Category: Climate Change

16-35 Oregon’s Climate Protection Program: What the Rules Actually Say

16-35 Oregon’s Climate Protection Program: What the Rules Actually Say

I Spy Radio  ·  Keeping an Eye on Big Government
Show 16-35

It’s Worse Than We Thought — What Oregon’s Own Rules Say About the Climate Protection Program

Aired  August 2026
Runtime  46:25
Host  Mark Anderson
Guest  Jen Hamaker

Listen to this episode


Awaiting compiled MP3 from Blubrry — replace [INSERT_MP3_URL] once posted.
Chapter timestamps below are also pending final file concatenation.

About this episode

We’ve covered Oregon’s Climate Protection Program before. This week we went back and actually read the Oregon Administrative Rules behind it — and it’s worse than we thought.

Jen Hamaker, president of Oregon Natural Resource Industries, spent weeks in OAR Chapter 340, Division 273 — the rules DEQ adopted after courts threw out the original program — and joins Mark to walk through what’s actually in there. The fuel-supplier threshold that drops from 100,000 tons today to just 25,000 by 2030, pulling in mom-and-pop distributors alongside the majors. The rule that keeps a company inside the program for six years even after it cuts emissions below the line that got it covered in the first place. The $12,000-per-ton civil penalty — not per day — that applies to every uncovered ton, on top of the $136-per-ton Community Climate Investment payment to an out-of-state nonprofit. And the industrial sectors, from sawmills to concrete, already named in the rule and scheduled to face compliance starting 2028–29.

The show also turns the state’s own logic back on itself: with 2.5 million acres burned this season — a new Oregon record — Mark and Jen run the state’s own cap-and-penalty math against the wildfire carbon that went uncounted, and dig into what a declining forest carbon sink means for a program built entirely around burning less fossil fuel.


In this episode

00:00
01

The Noose Widens — Who Actually Counts as a “Fuel Supplier”

Mark’s opener on how the CPP was born as an executive order after two failed legislative votes, then Jen Hamaker on the fuel-supplier threshold dropping from 100,000 to 25,000 tons by 2030 — and the “aggregation trap” that pulls in unrelated businesses under one owner.

00:00
02

The Market You Can’t Get Out Of

Community Climate Investments, the out-of-state nonprofit CalStart, the $136-per-ton credit price, and the six-year rule that keeps a company covered long after it cuts emissions below the line that got it in.

00:00
03

The Real Fine — $12,000 a Ton, Not $136

The civil penalty most people have never heard of, where that money actually goes, DEQ’s 4.5% cut of the CCI program, and the 15% tribal set-aside with no equivalent floor for rural, remote, or coastal communities.

00:00
04

The Industrial List — Sawmills, Concrete, and Housing Costs

The Emissions-Intensive, Trade-Exposed sectors already named in the rule — sawmills, plywood, pulp and paper, concrete and cement — and why that collides with the governor’s own housing-affordability goals starting in 2028–29.

00:00
05

Oregon’s Own Math, Turned on Itself

2.5 million acres burned this season — a new state record — and what the CPP’s own $12,000-per-ton penalty would mean if Oregon applied its rules to its own wildfire emissions.

00:00
06

The Full Picture Nobody’s Added Up

The spotted owl, a declining forest carbon sink, and why Clean Fuels, HB 2021, and the CPP are never evaluated together — even though Oregonians pay for all of them at once.

Links & resources mentioned

Tribal Population Context

About the guests

Jen Hamaker
President, Oregon Natural Resource Industries (ONRI)

Jen Hamaker is president of Oregon Natural Resource Industries and a sixth-generation Oregonian whose family has worked in the state’s natural-resource sector for generations. A recurring I Spy Radio guest on Oregon energy and climate policy, she returns this week after spending weeks reading the actual Oregon Administrative Rules behind the Climate Protection Program — rather than DEQ’s public-facing summaries of them.

onri.us

Full transcript

MARK: I think one of the themes for this election is that Democrats, who are allegedly all about democracy, simply don’t want to listen to people. That is their track record.

Remember that ODOT gas tax that every Democrat — plus one Republican who is now a Democrat — voted for? That 83% of Oregonians said no to and voted down when they finally did have a voice? That was a paltry 6 cents per gallon tax. What’s happening now — that is currently in effect — makes that pale in comparison to what’s coming if it’s allowed to continue. The Climate Protection Program. And unlike that gas tax, it was never allowed to even be sent to the voters.

In 2019, Democrats in the House passed HB 2020. To stop it, 11 Senate Republicans walked out. Some even left the state. Then-Governor Kate Brown sent the state police after them, but after public pressure, she relented, and the bill died.

But she and the Democrats tried to force it again. In February 2020, SB 1530 — the rewrite. And Republicans walked out again. During that fight, Republicans and industry demanded the question go to the voters. But Democrats voted down a proposal to refer the climate plan to voters. OPB reported that Democrats didn’t want that because they were worried it would fail. And there it is. They don’t listen. Democrats don’t like democracy when democracy tells Democrats no.

So two weeks after that walkout, Governor Kate Brown signed Executive Order 20-04, directing state agencies — unelected state agencies — to design and build the program that the Democrat-controlled legislature had just failed twice to pass. But then the Court of Appeals threw it out on procedural grounds in December 2023, without ever ruling on the merits of the rules themselves. Kotek, newly elected in 2022, declined to appeal and had DEQ redo it — and those new rules took effect January 2025.

But what is the Climate Protection Program? For those of you who didn’t listen to our previous shows, or those of you who did and would like a refresher — the Climate Protection Program is a hard, shrinking cap on carbon emissions. This is not a law. It is an executive order, written by DEQ staff and enforced by an unelected commission.

Here’s how that shrinking cap works. The DEQ, the Department of Environmental Quality, sets a cap on carbon emissions statewide. The DEQ hands out permission slips — one per ton. Like a tightening noose on industry, the allowable amount of CO2 shrinks every year. Last year they allowed 24.2 million tons. This year it’s 23.2 million.

Within that, which businesses are regulated by the CPP is determined by “thresholds.” The allowable per-company threshold is currently 100,000 tons. So that’s hitting the so-called “big polluters.”

But let me pause right there. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant — it’s a nutrient. Plants need carbon dioxide. They need it to make oxygen, which is sort of important to people.

Those thresholds are what a company is allowed to emit. But go beyond that and you start paying penalties — $136 per ton. So if you’re over that 100,000-ton threshold by just 10% — 10,000 tons — that’s a $1.36 million fine per year.

Back to that threshold, because the CPP doesn’t just tighten — it widens, pulling in more businesses. That threshold of 100,000 is lowered in 2028 by half, to 50,000. You’re allowed to emit 100,000 now, but two years from now, only half of that. And by 2030 — just four years away — it shrinks again by another half, down to 25,000. A whopping 75% reduction in just four years.

So they’re tightening the noose, and what I mean by “it widens” is that they’ll put that noose around more necks. That lowering of the threshold means businesses not currently deemed “large enough emitters” will be deemed that in just a couple of years. And once you’re in, you can’t get out.

We’ve been talking about this for a few years now, and finally other people are starting to pay attention too. But — and this is the reason for this week’s show — it’s worse than we thought. Some related research led us down a rabbit trail back to the CPP, and it turns out that when you dig into the OARs, the Oregon Administrative Rules — the nitty-gritty that nobody likes to look into, but fortunately our guest did — that’s where this cautionary tale turns into a horror story.

To talk about all that, I’d like to welcome Jen Hamaker back to the show. She’s the one who first put us onto this. Jen, welcome back — am I correct in thinking this is worse than we thought? What were your overall impressions as you dug into those rules?

JEN: Yes, it is as bad, if not worse, than what we thought. And DEQ’s own rules are the teeth of the enforcement side of this. It’s bad.

MARK: Personally, I think they’re astronomically worse — especially the lowering of the thresholds, which is going to capture more and more businesses. Looking at this from a business standpoint, I think we’re going to have businesses flooding out of the state as this starts to fully kick in. And the really dangerous thing is that people just don’t know about this right now.

We started talking about this several years ago, and here’s what we thought we knew back then. Back on Show 14-34, Chuck Wiese, our guest on that show, spent an entire hour trying to get straight answers out of DEQ’s Nicole Singh about who’s actually getting hit by this program and how the allotments are apportioned. He called every big supplier by name — Northwest Natural, ExxonMobil, Chevron — because that’s who we assumed this was built for. He never got a straight answer. DEQ just wouldn’t respond.

So here’s what we know now. You went through and read the rules yourself, and it turns out the big suppliers were never the point. That threshold falls from 100,000 tons today to just 25,000 by 2030, which I mentioned in the opener. And by then, DEQ itself expects to cover 99% of Oregon’s liquid fuel and propane supply.

JEN: Correct. Which means the mom-and-pop — anybody that distributes gas or natural gas — it broadens the entire spectrum of who’s going to be under compliance. And it’s punitive.

MARK: On the natural gas front — that was one of the other things that put me onto revisiting this show. I was doing some research, and it turns out the figure that kept coming up was that the CPP was only going to cost $4.9 billion over eleven years. Except that’s not quite correct. That $4.9 billion comes from the natural gas industry’s own lawsuit filings, saying it’s going to cost Oregon ratepayers $4.9 billion over those eleven years — but that’s just the natural gas side. When you expand it into all of the industries, the projections are actually well north of $20 billion over eleven years.

It’s shocking, and I can’t believe nobody’s talking about this — I think simply because they didn’t do what you did, which is actually go and look at how this is going to impact people.

JEN: I didn’t realize it was going to be that much — $20 billion over eleven years. This is the largest climate plan in the world, and it’s punitive, and it’s happening in Oregon when we’re already green.

MARK: Allegedly. As far as the fuel-supplier threshold is concerned, just to give people a sense of scale — when you drop down to 25,000 tons in 2030, a typical U.S. gas station moves 1.2 to 1.8 million gallons a year. So by 2030, a distributor supplying roughly two busy gas stations’ worth of fuel is a regulated, covered entity. Just two stations. This is going to hit all of these mom-and-pop distributors that are out there trying to get the fuel we need to keep the economy going. It’s not just the big regional names — those are the ones getting hit now.

But there’s another issue you uncovered, called an “aggregation trap.” A business owner will often own multiple related — or not even completely related — industries. If one of those business entities falls under this threshold, all of the businesses he owns are also hit.

JEN: Yes. And in a short time, that compliance threshold broadens — it ends up including a lot of different companies. That aggregation trap is horrible, because it regulates people who aren’t even polluting, or bringing in gas, or producing emissions themselves.

MARK: It’s shocking, and we’re definitely going to need a second show on this — I can guarantee we’re only scratching the surface. All right, everyone, stay with us. Lots more to come on the Climate Protection Program with Jen Hamaker.

— Segment 2 —

MARK: And welcome back. This is the I Spy Radio Show, talking today to Jen Hamaker, president of ONRI — Oregon Natural Resource Industries. A sixth-generation Oregonian, her family has been involved in natural resources for literally generations.

Jen, in the last segment we introduced the CPP, the Climate Protection Program — and I want to start digging into some of this. Here’s again what we thought we knew. When we talked to you on a previous show, back on Show 15-23, I said on air — and I quote myself — “they’ve created a market that you can’t even get out of.” That was a gut read at the time. I didn’t have a rule number to point to. It was just an educated guess, knowing how Salem operates and how Democrats work.

So here’s what we know now. It turns out I was right — there’s an actual rule that makes this true. And you found it. Talk to us about the market and how this plays out.

JEN: The CCI is Community Climate Investments. DEQ has picked a nonprofit, CalStart, located down in California. You can pay CalStart for allowances — so if you go over the cap as a company, you can pay into the CCI program, which goes to the nonprofit CalStart, and buy allowable credits from them to offset your emissions. You’re giving money to a nonprofit. And you can also bank your allowances, transfer them, or surrender them. It creates an artificial market where those allowances become very expensive if you need them to continue to operate. This is cap and trade, in black and white. There’s no doubt about it.

MARK: It’s the same effect as the cap-and-trade program the legislature tried to pass. In that same earlier show, we talked about how some Republicans were willing to sign “a deal with the devil” — going along with a legislative cap-and-trade program because it would be slightly better than the Climate Protection Program mistake.

JEN: Yes.

MARK: Unfortunately they didn’t, because when it comes to choosing between two poison pills, you don’t swallow the least poisonous one — you let your opponents do that. Fortunately, they didn’t. So people understand — the reason you’d need those allowances is because you can’t quite get under the threshold set for your business or industry. That’s the 100,000, dropping to 50,000 in 2028, and down to 25,000 by 2030. That allows you to keep polluting beyond the cap if you just can’t quite hit the target. Do we have any sense of what those credits currently sell for?

