to decide what you think is most important and get your troops to rally around that, and that's still an unfolding process. It's just been a remarkable couple weeks.

Democrats are still not in agreement about why they lost so much in November, about what they ought to do in response. That is a debate that I think was going to take some time to sort out.

Amina Srna: Susan, I know you are a longtime friend of the show, and your listener callout actually seemed to work incredibly well. We have a few listeners calling in on the CFPB to go back a little bit earlier in our conversation. Let's go to Howard in Great Neck. Hi, Howard. You're on WNYC.

Howard: Good morning to both of you. I am a retired federal employee. I worked for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for almost 25 years. The last nine years I worked in consumer protection, dealing with the same laws and protections that the CFPB deals with with respect to the banks that it has supervised. Typically the kinds of complaints that we saw most frequently were relating to credit card fees, the way that late payment fees and other surprise fees could just be piled on one after another with checking account fees, overdrafts, how one overdraft fee would lead to another to another with payday lending.

Folks who could barely live from paycheck to paycheck, who would borrow money at these very high interest rates. Even if they were able to pay their loans back in time, they were paying exceptionally high interest rates. These are the kinds of things that we regulated and that the CFPB has regulated. Those are the kinds of issues that affect lower-income individuals. Wealthy folks don't need to worry about late payment fees and overdraft fees and payday lending. It's precisely the voters who Trump claimed to represent, the little guy, the downtrodden, who are the ones who are the only ones, for the most part, who are going to be hurt by the shutdown of the activities of the CFPB.

Amina Srna: Thank you so much for your call, Howard. Let me squeeze in one more call back to back. Sharon in Queens Village, you're on WNYC.

Sharon: Hi. Just two days ago, I just received a check from the CFPB, which I was really surprised. I was in a litigation about loans. I took out three loans. I paid them all back. They were telling me that the loan companies were doing something illegal and that's why I received this check. What if people don't know what's going on? This agency lets us become aware of what the different loan companies, banks, whatever, are doing illegally, and if we don't know what's going on, who else is going to tell us but that agency?

Amina Srna: Thank you so much for your call. I'm so glad that you were able to get the help that you needed from the CFPB. One last text, Susan, Margaret from Basking Ridge in New Jersey says CFPB was an absolute lifeline after two futile years of working with the three credit bureaus to resolve identity theft and fraud. Susan, hearing those three callers, any thoughts?

Susan Page: Here are three people who are speaking on behalf of the work of the Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau. If members of Congress hear from constituents that this action or that action by President Trump is something they're opposed to, that they want this agency, for instance, to continue, they have the power to talk to elected representatives, and the elected representatives in our system are supposed to respond to what their voters want. That's the way our political system is supposed to work.

The voices that we've just heard of Margaret and Sharon and of Howard, in a democracy, these are powerful voices as we head down some of these new paths in the government.

Amina Srna: Thanks for putting out the call for that. We need to take a short break. When we get back, more of your calls. Stick around. It's the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. If you're just joining us, I'm Amina Srna, a producer here at the Brian Lehrer Show filling in for Brian today. My guest is USA Today's Washington bureau chief, Susan Page. Susan, let's go to a caller who would like to draw a little bit more attention to Friday's announcement regarding the NIH. Vishal in Nyack, you're on WNYC. Hi.

Vishal: Hi. Yes, good morning. As someone said recently that there's a lot of activity that the administration keeps throwing at us every week and we're really struggling to digest it. On Friday, there was an announcement that the National Institute of Health was going to cut back payments of indirect costs for university research. This has wide-ranging implications for academic institutions, medical universities, nonprofits that conduct health research to the benefit of all Americans. What the NIH is going to do is essentially enforce a ceiling of indirect cost rate recovery of 15% across the board for all organizations.

Perhaps I'm getting in the weeds for some folks, but this indirect cost rate covers the essential operational services for any organization to succeed in implementing research to meet out health needs of the American public. This will have a domino effect for all the universities that are in the New York area. It will have a domino effect for other nonprofits that are working on the margins of public health research. Unfortunately, it's probably going to go unnoticed until it's too late.

Amina Srna: I'm seeing in Forbes a social media post from NIH claimed that the policy change would save the federal government as much as 4 billion. It pointed to several universities as examples of institutions with current indirect cost rates of more than 60% on their federal grants. Susan, have you been following that news in all of the news that you follow?

Susan Page: I've read some stories about this, and it sounds like Michelle might know more about this than I do. Here's the argument that the Trump administration is making. They're saying that some of these costs are a sign of abuse, that they're too high. The 60% figure, for instance, that they give, they say is too high. They also point out that the most elite universities doing this kind of research have huge endowments. The question that the Trump administration was raising was they should use these huge endowments for supporting some of these administrative costs and the cost of the facilities that are now being charged to the federal government.

The stories I've seen say that that may be true of some universities, but that other universities, including research now being done at historically black colleges and universities, that they don't have huge endowments and that this will hit them particularly hard. It's an issue in which you've got the Trump administration saying this is a form of abuse. We should cut down on these administrative costs on NIH grants, but some of the recipients saying that it will have a significant effect on their ability to do this medical research.

Amina Srna: Vishal, thank you so much for bringing up that issue. Susan, I wanted to ask you one more question, maybe one more turn on Democratic lawmakers and what they've been up to. Last week we saw on a number of occasions Democratic lawmakers were locked out or denied access to department offices. On Friday, several lawmakers clashed with security at the Department of Education offices. Of course, we saw the same thing happen at the Treasury Department and USAID offices. For folks who are seeing this at the news or clips on their social media feeds, what does this standoff mean?

