Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ben Rhodes on How Podcasts Can Strengthen Democracy

Microphones, podcast set up, podcast studio.

Many people inside and outside of the podcasting world are working to use the medium as a way to promote democracy and civic engagement.

Getty Images, Sergey Mironov

After the 2024 election was deemed the “podcast election,” many people inside and outside of the podcasting world were left wondering how to capitalize on the medium as a way to promote democracy and civic engagement to audiences who are either burned out by or distrustful of traditional or mainstream news sources.

The Democracy Group podcast network has been working through this question since its founding in 2020—long before presidential candidates appeared on some of the most popular podcasts to appeal to specific demographics. Our members recently met in Washington, D.C., for our first convening to learn from each other and from high-profile podcasters like Jessica Tarlov, host of Raging Moderates, and Ben Rhodes, host of Pod Save the World.


Rhodes was part of a public conversation with Democracy Group members Kamy Akhavan of the USC Center for the Political Future and Stephanie Gerber Wilson of Freedom Over Fascism. He’s hosted Pod Save the World since 2019 and is also a contributor to MSNBC.

Rhodes spoke about the difference between the two mediums in reaching and building trust with audiences—where podcasts provide the intimacy that younger people often expect from their media, traditional evening news might be broader and less curated.

“My ability to have a conversation about what's happening in a two-minute interjection on MSNBC is so minimal compared to being able to unpack issues, draw connections, and make light of something, while also being very serious on the podcast,” he said.

From 2009-2017, Rhodes served as a speechwriter and deputy national security advisor to former President Obama. In that role, he led the secret negotiations with the Cuban government that resulted in the effort to normalize relations between the United States and Cuba.

Much of the conversation focused on how the world order has changed since President Donald Trump took office in 2016 and how it will continue to change throughout the rest of his term. Rhodes acknowledged that Trump has been an agent for chaos but also said there’s an opportunity for realignment amid changes in technology.

“We have to reimagine an economy with AI poised to do massive job displacement, and we have to reimagine a social safety net that can exist in a world in which people can’t expect to work one job their whole lives,” Rhodes said, emphasizing a “degree of risk” global citizens are tolerating from political conflicts across the world. “The question is not whether that will happen, it's whether that will only happen after it gets much, much worse, or whether we can kind of be on a plane that's going through a bunch of turbulence until we kind of hit like some clear air.”

As a writer, speaker, and consultant, Rhodes travels around the world and talks with people who are frustrated with the political status quo. He said the next generation of political leaders will need to understand this frustration and address it to be successful.

“If you think about every election since George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, somebody running and saying the whole system was totally broken and we need change. That was Obama in 2008 and 2012 and it was Trump in 2016,” Rhodes said. “One consistent message American voters delivered was that they don’t like this system. I don’t think Trump is the answer to that, but it is a hopeful point in terms of the system.”

The full recording with Rhodes is available on The Democracy Group’s network-wide podcast. The convening, including the live recording with Rhodes, was supported by the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State and the Louie Rankin Foundation.


Jenna Spinelle is the founder of The Democracy Group and Jessie Nguyen is the network’s content specialist.

Read More

What's the Difference Between Consequence Culture and State Censorship?

Jimmy Kimmel attends the 28th Annual UCLA Jonsson Cancer Center Foundation's "Taste For A Cure" event at Beverly Wilshire, A Four Seasons Hotel on May 02, 2025 in Beverly Hills, California.

(Photo by Tommaso Boddi/Getty Images for UCLA Jonsson Cancer Center Foundation)

What's the Difference Between Consequence Culture and State Censorship?

On a recent Tuesday night, viewers tuned in expecting the usual rhythm of late-night comedy: sharp jokes, a celebrity guest, and some comic relief before bed. Instead, they were met with silence. Jimmy Kimmel was yanked off the air after mocking Trump’s response to Charlie Kirk’s assassination, his remarks branded “offensive” by federal officials. Stephen Colbert fared no better. After skewering Trump’s wealth and his strongman posturing, his show was abruptly suspended. The message was unmistakable: any criticism of the president could now be grounds for cancellation.

These weren’t ratings decisions or advertiser tantrums. They were acts of political pressure. Regulators threatened fines and hinted at license reviews if the jokes continued. A hallmark of American democracy, the freedom to mock the powerful, was suddenly treated as a form of censorship.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship in Prime Time: Is The Authoritarian Playbook in Motion?
Fayl:Jimmy Kimmel June 2022.jpg - Vikipediya

Censorship in Prime Time: Is The Authoritarian Playbook in Motion?

ABC’s decision to pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! indefinitely has sent shockwaves through both the media and political worlds, with critics denouncing the move as censorship. “This isn’t right,” wrote actor Ben Stiller. California Governor Gavin Newsom went further, accusing the Republican Party of “censoring you in real time,” warning that “buying and controlling media platforms, firing commentators, canceling shows… it’s coordinated. And it’s dangerous.”

This isn’t just about one late-night host. It’s about a pattern—a six-step playbook used by authoritarian regimes to dismantle democratic institutions. And under President Donald Trump’s second term, critics say that playbook is being executed with alarming precision.

Keep ReadingShow less
When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Journalists Must Stand Firm in the Face of Threats to Democracy
a cup of coffee and a pair of glasses on a newspaper
Photo by Ashni on Unsplash

Why Journalists Must Stand Firm in the Face of Threats to Democracy

The United States is living through a moment of profound democratic vulnerability. I believe the Trump administration has worked in ways that weaken trust in our institutions, including one of democracy’s most essential pillars: a free and independent press. In my view, these are not abstract risks but deliberate attempts to discredit truth-telling. That is why, now more than ever, I think journalists must recommit themselves to their core duty of telling the truth, holding power to account, and giving voice to the people.

As journalists, I believe we do not exist to serve those in office. Our loyalty should be to the public, to the people who trust us with their stories, not to officials who often seek to mold the press to favor their agenda. To me, abandoning that principle would be to betray not just our profession but democracy itself.

Keep ReadingShow less