JEN: You can buy up to 20% of your emissions and give that money to the CCI, the nonprofit, to offset your emissions — and they cost $136 per ton through the government. But once you have those allowances, you can bank them, transfer them, sell them, whatever — and that’s where this artificial market gets created. How much is one of those credits worth when a company needs it to stay in business? The sky’s the limit. It’s a private negotiation between companies.

MARK: And you mentioned it’s a $136-per-ton charge from the government right now.

JEN: Right.

MARK: But we’ll come back to that, because that’s not quite the whole story. The other thing I mentioned is that you can’t get out of this — once you fall in, those rules apply to you for the next six years, at least.

So just to reiterate: if your target is 25,000 tons and you get under to 24,000, that doesn’t mean you’re excluded. You still have to follow those same regulatory requirements for the next six years, just to maybe get out at the end of it — and of course, the rules can change between now and then.

JEN: And it also covers any other companies you might own, even if those are in compliance on their own.

MARK: Exactly right. That’s what’s so frightening about the reach of this — it’s going to start impacting other companies even if they don’t directly fall under it. And you’ve got $20 billion over eleven years being removed from Oregon’s economy on this.

So getting back to CalStart, the nonprofit handling this — this is so typical for the left. They love to operate this way. We’ve seen it with climate change since our first year covering this. What we’ve found is they hide this money behind the shield of a nonprofit, because if it were a government agency, you could file a public records request and say, “Show us how you’re spending this money. Who’s getting it? How much are you taking in, how much are you spending, and with whom?” You can’t do that with a nonprofit — it’s behind that veil of secrecy. They have to show you the top five recipients or so, but beyond that, they could be funding literally hundreds of far-left organizations. That’s where a lot of this will go — to organizations that support climate causes under the banner of “environmental justice.”

How many conservative organizations are involved in environmental justice funding? None that I’m aware of. If this were a funding mechanism the right was using — bleeding off taxpayer dollars for pro-life initiatives, the National Rifle Association, or funding a religion, which is essentially what climate change has become — there would be hell to pay. But for some reason, Republicans tolerate this.

JEN: I agree.

MARK: Okay, everyone, stay with us. We’ll continue this with Jen Hamaker, talking about the Climate Protection Program. There’s still a lot more to unpack here — none of it good.

— Segment 3 —

MARK: And welcome back. We’re talking today to Jen Hamaker, president of ONRI, Oregon Natural Resource Industries — find out more about their work at onri.us. We’re talking about the Climate Protection Program, something you need to know about, because it isn’t getting enough attention. Republicans especially ought to be talking about this, because it’s exponentially larger than the gas tax that was defeated by 83% of voters statewide — including in deep-blue Multnomah County, where it was defeated by 73%. That includes a lot of Democrats.

Jen, one of the things we talked about last segment was this target-emissions line you get fined for on every ton over your allotted amount. Right now that’s 100,000, dropping to 50,000 in two years, down to 25,000 in four years, in 2030. But that’s not the full story, because according to the OARs — and you can find these on today’s show page, 16-35 — one rule states that each metric ton of CO2 of a compliance obligation for which a covered entity does not demonstrate compliance is a separate violation. What that means: a Class I major violation is $12,000 per ton — not per day, per ton. If you exceed that, that’s your fine, and I had no idea it was anywhere near that high.

JEN: So if you exceed that by, say, a thousand tons…

MARK: That’s $12 million. Boom.

JEN: Where does that money go?

MARK: That’s a good question — I don’t have that in front of me right now. We’ll find that out and get it up on the show page. I’d assume some of that has to be offset somehow, but I don’t know off the top of my head.

JEN: Does the CCI get it?

MARK: Possibly — wouldn’t surprise me. We’ll have to figure that one out. But again — $12,000 per ton. If you’re already at 25,000 tons and you go 1,000 tons over that, that’s $12 million. How many businesses do you think can absorb a $12 million fine?

JEN: The DEQ is going to get rich.

MARK: It’s absolutely stunning how punitive this fine is. And even the $136 figure can add up quickly — if you’re over by just a thousand tons, for a small company, that’s a $136,000 fine. That’s two paychecks worth of employees you could have been paying, and instead you’re paying the state.

So one of the things out there is what this “environmental justice” nonprofit funding actually goes toward. Do we even know what qualifies as an environmental-justice expenditure?

JEN: From my experience, pretty much anybody who can justify themselves as environmental justice gets included. And as far as DEQ’s oversight of the CCI, the nonprofit CalStart — DEQ charges 4.5% off the top to oversee them. But within the DEQ statutes, there are no regulations on who the nonprofit can give their money to, as long as it has something to do with environmental justice. To me, it’s a racket.

MARK: It does sound like a racket. One thing I found interesting — a minimum of 15% of those CCI project funds has to go to tribes, specifically federally recognized tribes within Oregon. Fifteen percent — is that fifteen percent of Oregon’s population? I don’t think so. Do we have any idea why they’re getting that guaranteed share?

JEN: I think it’s a feel-good thing. Honestly, the more I understand these regulations and statutes within DEQ, the sicker I get. I don’t have a good answer for you on that one.

MARK: While we were talking, I quickly looked up where that $12,000 goes — that’s a civil penalty, so the state gets that. The CCI credits, though, those still go to CalStart. But the $12,000 is a civil penalty. And it’s even worse than that, because according to my research, the director can escalate that to $25,000 per violation per day.

JEN: All of this is so arbitrary — it’s just a way for government to collect more money, more money, more money. Bigger government, more regulations, more restrictions. Who would ever think you could punish your way out of climate change?

MARK: Punish your way out of it — exactly. It’s kind of like the COVID lockdowns, how onerous those got, where they’d punish you regardless. How many businesses went under because they couldn’t — or wouldn’t — follow the rules, and people weren’t coming through their doors like before? This is going to destroy Oregon’s businesses. We are already bleeding businesses.

JEN: That’s right. And it’s going to take us out of competition too, because anybody inside Oregon’s borders has to comply with this program.

MARK: Imagine trying to attract businesses: “Come to Oregon — and if you pollute more, we’ll let you pollute, for $12,000 a ton.” It’s pretty shocking. All right, everyone, stay with us — we’re going to continue this with Jen Hamaker, talking about the Climate Protection Program and what you need to know.

— Segment 4 —

MARK: And welcome back, talking about the Climate Protection Program. This is coming at you fast — in fact, it’s already in effect, and it’s going to get progressively worse very quickly, within the next two years — conveniently, after the governor’s election. And it’s the governor who could undo this, because it’s not a law, it’s an executive order. Switch who’s governor, and you can undo this. Christine Drazan has said repealing it is a priority for her.

Jen, let’s talk about what we thought we knew about which industries would be hit by this. We had a sense of some of them, but after you dug into the OARs, it turns out to be much broader. Which parts of Oregon’s natural-resource industries are going to be hit by this?

JEN: Every single one of them. There’s something in the CPP rules that specifically identifies what they call EITEs — Emissions-Intensive, Trade-Exposed industries. Those include sawmills, semiconductor manufacturing, plywood mills, veneer mills, and pulp and paper. Our natural-resource industries will be hit by this, and they’re subject to the full emissions regulations under DEQ through the CPP.

MARK: The other ones on that list include concrete and cement companies, iron and steel, glass, chemicals, fertilizer and agricultural chemicals, plastics, mining and quarrying, aerospace, and semiconductor manufacturing, which you mentioned. When you look at all of that — one of the governor’s stated goals is lower-cost, more affordable housing. She’s been saying that since she ran in 2022. Well, guess what she’s targeting: lumber. That’s going to go up. And concrete — you need that to pour foundations. Iron and steel are used in buildings. Glass, for windows. So the very things she says she wants to lower costs on, the CPP and all of these rules are not going to lower anything.

JEN: Correct. And it’s layered on with everything else she’s done — shutting down our forests, regulating all of that too. The crazy thing about the EITEs having to be subject to the full emission-reduction requirements is that DEQ is still developing the specific emissions-intensity benchmarks and reduction schedules, so we don’t even know what the fallout is going to be yet. But what we’ve researched so far tells us it’s going to be extreme. This is the brainchild that started with Kate Brown and moved to Tina Kotek, and she’s ratcheting it up.

MARK: Something else important — the threshold for these EITEs is lower than for fuel suppliers. Their threshold is only 15,000 tons of emissions. That’s hitting a mid-size mill or food processor — not some giant mega-corporation. Smaller, though not quite mom-and-pop, and certainly much smaller than the fuel suppliers at 25,000 tons. Do we have any idea why they’ve lowered it for those industries specifically?

JEN: No — well, it’s the transportation sector that produces the most emissions overall, so the CPP really targets that. And the cap decreases over time while the cost increases over time. With the 15,000-ton threshold for the EITEs, that’s how they’re going to make their bread and butter — semiconductor manufacturing, sawmills, all of it. This is just so punitive, and again, this is the largest, most expensive, most punitive climate plan in the world.

MARK: Even just the $136 per ton is three times what Washington and California charge.

JEN: Yeah, and that’s the base rate.

MARK: Getting back to the CCI payments — the reserve, which was in your notes as item five: DEQ has the ability to retire those compliance instruments. So it’s not just lowering the threshold from 100,000 tons down to 25,000 and even lower by 2050 — it can also lower the amount of credits you’re allowed to buy. Talk to us about how that works.

JEN: A compliance instrument, in layman’s terms, is one ton of CO2, or emissions. The obligation is the volume of emissions each supplier is responsible for. When DEQ retires an allowance — one metric ton — it ratchets the cap down further, and it moves down fast. Under specified circumstances, DEQ can retire those compliance instruments, and that matters because scarcity isn’t an accidental side effect of this program. The declining number of available instruments is central to making the emissions cap work — and to the money it generates for government.

MARK: Right. Just to go through some of the numbers: the reserve currently allows 800,000 instruments from 2025 through 2028–2029. That shrinks to 500,000, and from 2035 onward, to 250,000. So they’re lowering the threshold at which this kicks in, and also lowering what I think of as those “donation” payments — kind of like the old medieval practice of indulgences, effectively letting you keep sinning. They’re shrinking the supply of those indulgences, so the price is going to explode.

JEN: Exactly — that’s exactly my fear. That’s exactly what a program like this supports.

MARK: Horrendous. Okay, coming up, we’re going to talk about the largest polluter in Oregon. Stay with us.

— Segment 5 —

MARK: And welcome back. This week’s show is one of those where the more you look, the worse it gets — and that tends to happen with government programs. We’re talking about the Climate Protection Program, an executive order originally put in place by Kate Brown after Republicans walked out to stop it in the legislature. It was thrown out by the Court of Appeals on disclosure grounds, then reinstated under Governor Kotek, and it’s currently in effect.

Jen, our guest today, is president of ONRI, Oregon Natural Resource Industries — their website is onri.us. Jen, the reason I got onto this angle was thinking about the stated goal of reducing carbon emissions. That’s weird, I thought, because right now we are burning up — this is the largest forest-fire season we’ve ever had. So I started digging: roughly how many acres have already burned? Jen, can you give us a sense of the scale?

JEN: Right now in Oregon we’ve burned 2.5 million acres this year. It’s the biggest fire season in Oregon history.

MARK: And just two years ago we had that really big one, and we thought that was astronomical. This one’s even bigger. It’s like we’ve learned nothing. So again, looking at this through the lens of “we want to reduce carbon emissions” — how much carbon did those 2.5 million acres put into the air, which we’ve said we don’t want to do? Doing the research, that’s roughly 30 million tons of CO2. Our cap this year, per DEQ, is 23,280,253 tons. So that’s roughly 6.72 million tons over the state’s own limit.

If you wanted to fine that — and I’d call this willful negligence, because we know forests burn when you don’t manage them — to me, that’s a willful violation of what we say we want to do. At the $12,000-per-ton civil penalty, that’s $80 billion the state would owe itself. And if you use the full 30 million tons over the cap, remember, this is on top of what industry pays — that’s $360 billion.

But the state isn’t liable for any of that, because apparently that’s not “man-caused” emissions — they call it natural. I’m sorry, but if you have the opportunity to not let these fires burn and don’t take it, to me that’s man-caused.

JEN: That’s correct. And just to put this in perspective — remember the Labor Day fires? The initial blaze emitted enough to equal every single car in Portland running 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. Just to give you an idea of scale.

MARK: How many tons of carbon dioxide do trees take out of the atmosphere once they’ve already burned and are no longer there? You need those plants to take carbon dioxide out of the air. You just let 2.5 million acres go up in flames, putting all of that carbon into the air. You’d think maybe we ought to do something about that.

JEN: It’s a double whammy — we’re destroying the lungs of Oregon.

MARK: Jen, there’s something else from your notes I want to get to. The CPP isn’t Oregon’s only carbon-compliance system, and I think that’s the really dangerous part, because we don’t have a true sense of exactly how much this is all going to cost Oregonians. Separate from the CPP, Oregon’s Clean Fuels Program already operates its own credit-and-deficit system affecting transportation fuels. Walk us through some of these other carbon-compliance systems.