Susan Page: It shows the limits of Democrats' power to fight back. If you stand on a sidewalk and demand entry, as he did at the Education Department and there's a guard there saying, ''I won't let you in,'' it is visually powerful maybe, but it doesn't really affect the next thing that's going to happen to the Education Department. One of the things Trump said in the interview he did with Bret Baier of Fox with the Super Bowl was that the Education Department is next, the next place that Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency is going to target.

Of course, the Education Department has long been a target of Republicans who have been unable to dismantle the department, which some previous presidents have suggested doing. We are in a new landscape now. I can understand why Democratic members of Congress are doing this to get some attention to what's happening, but it does seem to me it underscores the limited power they have to actually affect what is happening.

Amina Srna: On the topic of Elon Musk, the media has covered Musk's influence over Trump quite extensively. The recent cover of Time recently featured an image of Musk behind the Resolute desk. Trump was asked about this, and here's what he had to say.

Interviewer: Mr. President, do you have a reaction to the new Time magazine cover that has Elon Musk sitting behind your Resolute desk?

[Japanese language]

President Donald Trump: Is Time Magazine still in business? I didn't even know that.

[laughter]

Elon is doing a great job. He's fighting tremendous fraud and corruption and waste.

Amina Srna: I should have referenced ahead of this clip that President Trump was asked this question during a press conference in the Oval Office with the prime minister of Japan. What listeners were hearing there was a translation in Japanese. I believe we have a caller on this topic. Marvin, in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hi, Marvin.

Marvin: Thank you. It's always great to hear Susan Page. Before I make my general comment, I think one of the things that's critical to underline is NPR and PBS are also in the Trump administration's crossfire. While we see megabillionaires controlling most of the media, the importance of public media is essential in terms of keeping the democracy going. Similarly, even the mainstream media and people as Susan Page lapse into talking about Congress not being able to fight back, it's not Congress, it's the Republicans who are not resisting Trump.

My main point is that one of the things that unites all of the seemingly crazy actions by Trump, including wanting to seize Panama, dispel all of the Palestinians from Gaza and the tariffs, et cetera, is a 19th-century vision of the world without any concern about the repercussions. If you raise the price of steel and aluminum and you put a tariff on lumber from Canada, how are you going to solve the housing crisis because buildings would cost that much more?

The same thing in terms of what happens in terms of expelling immigrants who are a major part of the construction company. Trump has ceded the green economy to China. Africa, which is now trying to increase electrification, is relying in large part on solar panels from China because America walked away from that industry.

Amina Srna: I hear you, Martin. I'm so sorry to interrupt you. We're running out of time, so let me just get a quick response from Susan. I don't think we'll have enough time to even get into Gaza and the Panama Canal. I know, Susan, last week you had threaded the needle behind a lot of these different tactics. Do you want to maybe weigh in on a few of the things that Marvin said?

Susan Page: Absolutely. Marvin, thanks for your call. There are echoes of the 19th century here, both in the reliance on tariffs. We saw that with President McKinley, and also the idea that the United States should expand its territory, should buy Greenland and take back the Panama Canal, and make Canada the 51st state. When President Trump first started talking about this, I think a lot of us thought it was not real. Maybe not a joke, but not something he actually intended to do. I think we've been persuaded that he actually would like to expand US Territory, maybe even to the Gaza Strip. I think Marvin's exactly right. These are echoes of things that we've seen before in US History, and we're about to see them again.

Amina Srna: I want to take one more caller. Patricia in Chatham, New Jersey. Hi, you're on WNYC.

Patricia: Hi there. I just wanted to remind people that the government already has an office, it's called the GAO that has inspectors and it's the accountability office and they look for fraud. They've been doing so and they've been doing it pretty well and returning money back from more than what's been spent in that office.

Amina Srna: Thank you.

Patricia: Musk is redundant.

Amina Srna: Susan, are you familiar?

Susan Page: Yes, but what Musk is doing goes much farther than what the General Accounting Office has done. He has now taken over some crucial computer systems. He is using artificial intelligence to try to search out what he identifies as fraud and abuse. This is not really substituting for the General Accounting Office. This is an entirely new and much more far-reaching endeavor that uses new things like AI to try to target what they see as fraud and abuse.

Amina Srna: Speaking of agencies that exist and new subcommittees that have been created, the House has a newly formed DOGE subcommittee led by Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. The panel will have its first meeting on Wednesday, according to Politico. Greene told Axios that she plans to cover Medicaid improper payments. Democratic Representative Jasmine Crockett is expecting, I can't say this on air, an S show and hoping to use the hearing to clarify that DOGE's actions are ''lawless.'' I don't know if you're familiar about this new subcommittee, but what is the point and does it have any teeth for oversight over DOGE?

Susan Page: Talk about the rehabilitation of Marjorie Taylor Greene. She was prevented from serving on committee in a previous Congress and now she is chair of this committee. From what we've heard from her, she intends not kind of critical oversight of the Department of Government efficiency, but rather to boost its mission. I think she is on board with Elon Musk and the projects that he's undertaking.

Amina Srna: That is all the time we have for today. My guest has been Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for USA Today. Susan, thank you so much as always for joining us.

Susan Page: Amina, thank you so much.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.