JEN: This is layered carbon compliance on top of carbon compliance. Right now, the fuel tax in Oregon is 40 cents. The Clean Fuels compliance cost is about ten, almost eleven cents. The CPP compliance cost is going to be about 39 cents starting in 2028, and it’ll ratchet up from there. And DEQ’s own calculated average compliance cost rose about 25% in one year. Add all of that up — what’s the aggregate cost to consumers buying fuel? To me, this is one of the scariest parts of the whole thing, because fuel cost touches everything — not just transportation, not just industry, but the mom taking her kid to school in the morning. All of this is going to start costing us, and then heating your home on top of that, with natural gas ratcheting up too. We genuinely don’t know what the end result is going to be for the consumer.

MARK: Just to run through the other pieces you’ve mentioned — on top of the CPP, you’ve got HB 2021’s electricity requirements, Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, the CCI system — that’s the $136-per-ton additional cost if you exceed the cap — plus the 4.5% DEQ fee, and future EITE industrial compliance on top of that. You nailed it when you asked: where is the cumulative economic analysis when you lump all of this together? It’s astronomical.

I don’t understand how they can even consider this, going back to your notes — a logger doesn’t buy Clean Fuels diesel on Monday and CPP diesel on Tuesday. Oregon evaluates these regulations one at a time, but businesses don’t pay them one at a time. Eventually all of this ends up in the hands of the customer, because the upstream fines and regulations impacting the cost of doing business don’t just get absorbed — businesses have to pass that on.

JEN: That’s right. That’s why I think this is a racket — the consumer pays more, and the government gets more. And to add to it: right now DEQ has 21 companies, covered fuel suppliers, receiving compliance instruments under the CPP, and DEQ gets to decide how much each one of those companies gets against the cap — about 24 million tons in 2026. To me, that’s exactly why people don’t trust government — these backroom deals. DEQ says they have an equation, but that equation is only known to DEQ, deciding which company gets how many of these allowances. It’s “you scratch my back, I scratch yours.” Is there something more happening there? I don’t know.

MARK: It’s selective punishment, for sure. All right, everyone, stay with us for our final segment, where we’re going to talk about Oregon doing the opposite of what it says it wants.

— Segment 6 —

MARK: And welcome back for our final segment, talking to Jen Hamaker, president of ONRI, Oregon Natural Resource Industries — onri.us. Jen, we’ve been talking about the CPP, and as we discussed last segment, the stated goal is reducing carbon emissions — and yet the state is by far the biggest polluter of anyone out there.

This ties right in, because with all of these forest fires destroying habitat — did you happen to see that Oregon State researchers recently found the northern spotted owl is functionally extinct in significant parts of its range? We started this effort back in the seventies and eighties to save the spotted owl, and now it’s effectively lost. How many acres have we allowed to burn while claiming we want to protect the spotted owl? How many spotted owls are living in areas that used to be forest and no longer are? I’m guessing zero. Does this affect the habitat conservation plan?

JEN: Actually, yes, it absolutely does — they’ve set aside hundreds of acres per pair of spotted owls, and if the owls are gone, there will be real questions about those set-asides. But I want to bring up something I think your listeners need to understand: none of these rules, regulations, allowances, and compliances have really been looked at in the aggregate — as a whole.

MARK: Yes.

JEN: It’s the same with our forests, which keep burning while government shuts down the Elliott, shuts down millions of acres under the Private Forest Accord, shuts down millions more under the HCP on state lands. They look at each of those individually — they don’t add it all up, so they never see the full picture. That’s exactly what’s happening with the CPP and all of these other rules and regulations, like Clean Fuels, all contributing to what consumers are going to have to pay. Nobody has looked at the full picture. That’s what government keeps doing — they focus on one thing at a time, and pretty soon all of it gets passed on to us.

MARK: Well, and again, they say the goal is a decline in carbon emissions. Okay — we’ve got some carbon vacuum cleaners out there, they’re called trees. Oregon’s own 2025 Land-Based Net Carbon Inventory shows that since 1990, the forest’s ability to remove carbon has declined 44% because of these fires — from 104.5 million tons down to 58.62 million in 2024. Again, if the goal is to reduce carbon, instead we’re letting those trees burn up, which means they can’t be out there pulling carbon out of the air.

JEN: Not only are they no longer able to sequester CO2 once they’ve burned — they’re also contributing to the CO2 total, because roughly half of dried wood, by weight, is carbon. You burn it, and it’s released. It’s a double whammy, again.

MARK: It absolutely is. Jen, unfortunately we’re up against the clock. This has been very informative — as I said at the top of the show, we’re definitely going to have you back, because a lot of what we’ve done here is really just first-blush research, and it’s astronomical just trying to get your head wrapped around it.

JEN: There’s so much to this.

MARK: It absolutely is astonishing. Thank you so much for your time today.

JEN: Thank you so much.

MARK: It probably won’t surprise you that there is a tremendous amount of information we still haven’t covered, including the fact that this isn’t just an Oregon story — there’s an international organization behind all of it. I want to encourage you to go to our website, ispyradio.com/16-35, to find out more — there’s a tremendous amount of information up there already. And I’d especially encourage you to contact your candidates and make this an issue in this campaign, because this is an executive order — the fastest way to undo it is to change who holds that office, the governor. But if you keep — or let expand — those Democrat supermajorities, this becomes law. That’s why you can’t just focus on the governor’s race. You’ve got to support those down-ballot races too, the representatives and the senators. Because as we say every week — the best information does you no good if you don’t use it.

Catch the show live


Map of I Spy Radio broadcast areas and air times

The I Spy Radio Show airs weekends — seven times across seven real radio stations, not internet-only streams. Listen anywhere through the stations’ live streams. See when, where, and how to listen for the full schedule.

Missed it? The podcast posts Mondays, after the broadcast stations air the show — here on this page or on your favorite platform.

I Spy Radio  —  Keeping an Eye on Big Government


16-29 Breaking the Spell — Mike Gonzalez on the Rise of Socialism in America

16-29 Breaking the Spell — Mike Gonzalez on the Rise of Socialism in America

Breaking the Spell — Mike Gonzalez on the Rise of Socialism in America

Aired  July 18–19, 2026
Runtime  ~48 min
Host  Mark Anderson
Guest  Mike Gonzalez, The Heritage Foundation
Listen  See our network of stations, areas, times and livestream options

About this episode

Mike Gonzalez fled Communist Cuba with his family when he was twelve years old. Now a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, he joins Mark to explain why socialism is winning young voters who’ve never lived under it — and why that’s no accident.

Mark and Mike Gonzalez, the Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and co-author of NextGen Marxism, trace how a cultural takeover of institutions like the Smithsonian is reshaping how young Americans see their own country, and how billions in taxpayer dollars — from USAID to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to a $2.8 billion “climate justice” grant program — have quietly subsidized the activist ecosystem behind it. They dig into whether socialist candidates actually win head-to-head races against Republicans or whether vote-splitting and ranked-choice voting are doing the real work, and bring it home to Oregon: the primary upset of a sitting Democratic state senator, an open Portland House seat, and a sitting DSA incumbent since 2022 — plus Portland DSA’s open push for single-payer health care here in Oregon.

The back half of the show is built around what Mark calls “breaking the spell” — a set of direct, personal questions aimed at disarming committed socialists, including two on-air hypothetical tests: would they personally give away 90–95% of their own income today, and would they accept a nine-month wait for surgery under the kind of socialized medicine they’re proposing for everyone else? The show closes with Gonzalez’s practical, on-the-ground advice for pushing back — at school board meetings, at the ballot box, and in conversations with friends and family who’ve bought into the utopia.

In this episode

00:44
01

Fleeing Cuba — From Journalist to Fighting Socialism Full-Time

Gonzalez on leaving Cuba at twelve, his path from the Wall Street Journal to Heritage, and how the Smithsonian became his current fight. Plus: the deep-blue primary playbook behind Darializa Chevalier’s win over a three-term incumbent in New York.

10:29
02

Why Socialism Is Winning Now — and the Smithsonian’s $1.1 Billion Question

The Cold War generation gap, the manufactured “Hispanic” census category, and the White House’s 160-page report on the National Museum of American History — plus whether institutions that keep indoctrinating should lose public funding.

18:08
03

Follow the Money — USAID, CPB, and the $303 Billion Question

How defunding USAID correlated with seven straight conservative wins in Latin America, the OMB’s push to do the same thing domestically, and the $303 billion a year flowing to more than 100,000 NGOs — compared to what conservative causes receive.

25:51
04

Do They Win Head-to-Head? Vote-Splitting, the Democratic Civil War, and Oregon

Why every headline socialist win is a safe-seat primary, the academic case for ranked-choice voting as a deliberate DSA strategy, and whether establishment Democrats like Shapiro and Fetterman can actually stop the party’s leftward drift.

33:20
05

Breaking the Spell, Part 1 — The Hypocrisy Tests

What actually disarms a committed socialist, Gonzalez’s own family history with envy and expropriation in Cuba, and Mark’s two on-air tests: giving away your own wealth, and waiting nine months for surgery — plus Oregon’s own push for single-payer health care.

40:46
06

Breaking the Spell, Part 2 — What Actually Works

Practical, local-level advice for pushing back — school boards, syllabi, parent-teacher nights — plus whether “communist” is the right line of attack given capitalism’s own sliding favorability numbers, and Gonzalez’s closing message to young Americans.

Links & resources mentioned

Mike Gonzalez & The Heritage Foundation

  • Mike Gonzalez (heritage.org staff bio)
  • The Heritage Foundation
  • NextGen Marxism: What It Is and How to Combat It (with Katharine Gorka, Encounter Books, April 2024)
  • The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free (Encounter Books, 2020)

The Smithsonian & “Saving America’s Story”

Follow the Money

Elections, Vote-Splitting & Oregon

Oregon’s Universal Health Care Push

  • Right to Health Care constitutional amendment (Measure 111, 2022) — Universal Health Plan Governance Board created by HB 1089 (2023); single-payer plan due to the Legislature by September 2026

About the guest

Mike Gonzalez
Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow  ·  The Heritage Foundation

Mike Gonzalez fled Communist Cuba with his family as a child. A former journalist who wrote for the Wall Street Journal, he is now the Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, where his current work centers on the Smithsonian Institution and the census’s racial and ethnic categories. He is co-author, with Katharine Gorka, of NextGen Marxism: What It Is and How to Combat It (Encounter Books, 2024), and author of The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free (Encounter Books, 2020).

heritage.org/staff/mike-gonzalez

Full transcript

Segment 01 · Fleeing Cuba — From Journalist to Fighting Socialism Full-Time · 00:44

Mark:

Let’s say that you wanted to destroy America, but you didn’t want America to know that you wanted to destroy America. How would you do it?

Well, one of the first things you would need to do is figure out how to get money. A lot of money. And nothing bothersome like going out and earning it, or developing a billion-dollar company — that’s a lot of hard work. Besides, you’re going to need much more than that, because destroying America is going to require reprogramming people, distorting their view of reality, and getting them to believe a lie.

We’ve talked about that before — we interviewed one of the co-authors of the book Disinformation. This was a Soviet program back when the Soviet Union was still around, and that kind of disinformation is a key part of socialism or communism, if you prefer — they’re the same thing. But to do that, you need a tremendous amount of resources and money, because doing it on a country-wide scale is not easy or inexpensive. And you’ll need allies — the media, universities, clever marketing slogans. So you need a lot of money.

Now, what’s the largest business in America with practically a bottomless checkbook? No, it’s not SpaceX or Google or one of the new AI companies. It’s the American government. They spend trillions of dollars every year — so much they can barely keep track of it. You don’t need a trillion dollars every year, that would be too obvious. But you do need to bleed off money by the billions — hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

And that’s easy — fraud, or setting up imaginary problems like Climate Change, telling people if we don’t do something the world is going to end. You scare people into believing things that simply aren’t real. And you need enemies — what better enemy than America itself, since that’s what you’re trying to destroy. But you can’t make it too obvious that you’re just voting to give Democrats money. Instead you need a network of shell companies — nonprofits. And you need laws to protect how all of that public money gets sent to them, and how it’s spent, and who they give it to.

On today’s show, we’re taking a deeper look at socialism. The goal today is to give you some idea of what you’re facing, because it’s coming here — especially right here in Oregon — unless people wake up and realize what the stakes are and do something about it.

As we say all too often here on I Spy Radio, the fight for freedom is an everyday fight. So to talk about the rise of socialism in America, I’d like to welcome Mike Gonzalez, the Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. That is quite a mouthful, but it’s great to have you. Thanks for joining us.

Mike Gonzalez:

Mark, thanks a lot for having me on. Arredondo — it is a mouthful, but it’s a very nice family name.

Mark:

Oh, yeah, I have no doubt about it. So, we know you’re busy getting ready to testify in front of Congress, so we really appreciate you joining us here. As I understand things, you and your family left Cuba — so how old were you when that happened?

Mike Gonzalez:

Oh my God, it’s so long ago — I was twelve years old when I left. That’s not exactly last week, if you look at me.

Mark:

So do you have any memories of it yourself, or is most of what you know entirely secondhand, from your family and what they’ve told you over the years?

Mike Gonzalez:

No, no, no — I have many, many memories, most of them very bad, because communism is a horrible thing and we shouldn’t be inviting it into this country. But there you are. I still have searing memories of what that was like in the sixties.

Mark:

Well, the owner of one of the stations we air on grew up back in Romania when it was still behind the Iron Curtain, and he left when he turned twenty-one, if I remember right. So in terms of what you experienced, are there details that have really stuck with you as you’ve gotten older and started studying socialism for a living — things that just jump out and say, oh my gosh, people really need to know this?

Mike Gonzalez:

Well, socialism has evolved from the socialism that I experienced — I experienced a revolution, like the communism it used to be. You talk about your friend in Romania — we all have war stories to trade. I was just in the Czech Republic two weeks ago; we say we’re members of a club nobody wants to be a member of. So it’s socialism today, and I’ve written a few books about how this has undergone an evolution — a huge change that’s more cultural. It affects our cultural institutions. The work I’m occupied with right now is the Smithsonian. The Trump administration, quite rightly I think, has focused on the Smithsonian Institution, which is the world’s largest museum complex, and cultural Marxists have taken it over. They’ve tried to use history and these museums that the nation has entrusted to them for societal change — that’s what cultural Marxists do. They try to use the culture, the educational system, to change how people think from within. It’s no longer a revolution like my family experienced — but if you change how people believe, then you have millions of voters voting for someone like Zohran Mamdani, or for Katie Wilson, or for Graham Platner, or for Darializa Chevalier. And they’ve been told by their cultural institutions that this is good, that this is how society needs to change — that American culture needs to change. That’s what I’ve gained through my studies, not through personal experience.

Mark:

Well, I think so much of what today’s socialists think — when it comes to why they want socialism — is because they have no experience with it. It’s really very much this imaginary utopia. So what’s the reaction of today’s socialist wannabes when you tell them, hey, have you ever lived in a socialist country or experienced it? Because my family has.

Mike Gonzalez:

Well, they don’t, really. First they’ll say platitudes like, “that wasn’t really socialism,” or “it’ll be different this time, we know what we’re doing.” Or they’ll say what happened in Cuba was actually pretty good — it was an attempt at equality, and you’re just a malcontent, you should go build socialism in Cuba. They’ll say a number of things that evade reality. To quote scripture, they know not what they do.

Mark:

Yeah, or what they espouse. You’ve got a recent book out with Katharine Gorka, NextGen Marxism, and I got a really interesting review from a Manhattan Institute fellow saying it shows readers the nature of the beast, and how to fight it. I’d like to come back to that in more depth later in the show — but for now, can you give our listeners a preview? What are some of the things that work to stop the socialists?

Mike Gonzalez:

Well, I think what Trump is doing — you have to take the cultural institutions back. You have to clean out the universities, clean out the Smithsonian, and that’s what’s being done right now. The administration looks serious about taking back an institution that belongs to the American people, not to these Marxists. I’m testifying in Congress twice next week on this issue. So all of these things — fighting the universities, the Smithsonian, the K-through-12 school system, bringing down the Department of Education, fighting the teachers unions — all of it matters. That’s the way to do it. But you also have to run candidates against these people. Darializa Chevalier is going to be elected — she’s in a very deeply blue district in New York. She won the primary because nobody turned out to vote except her followers. She beat Adriano Espaillat, a working-class guy who’d held that seat for three terms, was an appropriator, brought a lot of bacon to his district. And yet her very organized, very disciplined followers were able to beat him in the primary. And once you win a Democratic primary in a deep blue district, you win. She’s going to win the election. She’s going to be in Congress.

Mark:

Absolutely. Okay, stay with us — today’s show is all about socialism and defeating it. Coming up: why is socialism gaining so much ground in today’s America?

Segment 02 · Why Socialism Is Winning Now — and the Smithsonian’s $1.1 Billion Question · 10:29

Mark:

Our guest today is Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow with the Heritage Foundation, and we’re talking about the rise of socialism — later on we’ll ask him about stopping it. So, Mike, socialism isn’t new — Bernie Sanders has been selling this since the 1980s. So the question isn’t whether socialism exists in America, it’s why it’s suddenly appealing and gaining ground, especially with people under thirty. I’ve got a theory on this: I don’t think this current push for socialism would have gone anywhere in the years right after the fall of the Soviet Union, when most adults had grown up in the shadow of the Cold War and understood personally what the fight against communism actually was. Young people today just don’t have that reference point. Do you think that’s one reason this is working now — that they just have no clue what they’ve actually fallen in love with — or is there something else driving it?

Mike Gonzalez:

This is a variety of things. Yes, we were fighting the Soviet Union — American people saw that the Soviet Union and the countries behind the Iron Curtain lacked freedom and were economically backward, all the things that happened under communism. But these things were also taught in school. In the 1970s, in high school, I was taught a class — Americanism versus Communism — it was mandatory. People were taught the nature of communism; immigrants were taught to assimilate. All of these things have disappeared. The left has won a number of key, very important victories that have left us without any weapons to fight communism. So all of this has to be reversed. I’m about to get busy trying to get rid of the racial categories in the U.S. census — categories like “Hispanic,” for example, are fake, synthetic categories the left created in the 1970s to balkanize the nation, to drive us apart, to make sure we had no assimilation ethos anymore. We have to be serious about getting rid of all of these things.

Mark:

Well, I know that Hispanics used to be considered Caucasian, and then that got split out, as you say —

Mike Gonzalez:

There were no Hispanics. There are no Hispanics. There’s no Hispanic cuisine, no Hispanic food, no Hispanic culture, no Hispanic history. If you were a person of African descent from the Caribbean or South America, you were considered a person of African descent. If you were of European descent, you were considered a person of European descent. This is what the left did — they were very methodical about it. They created “Hispanic” in 1977 through the Office of Management and Budget, and then they said, we’re going to retroactively change history. For example, we celebrated the 250th anniversary of America, and people were talking about Bernardo de Gálvez, a general who won many victories on the side of the colonists, and people were saying, well, there’s your Hispanic general. No — he was not a Hispanic general, he was from Spain. My own ancestor, who fought alongside him at Baton Rouge and Pensacola, was from Cuba. Hispanics did not exist at that time. But the left is very clever — they talk about Hispanic participation in the Civil War. How could there be Hispanics? The category hadn’t been created yet.

Mark:

Well, just to get back to what you talked about, because I think this culture war is so important — that’s one of the reasons this is taking hold. You had a really interesting article, and I think you were on Fox News talking about this too — the White House put out a report called “Saving America’s Story,” accusing the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History of — well, we talked about that in the previous segment, but it really strikes me that this is so key to why socialism takes hold: they have to erase the past, or rewrite it, to cast America as the villain instead of the hero. That’s not an accident — it’s standard operating procedure for socialism, communism, Marxism, whatever form it takes, because they need villains. That’s part of good story-crafting — you’ve got to have a villain to rise up against. So they’ve recast America as the villain, and they need people not to know how good things used to be, when socialism inevitably failed. Is that a fair read?

Mike Gonzalez:

I urge everybody listening to my voice right now to go to the White House website and find this report on the Smithsonian and read it, because it’s a really important report — a hundred and sixty pages long, five hundred and fifty-two endnotes. It quotes the leaders of the Smithsonian, and all of them say they want to use the Smithsonian — not just Smithsonian history itself, but history as a tool for change. They want to change America systemically, and they’re going to use this huge museum complex, and history itself, the past, to create societal change in America. And they’re doing this with our money — 1.1 billion dollars of our money that we give them every year.

Mark:

Yep, I was just going to point that out — this is what they’re doing with America’s tax money, to rewrite America’s history. There was a really interesting line from an article by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation that called schools and universities, quote, “the epicenters of indoctrination.” And if that’s true — getting back to funding — should schools and universities that keep doing this lose all public financing, including things like research grants?

Mike Gonzalez:

Yeah, absolutely. With the Smithsonian — we defunded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting last year, and it should have been defunded, because they were using taxpayer money for biased reporting, and we don’t need to pay a news outlet to do that. However, we can’t do the same thing with the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian is really important — societies and cultures need national museums. They need museums that preserve, collect, and curate national history and heritage to transmit it to future generations. Museums play a key role in that. When Africa became decolonized, the first thing those countries did was create national museums. When the communists took over mainland China in 1949, the Nationalists saved hundreds of thousands of artifacts from five thousand years of continuous history across all the dynasties and brought them to Taipei — I’ve been to that museum — so that the Chinese in the future would know what Chinese culture and heritage was. So we cannot just defund the Smithsonian. We just need to fire the leadership.

Mark:

Yeah, absolutely. Okay, I do want to come back to the money side of things and how we are funding our own demise. That’s next, with Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, talking about the dangerous rise of socialism.

Segment 03 · Follow the Money — USAID, CPB, and the $303 Billion Question · 18:08

Mark:

And welcome back — this is the I Spy Radio Show, talking today to Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow with the Heritage Foundation. His family fled Cuba after socialism, or communism, took over there — doesn’t matter what you call it, there are different degrees of the same immoral system that doesn’t recognize individual rights, the very thing America was founded on. And now socialism is on the rise right here. In the last segment we talked about the money and the public funding of organizations that hate America — the Smithsonian, public schools out there trying to change not just history but how people learn and think about America. I think that’s really endemic to why socialism keeps growing — we’re funding our enemies. And aside from the fact that socialism itself is a parasite, a tick that can only survive by feeding on the back of capitalism — when we talk about the public funding of these organizations that hate us, it’s much more than just these institutions. For decades we’ve been funding things like green energy and climate change, and none of that money ends up on the right — it’s all going to the left, and we’re talking trillions of dollars. Al Gore himself said that about six hundred billion dollars from the Inflation Reduction Act — one bill from the Biden administration — was going to give them six hundred and thirty-some billion dollars, and it’s actually even more than that, because some of those tax credits would have kept going forever had the Trump administration not pulled them. One estimate I saw was over one point two trillion dollars that would have gone to the left. Do you think the Trump administration is finally wising up to the fact that we’ve got to stop giving taxpayer money to people within the country who hate the country?

Mike Gonzalez:

This is something the left has been very, very good at, and the right just doesn’t know how to do — and we shouldn’t do it either. But the left has created a machine for giving taxpayer money to its pet causes and pet organizations. The main example of this is USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development. When Trump, Marco Rubio, and Elon Musk came in in January 2025, one of the first things they did was dismantle USAID. Since then — and a good paper is waiting to be written on the correlation — we’ve had seven victories in a row by conservative candidates in Latin America. I was just an hour ago with the new foreign minister, who’s about to become the new president of Colombia, taking over from the communist Petro. When Petro ran in 2022, our government sent thirty million dollars through USAID — sent it straight to the left in Colombia. We did this constantly. Now that USAID is no longer there to finance their institutions, they’ve lost seven presidential elections in a row. We need to get wise. And we’re doing this internally too, by the way — OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, has just proposed a rule to do the same thing with domestic funding — to dry up the funding for these institutions domestically, not just internationally.

Mark:

Well, I’m really encouraged to hear that, because feeding taxpayer dollars to the left and these organizations eventually filters down to campaigns. I came across one non-profit research group that found at least thirty-five thousand nonprofits get half or more of their revenue from federal taxpayers, and that taxpayer financing provides roughly three hundred and three billion dollars a year to more than a hundred thousand NGOs. That’s a tremendous amount of money — and I don’t know of any funding at all that goes to the NRA from U.S. taxpayer dollars, or to pro-life groups, or to conservative evangelical churches, getting even one billion dollars. And here you’ve got three hundred and three billion dollars a year going to a hundred thousand NGOs. That’s pretty hard to overcome.

Mike Gonzalez:

Right, and we have to stop doing that. I think this is another great thing President Trump — he’s not perfect, but he’s doing a lot of intelligent things, and the people around him are doing a lot of intelligent things too. One of them is getting rid of this machine that funds the left with money collected from all Americans — the CPB, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, money from all Americans going to fund radio and TV stations that were inimical to the wishes and interests of the average American citizen. No more of that.

Mark:

Well, that’s so encouraging to hear that Trump is finally waking up to that — and I think he’s surrounded himself with much better, more competent people this time around than he had in his first administration.

Mike Gonzalez:

Absolutely.

Mark:

I think it’s places like Congress, in both the Senate and the House, that seem to be resistant to this. I’d like to think they’re finally going to start pulling the plug on this, because there’s another one I came across too — I mentioned the six hundred and some billion dollars from just one bill, the Inflation Reduction Act. There was a separate two-point-eight-billion-dollar Environmental and Climate Justice program tied to funding groups like the Climate Justice Alliance, and those payments are currently on hold because it’s tied up in the courts. But if this isn’t fixed legislatively — and it’s got to be fixed legislatively, not just administratively —

Mike Gonzalez:

Well, I agree with that — things are going to have to be codified by Congress. For example, that OMB rule I just mentioned will have to be codified by Congress too. In the meantime, the president is going to have to act through executive orders. You see how difficult it is just to pass the SAVE Act, even though Republicans have had majorities in the House and the Senate. This should be a gimme by now. And by the way, it’s not just people on the Hill opposing the president — there are people deeply embedded in the bureaucracy who are still there. For example — and I think we’re going to hear more about this, breaking new ground here — money is still going out from the State Department to fund some of these leftover programs. I’m not the guy doing that research, but I know people who are. If that’s true, that’s career officials deeply embedded at the State Department trying to do what they can to sabotage and subvert the policy of the elected government of the United States.

Mark:

Yeah, that is absolutely shocking, and yet not surprising. Socialism is the opposite of America’s founding, so in order to pull it off here, you’ve got to have people on the inside taking it down from within. All right, it’s time for a break — coming up, we’re going to talk more about how socialism wins at the ballot box. Stay with us.

Segment 04 · Do They Win Head-to-Head? Vote-Splitting, the Democratic Civil War, and Oregon · 25:51

Mark:

Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow with the Heritage Foundation, is our guest today. We’re talking about the rise of socialism here in America, which was founded on the exact opposite values of what socialism’s values are, if you can call them that. Mike, we talked earlier about them winning elections, and you’d mentioned that when a socialist wins in a deep blue district, it’s an automatic shoo-in that they’re going to win the election.

Mike Gonzalez:

If they win the primary — if they win the primary.

Mark:

Right — if they win the primary, then it’s a shoo-in for them to win the general, and boom, they’re in Congress, or whatever office at the state level. So I went looking for a single documented case this cycle of a democratic socialist beating a Republican head-to-head in a genuinely competitive district — not a safe seat, and not a multi-candidate plurality like when Mamdani won against two other opponents. I couldn’t find one. Every headline win is a Democratic primary in an already safe blue seat. Are you aware of any cases where they’ve actually won against a Republican in a general election?

Mike Gonzalez:

Well, they beat the Republican in New York.

Mark:

Well, yeah, but that was a plurality — I’m talking about a head-to-head.

Mike Gonzalez:

No — he got over fifty percent of the vote.

Mark:

Yeah, I wasn’t clear there — I meant a plurality of candidates, not a plurality of the vote totals. There were three candidates in that race, and I was wondering if you knew of a place where there was a real head-to-head in a competitive district — someplace like New York City, which was never going to be competitive for Republicans anyway. I mention that because what we’re seeing here in places like Oregon — there was a real push last year to get ranked-choice voting; Portland is actually using it now — and there’s some genuine academic research behind this. It goes back to things like Duverger’s Law and Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, which show that once you’ve got three or more names on a ballot, that election can be manipulated, and a candidate with genuine minority support can win outright. Do you think that’s the actual mechanical reason DSA has been pushing so hard for things like ranked-choice voting and multi-candidate strategies — not idealism, but simple math and statistics?

Mike Gonzalez:

What I’ve seen — the people who put that strategy together, for example, there was a guy named Daniel Moraff, one of three people who helped build it. He wrote a long piece for In These Times, a communist magazine, about nine years ago, laying out the strategy. The strategy was to win in the primaries in very blue districts. They figured out the Green Party doesn’t win, the third party never wins. But if you take over the Democratic Party with a socialist candidate, a DSA candidate — and this is a takeover, by the way, a zombie takeover of an existing party — and you win in these blue districts, then you’re assured of winning. We’ve got another example in the Democratic primary in the city where I am right now — the mayor was DSA, the one who won, I forget her name. There’s no doubt in my mind, or in anybody’s mind — I’m not a betting man, but I’m not going to bet against her being elected in November, because ninety-four percent of Washington voted for Kamala Harris. Let that sink in — that’s not ninety-four percent of any one race, that’s all of D.C.’s voters. Ninety-four percent voted for Kamala Harris. You’re telling me they’re not going to elect the socialist mayor? No — they will elect the socialist mayor. So the blueprint this guy Moraff set up, I think, is working really well for them.


Mark:

Well, one of the things I hear on occasion is people like James Carville out there aghast at what’s happening — that the socialists are starting to win. I’m not sure how seriously I take that, because the Democrats have been lurching left just fine for a couple of decades now. Ever since Clinton left office, they’ve been marching steadily to the left, and now all of a sudden they’ve got these socialist candidates and — surprise, surprise — they’re winning. Well, you’ve been telling them for the last two decades that that’s perfectly fine. So do you think there’s an actual struggle within the Democratic Party — that they’re genuinely concerned about these democratic socialists — or are they perfectly fine with this?

Mike Gonzalez:

Well, the governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, is fighting this. Rahm Emanuel is fighting this. One of the senators from Pennsylvania, John Fetterman, is fighting this. God knows Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are not fighting it, but you have enough Democrats of renown — I just named four of them — who are saying, no, we cannot allow the DSA to take the party over. It’s going to be a lot of fun watching what they do.

Mark:

But at the same time, you’ve got, as you mentioned, D.C. voting ninety-four percent for Kamala Harris. So I question whether the average Democrat is really going to say, “I am so committed to fighting socialism within our own party that I’m willing to vote for a Republican instead of a socialist,” when it comes to the general.

Mike Gonzalez:

Oh, no, no, no — that’s not going to happen. That, in my opinion, will not happen. They will not vote for a Republican. I’m looking out the window at the Capitol right now, in the city where I am — they will not vote for the Republican. Let me take that to the bank, man.

Mark:

Right. But in the broader national sense, do you think enough Democrats will say we need to take this seriously enough that we will, in fact, vote for a Republican over a socialist?

Mike Gonzalez:

No, that’s not going to happen. What some of them will do is fight internally — the people I just mentioned, Shapiro, Rahm Emanuel, John Fetterman, they’ll fight internally. When it comes to final election day, Republican versus a DSA candidate, maybe some will stay home. I don’t think we’re that divided right now — the Democrats have really energized against Trump, the same way we’re energized for Trump. And the reason for that is Trump gets things accomplished. The reason people love him is he gets things accomplished, and the reason people hate him is he gets things accomplished.

Mark:

Our guest today is Mike Gonzalez from the Heritage Foundation. Coming up, we’re going to pick his brain on how to deprogram a socialist — we know some people break away. What works, and what doesn’t.

Segment 05 · Breaking the Spell, Part 1 — The Hypocrisy Tests · 33:20

Mark:

There’s a saying that goes something like, “those who don’t understand socialism are socialists, and those who do understand it are not.” Our guest today is Mike Gonzalez — his family escaped Cuba when he was twelve, and he’s now a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Is there a specific question, or a specific thing you say to a committed socialist, that you’ve found genuinely disarms them — where you can actually see the light switch on behind their eyes about what socialism really is?

Mike Gonzalez:

Look — if you’ve been taught by the schools, the universities, the cultural institutions, the media, that this country is systemically racist, that it’s structurally oppressive, that slavery and Jim Crow delegitimize this country from the beginning, and that’s become your faith, and you believe in a worldly utopia — there’s not a lot that can be said to convince you otherwise. But I have seen people convinced in socialist countries — when they get sent to the gulag, or when their father gets shot by a firing squad, or when their wife or husband goes to the authorities and spies on them. When you come up against the reality of socialism — the gulags, people snitching on you, people taking your farm or your cows away — then you can become convinced. But in terms of rhetoric, we have to take the institutions back — I keep coming back to that. We have to take the cultural institutions back, the universities back, the K-through-12 schools back, the museums back, the art houses and entertainment houses back. Because once people are indoctrinated, nothing will change — unless they end up in a gulag in Siberia.

Mark:

Well, there’s a whole field of study about changing people’s minds once they’ve been made up, and I like how you framed it — it really is its own religion, and trying to get somebody to change their religion once they’ve grown up in it is very difficult. So is the process to just chip away at their beliefs — does that work?

Mike Gonzalez:

I’ll just say what I said — no, you have to actually put them on a train to Siberia.

Mark:

Well, I’d hope that would wake them up, although for some people I’m not entirely sure. But let’s do a little brainstorming — here’s a test. In terms of messaging, if somebody wants to redistribute the wealth of the rich, what about asking them if they’d personally be willing to give away ninety-five percent of their own income starting today, with no complaints? If you confront somebody with a scenario like that — where the rich and wealthy give up ninety percent or more of their wealth, and eventually that wealth runs out and they have to turn to people like the person you’re talking to — are you willing to give up ninety percent of your income? Does that have any effect?

Mike Gonzalez:

I have strong memories from the sixties — I don’t think a lot of people were bothered that my family’s house and everything else was taken away. This envy is behind a lot of this, but we rarely write about envy, and yet it’s a driver of a lot of these policies and politics. I remember a lot of people who quietly went along and thought it was good that they took the farm away, good that the country took it away, good that they took the car away. Sorry to reveal the human condition to you, but there it is.

Mark:

Yeah, it’s socialism at its core — it’s really completely self-centered. They promote it as something great for all of society, but it’s very selfish — it’s “me first, you’ve got things, I want it.” I think Margaret Thatcher was the one who said it’s the politics of envy and greed, and I think that’s exactly right. So when you look at places like the socialized countries — Canada, the UK, so much of the EU — they’ve got nationalized health care, and that’s a big thing happening right now here in Oregon too. In fact, the Portland chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America is now openly pushing for a switch to single-payer, universal health care, free access for everybody, right here in Oregon. It’ll only cost eighty-three billion dollars a year — but that’s beside the point. So again, to try to chip away at their mindset: based on what happens in these socialized countries, ask them — if they needed a serious operation, would they be willing to accept a nine-month to a year-long wait, and let other people go first, the way people generally do under socialized medicine in Canada and elsewhere? Would that shock them into some kind of sense of reality?

Mike Gonzalez:

No — again, no. If you’re in Canada right now and you want to leave, you have to pay an exit tax. So say you have a portfolio — a million dollars made up of American companies, Amazon, General Motors, Toys R Us, whatever — you have to act as though you’re selling that portfolio and pay the Canadian government the tax on it before you’re allowed to move. And Canadians are okay with that.

Mark:

Well, they’re trying that same thing in California — Newsom wanted some kind of exit tax too, because so many millionaires were leaving, and he wanted them to pay an extra tax on the way out. I think that stalled, but last I knew he was at least trying it.

Mike Gonzalez:

Yeah, because that’s what happens — why did the Berlin Wall go up? When governments do these things, people flee. Why did my parents flee? Marx wrote about this in the Manifesto — he said people are going to react badly when their property is taken away, and that’s why he said himself there will be a need for “despotic inroads.” That’s the English translation — there’s going to be a need for despotism, because people don’t react well to having their stuff taken away.

Mark:

Yeah, you know, in some ways it’d be nice if schools actually taught the Communist Manifesto for what it really says, not just what people imagine it says.

Mike Gonzalez:

Right.

Mark:

Okay, let’s take a break. Then we’ll wrap things up with Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow with the Heritage Foundation, talking about breaking the spell of socialism. Coming up: some of the practical things you can do.

Segment 06 · Breaking the Spell, Part 2 — What Actually Works · 40:46

Mark:

And welcome back — our final segment now with Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow with the Heritage Foundation. We’ve been talking really since the start of the show about how to defeat socialism, and your book review, as I said, promised readers would learn how to fight it. In your experience, can you give our audience some practical steps — things they can be doing? What actually works to push back against this at the local level, maybe with friends and neighbors or family members — a lot of families are dealing with this too — and what tends not to work?

Mike Gonzalez:

I think you have to monitor what your children are studying. You have to ask inquisitive questions — “what did you learn today, let me see your homework.” You have to attend the Board of Education meetings. You have to go to parent-teacher night. You have to look at the syllabus your kid has for a class at Cornell or Penn State. You have to not abdicate your role as a parent — you have to follow these things very closely.

Mark:

Well, definitely — knowing what your kids are being taught is absolutely key to stopping this at the next generation. So, in terms of political strategy — because we’ve got three now, well, there was one Democratic Socialists of America candidate already, she’s been that since 2022. And now we’ve got two districts where they flipped the incumbent — one was a sitting incumbent, and the other was the handpicked successor to a retiring incumbent — and those are both now DSA candidates, and they’re going to win because they’re in deep blue districts. Trump, Vance, and NRCC Chairman Richard Hudson have all leaned hard into calling this movement communist ahead of the midterms, but Hudson said the Democrats are making it easy for us. I kind of think that’s a bit naive, because there’ve been polls showing capitalism’s favorability among adults down to fifty-four percent overall, and only forty-two percent among Democrats. Do you agree that this line of attack — leaning into “communist” and assuming this is a shoo-in because Democrats are going so far left — is going to work? Or if not, how should they change their strategy?

Mike Gonzalez:

That’s a good point. Capitalism — nobody defends capitalism anymore, not even the right. The right is beginning to attack capitalism too. If even conservatives don’t defend capitalism, well, the left surely isn’t going to defend it. So capitalism isn’t winning right now, because people don’t understand — first of all, “capitalism” is the left’s word for it. It’s the word the left came up with to describe our free-market system, our system of freedom. I own this phone in my hand right now — I can sell it to you for whatever I want, you can offer whatever you want, we agree on a price, you walk away happy, I walk away happy. There’s no victim there — there are two winners. If you explain things like that to people, they get it. But I do think you make a good point that we need to keep calling them communists — we need to insist on calling them Marxists and communists, we can’t back away from that. But then we also have to talk about everything else that comes with communism — the imprisonment, the gulags, all of the soul-killing that comes with it.

Mark:

Yeah, absolutely. So, final question — I’d like to bring this back to where we started. Knowing everything your family went through in Cuba, what do you most want Americans, especially young Americans, to understand before they cast a vote for any socialist?

Mike Gonzalez:

Marx and Engels did not make a distinction between socialism and communism — to them it was the same thing. I’ve heard people defending the DSA saying, “this isn’t the socialism of gulags.” No — it’s always the socialism of gulags. Always. Because of what Marx said — that when you take people’s property away, people get upset, and you need to introduce despotism. So there will always be repression, there will always be — freedom of speech will have to go, all of our basic freedoms will be suppressed. That’s baked into the system — that’s not a bug, that’s a feature. Communists like Marcuse will tell you this when they have a moment of candor — they’ll tell you.

Mark:

Yeah. Unfortunately, it’s time for us to go. Thank you so much — we really appreciate your time today.

Mike Gonzalez:

Thank you — thank you very much. Bye, guys.

Mark (close):

Socialism often starts in poor and poorly run countries, because people see the few rich and believe it’s those rich — and the political system — holding them down. Which is why it’s a little odd to think that socialism is gaining ground here in America.

Until you understand how the left is undermining America’s success and our future generations. Because kids today have it easy — by and large, they don’t have to work, unlike when we were kids. And because of that, they don’t develop a real sense of how hard it can be to earn a dollar.

People who know how hard it is to earn a living are far less likely to want to take away somebody else’s living. The left knows that — that’s why they push higher and higher minimum wage laws, twenty dollars or more. You don’t start at the bottom — you start out at forty thousand dollars a year with no skills and no training. You start out middle class. There’s no reason to work to get ahead — you’re already ahead.

So their early thinking isn’t informed by an appreciation of hard work — it starts instead with, why aren’t I getting even more? It’s unfair that I’m not.

Our guest today talked about how it seems the only way to truly get through to a wannabe socialist is to send them to a concentration camp, the gulags. Then they’ll understand what an all-powerful government can and will do to citizens who only have the rights government gave them — not rights from God, rights from the government.

And let’s not forget — that’s exactly what the left and the Biden administration wanted to do back during COVID, to send people who wouldn’t take the vaccine off to concentration camps. So to think this could never happen here is a mistake. Remember, it almost did. Which is why you need to take this seriously.

Because as we say every week, the best information does you no good if you don’t use it.

Reagan, what do you think?

Catch the show live


Map of I Spy Radio broadcast areas and air times

The I Spy Radio Show airs weekends — seven times across seven real radio stations, not internet-only streams. Listen anywhere through the stations’ live streams. See when, where, and how to listen for the full schedule.

Missed it? The podcast posts Mondays, after the broadcast stations air the show — here on this page or on your favorite platform.

Music: Codename Dougwood by Shane Ivers — https://www.silvermansound.com

 

16-28 Some Battles You May Not Realize You Won — Title IX at the Supreme Court, and Climate Hysteria’s Retreat

16-28 Some Battles You May Not Realize You Won — Title IX at the Supreme Court, and Climate Hysteria’s Retreat

Some Battles You May Not Realize You Won — Title IX at the Supreme Court, and Climate Hysteria’s Retreat

Aired  July 11–12, 2026
Runtime  Added Monday
Host  Mark Anderson
Guests  Kimberly Hermann & Craig Rucker
Listen  See our network of stations, areas, times and livestream options

Listen to this episode (Available Monday after airing on our network of stations)


STAGE 2 — swap [INSERT_MP3_URL] for the compiled Blubrry-hosted file Monday.

About this episode

A landmark Supreme Court ruling on Title IX came down the same season as the birthright citizenship fight — and got almost completely buried. We dig it back out. Then we turn to a run of quiet climate-policy retreats that add up to more than any one headline suggests.

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (consolidated with Little v. Hecox) that states may reserve girls’ and women’s school sports for biological females — and, in a 9–0 holding that got even less attention, that doing so does not violate Title IX at all. Kimberly Hermann, President of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, joins Mark to unpack what the ruling actually does (and doesn’t do), how Title IX went from guaranteeing women equal access to being used to justify men in women’s locker rooms, and why she says the Court just handed litigators like her the roadmap to sue the 23 states and the school districts in all 50 that are still allowing it. Along the way: her own daughter’s school assignment, the Obama-era memos that quietly rewrote Title IX’s definition of sex, and a quick bonus take on the Court’s birthright citizenship ruling.

Then the show turns to energy and climate with returning guest Craig Rucker, Co-Founder and President of CFACT. Renowned climate skeptic Dr. Judith Curry just shut down her influential blog, Climate Etc., declaring “victory against climate stupidity” — Craig explains why that may be true, and why it may also be premature. From there: New York quietly gutting its own landmark climate law, a new study on why blue-state electricity bills are climbing faster than red-state bills, and why Duke Energy just walked away from a major offshore wind lease in favor of nuclear and natural gas.


In this episode

00:00
01

The Title IX Ruling You Probably Missed

Kimberly Hermann on the Supreme Court’s June 30 ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox — a 6–3 win on equal protection and a unanimous 9–0 win on Title IX itself — why some analysts call it narrow, and the roadmap it opens for lawsuits in the 23 states still allowing boys in girls’ sports.

00:00
02

How Title IX Got Hijacked

Hermann untangles the 6–3 and 9–0 numbers — the Title IX question was decided unanimously, while the Equal Protection reasoning split the Court 6–3 across two consolidated cases — then walks through a Title IX complaint SLF just filed for a mother whose special-needs daughter was required to share a restroom with a male classmate. Also: Justice Thomas’s concurrence on gender dysphoria, drag-show content aimed at children, and cases in California and Colorado where parents have lost custody disputes over refusing gender-transition treatment for their kids..

00:00
03

Bonus: The Birthright Citizenship Ruling

A quick final take from Hermann on the Court’s separate 5–4 ruling on birthright citizenship — closer than most expected, and, in her view, far from the end of that fight either.

00:00
04

RIP Climate Etc.

Craig Rucker on Dr. Judith Curry closing her 16-year climate blog and declaring “victory against climate stupidity” — her path from mainstream climate scientist to skeptic, the funding gap between well-funded green groups and the skeptic side, and whether the retreat in media climate coverage is really about audience interest or dried-up federal marketing dollars.

00:00
05

New York Guts Its Own Climate Law

How New York quietly rewrote its 2019 climate law’s hard 2030 mandate into an unenforceable 2040 goal, the wave of blue states walking back net-zero mandates, and a new study tying blue-state electricity price hikes directly to renewable and net-zero policy choices — plus a look ahead at Oregon’s own Climate Protection Program.

00:00
06

Duke Walks Away From Offshore Wind

Duke Energy’s $129 million federal buyout to abandon its Carolina Long Bay offshore wind lease in favor of nuclear and natural gas, what the underperforming Vineyard Wind project says about the technology, and what practical climate adaptation — forest management, dams and reservoirs, and the urban heat island effect — could look like instead.

Links & resources mentioned

Kimberly Hermann & Southeastern Legal Foundation

Craig Rucker & CFACT

About the guests

Kimberly Hermann
President  ·  Southeastern Legal Foundation

Kimberly Hermann is President of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a national nonprofit constitutional litigation firm founded in 1976 with an 80% win rate at the U.S. Supreme Court. She has been with SLF since 2009 and represented Moms for Liberty and Young America’s Foundation in the 2024 Kansas federal court case that halted the Biden administration’s Title IX rewrite. She attended President Trump’s February 2025 White House signing of the executive order protecting women’s sports, and is a recurring guest on I Spy Radio on Title IX and constitutional litigation.

slfliberty.org

Craig Rucker
Co-Founder & President  ·  CFACT (Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow)

Craig Rucker co-founded CFACT with David Rothbard in 1985 and currently serves as its President. He is co-producer of the films Climate Hustle (2016) and Climate Hustle 2 (2020), has attended roughly 30 United Nations climate conferences as an observer, and is a frequent commentator on Fox News and OANN. Craig is a recurring guest on I Spy Radio, last appearing the week of May 28, 2026.

cfact.org

Full transcript

Transcript posts Monday, once the compiled episode audio is finalized and timestamps are added. Check back after the show airs on our full station network.

Catch the show live


Map of I Spy Radio broadcast areas and air times

The I Spy Radio Show airs weekends — seven times across seven real radio stations, not internet-only streams. Listen anywhere through the stations’ live streams. See when, where, and how to listen for the full schedule.

Missed it? The podcast posts Mondays, after the broadcast stations air the show — here on this page or on your favorite platform.

I Spy Radio  —  Keeping an Eye on Big Government

 

16-23 Digging Into and Exposing State Government Fraud & Waste

16-23 Digging Into and Exposing State Government Fraud & Waste

Digging Into and Exposing State Government Fraud & Waste

Release Date: June 6, 2026

Duration: 47:55

Host: Mark Anderson

Guests: Jonathan Williams

About This Episode

Government agencies are supposed to protect taxpayer dollars, so why are some states resisting efforts to examine spending records, voter rolls, and public assistance programs? And what happens when government agencies don’t want anyone looking at the books? On this episode, Mark Anderson sits down with Jonathan Williams, president and chief economist of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), to examine fraud, waste, and accountability in government spending.

They discuss ALEC’s Government Efficiency Coalition, major fraud investigations, improper Medicaid payments, and why some states are resisting efforts to verify public records and benefit programs. The conversation also explores how artificial intelligence, audits, and greater transparency could help uncover billions in waste and protect taxpayer dollars.

Could the fraud already uncovered be only the beginning? And what would it take for states like Oregon to truly clean up their fiscal house?

Show Notes

  • 00:00 – Why complexity makes fraud easier to hide
  • 11:05 – ALEC’s Government Efficiency Coalition and its work with state lawmakers
  • 18:01 – How AI is being used to uncover waste and abuse
  • 25:11 – The Minnesota fraud scandals and lessons for other states
  • 32:56 – Why improper payments cost taxpayers billions
  • 40:53 – Practical reforms states can implement to improve transparency and accountability

Transcript

(Opener)

Mark:

If your intention is to commit fraud — there is an easy, simple way to do it: make things complicated. The more complicated something is, the easier it becomes to hide what’s actually happening — with a lot of moving parts, interrelated systems, and, the number one means: make it hard for people to look. Make it complicated to look.

Because if there is no fraud, they would welcome your scrutiny. Here’s the checkbook! Take a look. And if you find fraud for heaven’s sakes let us know! We have a sacred duty to protect taxpayer dollars.

But they don’t do that they make things complicated and say you can’t look.

Take for example our voting rolls. Right now there are multiple lawsuits where states are pushing back against the federal government which is asking states to provide basic information about who is on the voter rolls. That should be simple. How many people are in your state? How many people are citizens — and of those citizens how many are registered to vote? Because we have a sacred duty to protect our elections and to make sure that only citizens vote. And only vote once. And only vote in one state.

But states are pushing back because they don’t want to provide that simple, straightforward data. They act as if the federal government has no right to obtain it — no right to look. Imagine telling the IRS ohh you can’t look at our books — everything is fine. You’ll just have to trust us.

When you complicate It’s something that ought to be simple — like a database — it opens the door to fraud even if that is not your intention. Allegedly not your intention.

Because here’s how voter rolls ought to work. Simply. The federal government maintains a single database of every person living in the United States. The various columns would include their name, their SS #, whether someone is a citizen yes or no. The address where they live. And the state where that address is.

States can then access that database and append data to. This person with this Social Security number has this voter ID and they live at this address in our state — or they’re currently living overseas — serving in the military, and so on.

Problem solved. We know where everybody lives we know where everybody ought to be voting and if there are multiple instances of that person then guess what — there’s your problem. Simple.

Government, like businesses using shell companies, can further complicate things by hiding the end recipient of money by hiding it behind a shield of nonprofits. You, the taxpayer, can see money going in but you can’t see who a “non-profit” getting 100s of millions of taxpayer dollars then gives that money to.

And even if they opened their books just a little, it’s still complicated because they can say ohh that $1,000,000 we got from the taxpayers we spent that on office space and utilities — we didn’t spend $1,000,000 on activists. We used our own funds for that. sure

But. Where government is uniquely positioned to help people commit fraud is the bureaucracy within government.

Again, it’s complicated, Multiple agencies multiple departments all getting money comingling it and shoving money out the door. Add to that, the layer of inherent laziness by far too many people in government.

For example so much fraud could have been prevented if bureaucrats handing out cash had just asked questions. Like looking up business addresses on google maps.

But that would depend on people taking initiative. And from where I sit far too many people in government don’t bother to ask questions about where that money comes from or where it goes.

To talk about fraud I’d like to welcome back Jonathan Williams to the show…

Subscribe:
Apple PodcastsSpotify | iHeart | Amazon | TuneIn | And every major podcast platform — just search for “I Spy Radio Show”

If you enjoy our content, help others discover the show! Give us a like and subscribe or leave us a review on your favorite podcast platform—or drop a comment below. That really helps us get a bump up in the ol’ algorithms when platforms suggest shows to others.

Additional Show Notes: Research, Links Mentioned & Additional Info

  • Jonathan Williams’ organization is ALEC – the American legislative Exchange Council. Visit them at alec.org. &the ALEC Coalition
  • ALEC helped push states like Oregon to put their spending online. Oregon’s attempt at spending transparency can be found at Oregon.gov/transparency
  • Co-founder of ‘green’ bank gets 14 years for defrauding lenders, investors (Courthouse News Service, June 1, 2026)
  • State of Oregon Statewide Single Audit Report, March 2025 (PDF)
  • Oregon audit flags OHA and ODOT errors, including OHP Bridge eligibility problems (KATU, Apr 1, 2026) *“The audit also identified holes in the Highway Planning and Construction Program, administered by the Oregon Department of Transportation. Auditors said they could not gather enough evidence to verify compliance” with the law and federal regulations.
  • Audit: California Lost Track of $24 Billion Spent to Combat Homelessness (Breitbart, Apr 12, 2024)
  • “Illegal aliens & foreign fraudsters steal BILLIONS yearly from American taxpayers.” (White House via X, Jun 3, 2026)
  • The Joe Rogan interview with Elon Musk in February 2025 discussing social security as the fraud gateway (Joe Rogan Experience, Episode 2281)

 

16-22 Did the IPCC Just Kill Its Worst-Case Climate Model?

16-22 Did the IPCC Just Kill Its Worst-Case Climate Model?

Did the IPCC Just Kill Its Worst-Case Climate Model?

Release Date: May 30, 2026

Duration: 48:28

Host: Mark Anderson

Guests: Craig Rucker, president of CFACT, and Chuck Wiese, meteorologist


About This Episode

The IPCC quietly walks back its most alarming climate model, RCP8.5. Who holds billions in green mandates accountable? Plus: The looming toxic crisis of worn-out solar panels and wind turbines. And what Oregon — the first state with a recycling bottle bill — is not doing about all that “green” about to litter the state.

Show Notes

On Show 16-22what if the foundational worst case model behind fifteen years of global climate policy was just declared implausible by the very institution that created it? For two decades the world spent trillions on mandates based on a nightmare scenario known as RCP8.5. Now that the IPCC is walking back its most alarming work, who is being held accountable?

First up we have Craig Rucker breaking down this massive scientific course correction and why a multi-billion dollar green transition moves forward without an apology. We look closely at the broken promises of government programs, from California missing its solar goals by hundreds of thousands of homes, to looming legal liabilities over toxic forever chemicals.

Then, meteorologist Chuck Wiese joins us to expose a massive environmental crisis looming on the back end of the green energy push. Millions of acres of solar panels and wind turbines are operating nationwide, but what happens when they wear out. We dive into the hidden reality of this waste, the legal loopholes, and what surprisingly Oregon is actually prepared to do about the looming aftermath. Listen to find out who will be left holding the bill, and what it means for the future of our farmland.

Subscribe:
Apple PodcastsSpotify | iHeart | Amazon | TuneIn | And every major podcast platform — just search for “I Spy Radio Show”

If you enjoy our content, help others discover the show! Give us a like and subscribe or leave us a review on your favorite podcast platform—or drop a comment below. That really helps us get a bump up in the ol’ algorithms when platforms suggest shows to others.

Additional Show Notes & Research

Craig Rucker is president of CFACT — Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. Find them and all their terrific work at cfact.org.

IPCC / Climate Science

California Green Energy / Solar

PFAS / Forever Chemicals

Wind Turbine Disposal

Solar Disposal / EPR Policy

Oregon Policy

 

16-18: They’re Hoping You Won’t Notice the Numbers

16-18: They’re Hoping You Won’t Notice the Numbers

Show Summary

In this episode, we dive into the economic divide between “rich states” and “poor states” with Jonathan Williams, Chief Economist at ALEC. As Oregon falls to 40th in national economic outlook, we explore the data behind why tax-heavy, high-spending states are falling behind and the looming 300% natural gas price spike facing Oregonians. We also shift gears to election integrity with Dr. Douglas Frank and Judicial Watch to discuss the recent removal of 800,000 names from Oregon’s voter rolls. From the intent of our Founding Fathers to the transparency of our local ballots, this episode uncovers the numbers and policies shaping Oregon’s future.

Air Dates: May 2nd & 3rd, 2026 | Guests: Jonathan Williams & Dr Douglas Frank

About This Episode

On Show 16-18, is your state building wealth — or quietly destroying it? This week we sit down with Jonathan Williams, President and Chief Economist  of ALEC and co-author of the just-released 19th edition of Rich States, Poor States. Nineteen years of data. One consistent lesson: the states that tax less, spend smarter, and keep government accountable consistently outperform the rest — and the gap is widening.

Oregon economic outlook and election integrity Discover why Oregon ranks 40th in economic outlook. We discuss the 19th edition of Rich States, Poor States, potential energy price hikes, and the battle for Oregon’s election integrity.
Click for full image

Oregon ranks 40th in Economic Outlook and shows how bleak our economic future is. Jonathan breaks down what that means, why it matters for your wallet right now, and what’s coming. Especially if Phase 2 of Oregon’s Climate Protection Program hits in 2028 — potentially spiking natural gas costs by 300%.

We also dig into what happens when state agencies become too disorganized to audit, what the labor market is actually signaling, and — on the eve of America’s 250th birthday — what the founders actually intended when they designed the relationship between states and the federal government.

This is the economic conversation Oregon needs to hear.

Dr. Frank is visiting every county in Oregon. Coming up May 4th through 6th: Portland, Salem, and Canby. Head to Secure Our Elections Now to find a Dr. Frank event near you.

Also this week, election integrity expert Dr. Douglas Frank joins us on Oregon’s elections integrity — who’s really controlling Oregon’s elections, and what’s the state of our rolls? Plus, Judicial Watch’s landmark settlement forced Oregon to address 800,000 names that shouldn’t have been on voter rolls. A step forward — but is it enough?

Tune in because what Oregonians don’t know about its own numbers is exactly what some are counting on.

Catch Live the Show or Podcast

Map showing the radio stations broadcast areas and air time for the I Spy Radio Show.
I Spy Radio broadcast areas. Click for full-size.

The I Spy Radio Show airs weekends—seven different times on seven different radio stations. The real ones, not internet-only “radio” stations. Listen anywhere through the stations’ live streams! Check out when, where, and how to listen to see a full list of times and stations.

Trapped under a heavy object? Missed the show? Need to listen again? Wish you could share it? We’ve got you covered. Mondays, after our network of radio stations have aired the show, catch the I Spy Radio podcast version is available on your favorite podcasting platform, or you can grab it right here with the built-in player. See the full list of podcast options.

Show Notes: Research, Links Mentioned & Additional Info

  • Jonathan Williams is the president and chief economist organization at American Legislative Exchange Council. Find out more at ALEC.org.
      • Encourage your representatives to join ALEC! There are state and city memberships. Help elected officials understand economic problems and the real solutions available to get out of them. Send them this link: https://alec.org/membership/.
      • And you too can join as a private-sector member!
      • Follow Jonathan on Twitter at @TaxEconomist.
  • Head to Rich States, Poor States to see how your state is doing — .

Dr. Frank Election Integrity Events

16-12 Same Enemy — Two Fronts?

16-12 Same Enemy — Two Fronts?

War on Prosperity. Same Enemy, Two Fronts?

Release Date: March 21st & 22nd, 2026

Duration: 47:55

Host: Mark Anderson

Guests: Jen Hamaker, president of ONRI, and Craig Rucker, president of CFACT


About This Episode

Show 16-12 exposes the growing “war on success” narrative, examining new policies aimed at unlocking America’s natural resources—from revitalizing Oregon’s timber industry to restarting California offshore oil production. Featuring Jennifer Hamaker and Craig Rucker, the episode explores the “maximum productivity” model, U.S. energy independence, and how domestic oil production now exceeds consumption, reshaping economic and geopolitical strategy. It also dives into the shift from climate-focused policies to a rising “plastics agenda,” revealing the broader impact on energy prices, supply chains, and American prosperity.

Show Notes

  • 00:00 – Host opener. Jen updates us on the status of Trump’s executive orders on timber production after one year. Working? Or just more of the same old same old? How is the Left combating it? The reality of what the EOs actually do. Incredible illustration of just how much 1 billion board feet of wood actually is.
  • 08:42 – Oregon produces 13 billion board feet annually. But when Oregon chooses to let the wood rot or burn, just how much is lost? Another terrific illustration of just how much we lose when that happens — the Labor Day fires as just one example.
  • 15:50 – Sorry, tree huggers and uninformed Leftist “environmentalists.” There is WAY more wood than you think there is. Just how much we could be doing. The exciting news from the Bureau of Land Management — the revision to Oregon’s O & C forest lands. What this means for Oregon’s counties. Why is the Left the enemy of prosperity?
  • 24:46 – Craig Rucker joins us, we talk just how much oil the US is producing, how this changes the impact of Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Genuine energy Independence.
  • 31:27 – Oregon and California’s war on prosperity. Why and how Trump is beating them anyway. The impact if Democrats finally got on board with supporting America. Why it’s amazing Trump has been able to get anything going with the economy.
  • 38:49 – Green mandates. How things would be going if Trump hadn’t made the changes he did in his first time — and not getting credit for his current changes. The UN has given up on Climate Change. And what their next war is. Meaning, where now the cash cow?

Transcript

(Opener only) Way back in 2012 and again in 2013 and 2018, we interviewed Vicky Steiner, a North Dakota state representative, and the Executive Director for the North Dakota Association of Oil and Gas Producing Counties.

Seems like ancient history now but if you remember back in those days North Dakota was having a massive oil boom thanks in large part to fracking. They could not get enough workers in fast enough. Wages skyrocketed.

And that’s great to be suddenly making a lot of money but there’s the other side of that. They did not have the infrastructure. People were sleeping in tents or their trucks. And it gets cold in North Dakota. Esp in winter. Temporary housing was brought in. Water and plumbing and electric lines all needed to be run. Which meant another boom they needed electricians and plumbers. There was constant food shortages — and… whenever supply is short, prices on food and everything else shot up. Roads needed to be built or repaired — rural schools suddenly had twice as many students.

It was like squeezing 15 years of civilization into about one year.

So when we talk to Vicki she said something that has always stuck with me. She said, “I don’t understand Oregon. Here in ND we realize at some point these wells will go dry. You guys have trees and they grow back. Why aren’t you harvesting them? That’s an endless supply of money just sitting there. None of us can figure that out.”

Trust me, I said. We don’t get it either. But it’s the radical left. We’re largely handcuffed by environmentalists and the democrats and to a lesser degree republicans are scared of them.

Oregon is a tremendously blessed state when it comes to natural resources — we are the envy of other states. The problem is we are cursed with junked up junk science. That carbon dioxide is somehow “the enemy” (which goes against what most of us learned in second grade science — That plants depend on carbon dioxide). And the overriding junk science of “Climate Change” is costing us a massive amount of money — money that we could be earning.

But instead the idiots in charge — currently in charge — are far more interested in getting and spending other people’s money than doing anything to fix other people’s problems

Subscribe:
Apple PodcastsSpotify | iHeart | Amazon | TuneIn | And every major podcast platform — just search for “I Spy Radio Show”

If you enjoy our content, help others discover the show! Give us a like and subscribe or leave us a review on your favorite podcast platform—or drop a comment below. That really helps us get a bump up in the ol’ algorithms when platforms suggest shows to others.

Additional Show Notes, Links Mentioned, Related Info

Our Guests’ Websites:

  • Jen Hamaker is president of Oregon Natural Resources, ONRI.us
  • Craig Rucker is co-founder and president of the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow, CFACT.org

Links Mentioned

Show 16-07 Endanger! Endanger, Will Robinson! Climate Change Backbone Yanked Out

Show 16-07 Endanger! Endanger, Will Robinson! Climate Change Backbone Yanked Out

Endanger! Endanger, Will Robinson! Climate Scam Backbone Yanked Out

Release Date: February 14th & 15th, 2026

Duration: 47:55

Host: Mark Anderson

Guests: Craig Rucker, president of CFACT, and John Charles, president & CEO of Cascade Policy


About This Episode

This week, you’ll hear the massive news that the fossil media is hoping you’ll ignore. Because the Democrats and further Left have been making trillions off fake news and faked science. And the days of taxpayer-funded, compulsory tithes to the Democrats is coming to an end. The Obama-era EPA rule, the endangerment finding, has been the regulatory backbone of of not just Global Warming regulations but the legal means to fund environmental movement’s cash cow to fund Democrats’ political ideology and their broader operations.

Show Notes

  • 00:00 – Intro – the Endangerment Finding’s tentacles, Left’s coming cognitive dissonance, media distractions to ignore what just happened.
  • 02:43 – Craig Rucker, president of CFACT, on judges ruling energy is somehow not a national security issue. Idiotic push for windmills exemplify Endangerment Finding. Trillions wasted. Clean Air Act original intention and why Endangerment Finding never should have happened.
  • 10:33 – The biggest dominoes that will fall as a result of ending the Endangerment Finding. Will other countries mirror our deregulation—and what happens if they don’t. Why this deregulation really is the end, why it’s different, and why it is so unlikely to be reborn via Democrat lawsuits, acts of Congress, or the Supreme Court.
  • 18:19 – The proof Obama used faked and falsified “science” to create the Endangerment Finding in the first place. The cascading damage caused by its bogus science. The biggest and most dangerous domino to fall with the end of the Endangerment Finding. Speculating on the Left’s next boogeyman to scare people.
  • 25:14 – John Charles, president and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, on one of their biggest free market wins. The  free market system compared to the Left’s socialism. The net zero madness—thanks to that Endangerment Finding—that will cost New England states 100s of billions to do nothing.
  • 33:39 – The impact of deregulating the federal Endangerment Finding on Oregon’s state-level regulations. Lawsuits and challenges to Governor Kotek’s Climate Protection Plan, since it doesn’t have a federal regulation to stand on. Implosion we’re seeing in other countries from net zero. It was all about imposing their political will. Not climate. Economic impact: How Oregon’s policies will drive out businesses and prevent new ones from coming. Is change on the way?
  • 39:57 – What is up with Oregon elected Democrats’ insane push for more tax and spending at all costs in an election year? And yet another new scam: how SB 1526 emulates the current Energy Trust of Oregon scam to hide more money from public scrutiny. Fraud in Oregon.

Transcript

(Opener) What if so much of what you currently believe turned out to be based on a lie? I don’t mean just “sort of based on the line,” I mean the entire foundation of what you believe. Just a lie. Last week we touched on that, talking about cognitive dissonance.

Because your psyche doesn’t like to be wrong, your brain sort of short circuits when it is confronted with new information that directly contradicts previously held beliefs—and throws up all sorts of defense mechanisms to stop you from believing the new information.

I mention this because there’s some big information that is happening that could radically change so much of the Left’s belief system. The Endangerment Finding has been the legal and regulatory backbone that the Left has used to push green energy climate change, net zero mandates and regulations, carbon credits, and so much else.

And, along the way, to steal trillions of dollars from US taxpayers. Which they then use to hire people—or at least, convince them—in the media to promote and defend climate change. And to attack anyone who dares question them. “Science denier” and all the rest.

Those stupid windmills that aren’t moving up in the [Columbia] gorge? Thank the endangerment finding. The push to windmills offshore in Oregon. That was based on the endangerment finding. Higher gas taxes because “oil is the enemy”? That’s thanks to the endangerment finding. Not cutting down trees—you know, which regrow — and the whole nonsense of carbon sequestration? Endangerment finding. Solar panels taking over what used to be farmland. Endangerment finding.

So you can kind of see here how this might be a bit of a danger to the Left’s mental well-being. And while this is being undone, the media continues its distraction, hoping that people won’t pay attention, hoping that people can be distracted long enough so that they don’t realize that the green gospel they’ve been hearing preached nonstop and forced to live under was all based on a lie.

Subscribe:
Apple PodcastsSpotify | iHeart | Amazon | TuneIn | And every major podcast platform — just search for “I Spy Radio Show”

If you enjoy our content, help others discover the show! Give us a like and subscribe or leave us a review on your favorite podcast platform—or drop a comment below. That really helps us get a bump up in the ol’ algorithms when platforms suggest shows to others.

Show Notes, Research, Links Mentioned, and Related

  • Craig Rucker’s organization is CFACT (Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow). Visit them at CFACT.org.
    • The CFACT article mentioned was “Ending EPA’s ‘Endangerment Finding’ may be a fatal blow to regulatory climate overreach.”
      • “[The] 2009 Obama Administration climate rule has been the legal foundation for regulating the U.S. economy by placing restrictions on cars and electricity generation by bypassing Congress. The underlying basis for the Endangerment Finding is that CO2 and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.”
  • John Charles is the president and CEO of Cascade Policy. Visit them at CascadePolicy.org. Get their newsletter!
    • The bill mentioned during the show is SB 1526. Read more about SB 1526 and the Democrats’ latest scheme to hide money in yet another slush fund.
  • Trump suffers major losses in his war on offshore wind (Politico, Jan 18, 2026)
    • “The administration’s arguments that offshore wind farms present a national security risk failed to convince judges in three separate courts.”
  • Trump Set to Repeal Obama-Era Climate Finding (Pro Trump News, Feb 10, 2026)
  • Will consumers pay for Oregon’s climate ambitions (OregonLive, Jan 18, 2025)
  • New England ratepayers may save up to $700 billion (Just the News, Jan 18, 2026)

Not mentioned but you might want to read…

 

Show 16-04 Podcast – Why Republicans Winning Oregon Elections Just Got More Likely

Show 16-04 Podcast – Why Republicans Winning Oregon Elections Just Got More Likely

Why Republicans Winning Oregon Elections Just Got More Likely

Release Date: January 24, 2026

Duration: 47:55

Host: Mark Anderson

Guests: Rep. Ed Diehl, candidate for Oregon governor, and Eric Lee, senior attorney on Judicial Watch’s election integrity team


About This Episode

Election integrity laws are about to change — for the good. The timing could not be better. Right when a Republican candidate with a proven ability to draw independents and Democrats decided to run for Oregon’s governor. And at a time Oregon Democrats are doing their best to sabotage their own chances by punishing Oregonian to cling to power. Even more, the federal lawsuits to restore trust in our elections haven’t even really gotten started.

Show Notes

  • 00:00 – Representative Ed Diehl announces his run for Oregon governor — what happened to change him from a no to a yes?
  • 09:18 – The highly successful No Gas Tax referendum drew support from all political parties. So how to convert support for that issue into support for him as a governor candidate for Oregon?
  • 16:31 – Oregon Democrats are committing political suicide more on how they are punishing Oregon businesses and the Oregonians who work at them.
  • 24:39 – Eric Lee, senior attorney on Judicial Watch’s election integrity team discusses last week’s SCOTUS ruling and how Bost v. Illinois was so huge for election integrity. Why the rules have now changed.
  • 31:45 – The avalanche of election integrity lawsuits about to come. Judicial Watch sued Oregon to clean up the voter rolls; Oregon surprised court watchers by suddenly announcing they would remove 800,000 inactive voters—about 20–25% of registered voters.
  • 39:09 – Did Oregon’s Secretary of State just blab a little too much and admit Oregon is at fault? That 800,00? That’s just the start. Discovery is underway right now. And did the Secretary of State also open the door to another Judicial Watch lawsuit by violating another federal law?

Transcript

(Opener) There’s a buzz phrase in government that you probably heard. Evidence based. And they use that buzz phrase because what they really want is for you not to question their policies.

Evidence based refers, allegedly, making government policy and spending decisions based on evidence — like data and research (which govt pays someone to do), and so-called “proven results” rather than on ideology, intuition, or anecdote.

Now just to easily disprove the notion of evidence based — when’s the last time democrats push through government policy that supported (or, more to the point, funded) any ideology on the right.

There is overwhelming evidence for conservative, pro-growth economic policies — like lowering taxes and cutting government spending is good for economies and good for people. Instead, Democrats want to raise taxes and increase government spending — the exact opposite of what the evidence shows.

Instead, it’s about things like climate change, which they plan to fix through carbon credits, which fund Democrats. Or Green energy (which isn’t green — and funds Democrats). Or funding the homeless-industrial complex of non-profits, which happen to be Democrats.

Well, the real evidence is in. And it’s fraud and its government incompetence. And we’d planned to talk an awful lot about fraud on today’s show and then, well… the best-laid plans of mice and men, or politicians and radio hosts, sometimes go awry.

Because the last time we talked to representative Ed Diehl back in December, we wanted to get him on our calendar to continue our discussion about fraud, and to get some insights into legislative days at the capital, and what devious schemes those Democrats are up to now. So we threw around some dates and settled on today—we’re talking Wednesday afternoon, January 21st—and we were all set to continue that discussion but then a little something came up.

And I don’t know how we don’t start off with this huge news, even though this show won’t air until the weekend after the big reveal. So, Ed welcome back, and for those who don’t already know by now go ahead and tell ‘em.

Download the Show

Don’t use podcast platforms? No problem! Download Show 16-04. That link will open in a new tab where you can listen right in your browser or download it if you prefer.

Additional Show Notes

For research, links mentioned during the show, additional commentary, etc., head to this page.

Subscribe:
Apple PodcastsSpotify | iHeart | Amazon | TuneIn | RSS | And every major podcast platform — just search for “I Spy Radio Show”

If you enjoy our content, help others discover the show! Give us a like and subscribe or leave us a review. That really helps us get a bump up in the ol’ algorithms when platforms suggest shows to others.

16-04 Why Republicans Winning Oregon Elections Just Got More Likely

16-04 Why Republicans Winning Oregon Elections Just Got More Likely

Show 16-04 Summary:  This week, it’s Oregon’s all important 2026 elections — and why things will change. We start with Representative Ed Diehl (HD17) to talk about his decision to run for Oregon’s governor. Can he win? Find out why we certainly think he will not only win the primary, he will win the general. But can he really win in a state known for its lack of election integrity? Including having what Judicial Watch called “the dirtiest voter rolls in the nation.” We talk with Judicial Watch’s senior attorney, Eric Lee, about their lawsuit — and why last week’s SCOTUS ruling opens the door to fundamentally changing elections. Including right here in Oregon.

Map showing the radio stations broadcast areas and air time for the I Spy Radio Show.
I Spy Radio broadcast areas. Click for full-size.

The I Spy Radio Show airs weekends, seven times over the weekend, on seven different stations. Listen anywhere through the stations’ live streams! Check out when, where, and how to listen to the I Spy Radio Show. Podcast available Mondays after the show airs on our network of stations.

Air Dates: January 24th & 25th, 2026 | Guests: Ed Diehl & Eric Lee

This Week – Republicans Winning Oregon’s Elections

When we last talked to Ed Diehl at the end of December, we scheduled this week to continue our discussion on fraud in Oregon (hold our beer, Minnesota) and legislative days in Salem. But the night before our interview on Wednesday, news broke he was going to run for Oregon governor.

How do we not talk about that? We have been urging Ed to run for governor for at least a couple of years. We talk about his race, what changed his mind, and his competition—both Republican and Democrat. Plus, we do get a chance to talk about fraud, including what he will do about it as governor.

Plus, we talk about that all-important No Gas tax petition drive that will not only help Ed Diehl win Oregon’s 2026 governor’s race, but help sink Democrats. Democrats might not lose their majorities in the house or senate—although they just might find themselves in the minority after November—hey will definitely lose their super majorities in both chambers.

Want to find out more about Ed Diehl, candidate for Oregon governor? Head to Ed’s website. Remember: deep pocket donors wait to see how many smaller donors are sending in money. They need to see that interest. It’s their way of judging a candidate’s chances before committing bigger money.

Then we welcome back Eric Lee, senior attorney on Judicial Watch’s election integrity team, to discuss their lawsuit against Oregon to force them to clean up their voter rolls. And there was a major admission on Oregon’s part about its dirty rolls just last week. Whoops.

But before we get there, we get Eric’s take on last week’s SCOTUS ruling in Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections. On the surface, it was about whether a candidate had standing. But dig a little (which the leftstream media did its best not to do) and it is much. much bigger. How much bigger? Enough that it could fundamentally change elections. And people might just trust them again.

The I Spy Radio Show Podcast Version

Mondays, after our network of radio stations have aired the show, I Spy Radio is now available on your favorite podcasting platform, or you can grab it right here. See the full list of podcast options.

Show Notes: Research, Links Mentioned & Additional Info