Sponsored message
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • The first 3 up for auction sell in LA
    The first three Bob Ross paintings auctioned to support public broadcasting sold in Los Angeles on Tuesday for a record-shattering $662,000. The rest will go up for auction in various cities throughout 2026. Ross painted many of them live on his PBS show.

    About the sale: Bonhams says the works attracted hundreds of registrations, more than twice the usual number for that type of sale. Each sold for more than its estimated worth, led by Winter's Peace, which fetched $318,000 to set a new Ross auction record.

    Why now: In October, the nonprofit syndicator American Public Television (APT) announced it would auction off 30 of Ross' paintings to raise money for public broadcasters hit by federal funding cuts. It pledged to direct 100% of its net sales proceeds to APT and PBS stations nationwide.

    The first of 30 Bob Ross paintings — many of them created live on the PBS series that made him a household name — have been auctioned off in L.A. to support public television.

    Ross, with his distinctive afro, soothing voice and sunny outlook, empowered millions of viewers to make and appreciate art through his show The Joy of Painting. More than 400 half-hour episodes aired on PBS (and eventually the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) from 1983 to 1994, the year before Ross died of cancer at age 52.

    Ross' impact lives on: His show still airs on PBS and streams on platforms like Hulu and Twitch. It has surged in popularity in recent years, particularly as viewers searched for comfort during COVID-19 lockdowns. Certified instructors continue teaching his wet-on-wet oil painting technique to the masses, and the Smithsonian acquired several of his works for its permanent collection in 2019. But his artwork rarely goes up for sale — until recently.

    In October, the nonprofit syndicator American Public Television (APT) announced it would auction off 30 of Ross' paintings to raise money for public broadcasters hit by federal funding cuts. It pledged to direct 100% of its net sales proceeds to APT and PBS stations nationwide.

    Auction house Bonhams is calling it the "largest single offering of Bob Ross original works ever brought to market."

    Ross has become synonymous with public broadcasting and some activists have even invoked him in their calls for restoring federal funding to it.

    "It's a medium that Bob just cherished," said Joan Kowalski, president of Bob Ross, Inc., in a phone call with NPR. "With the cuts, it's just a natural inclination to support public television."

    A screen shows a painting at an auction.
    "Winters Peace," which Ross painted on-air in 1993, was among the first of his works to be auctioned to support public television, in California in November.
    (
    LA-IA
    /
    Bonhams
    )

    The first three paintings sold in Los Angeles on Tuesday for a record-shattering $662,000. Bonhams says the works attracted hundreds of registrations, more than twice the usual number for that type of sale. Each sold for more than its estimated worth, led by "Winter's Peace," which fetched $318,000 to set a new Ross auction record.

    "As anticipated, these paintings inspired spirited bidding, achieved impressive results and broke global auction records, continuing the momentum we've seen building in [Ross'] market," said Robin Starr, the general manager of Bonhams Skinner, the auction house's Massachusetts branch. "These successes provide a solid foundation as we look ahead to 2026 and prepare to present the next group of Bob Ross works."

    Painting of a snow covered landscape.  A small house is in the foreground, in the distance a frozen lake and a mountain range beyond. The sky is painted in hues of yellow, red and blue. Tall pine trees surround the house and lake
    "Winter's Peace," which Bob Ross painted on-air in 1993, is among his first three works going up for auction in November. He used especially vibrant colors with his TV audience in mind.
    (
    LA-CH
    /
    Bonhams
    )

    The next trio of paintings will be auctioned in Massachusetts in late January. The rest will be sold throughout 2026 at Bonham's salerooms in Los Angeles, New York and Boston.

    How the offering could benefit public broadcasters 

    At President Donald Trump's direction, Congress voted in July to claw back $1.1 billion in previously allocated funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), leaving the country's roughly 330 PBS and 244 NPR stations in a precarious position.

    CPB began shutting down at the end of September, PBS has already cut 15% of its jobs, and several local TV and radio stations have also announced layoffs and closures.

    A woman in the center of the photo is pictured leaning on a stroller. She is holding a paint palette in her left hand. Behind her is a young boy. She, the boy, and the small child sitting in the stroller are all wearing brown afro wigs. The wigs are meant to mimic the hair of Bob Ross, the iconic PBS painter and star of his own show. A man standing next to the woman and children holds a picture frame with a painting of Bob Ross and the words, "No PBS, no Bob"
    Demonstrators dressed as Bob Ross at a Chicago protest calling for the restoration of federal funding to PBS in late September.
    (
    Scott Olson
    /
    Getty Images
    )

    "I think he would be very disappointed" about the CPB cuts, Kowalski said of Ross. "I think he would have decided to do exactly what we're doing right now ... I think this would have probably been his idea."

    Kowalski, whose parents founded Bob Ross Inc. together with the painter in 1985, said Ross favored positive activism over destructive or empty rhetoric.

    "That just was his nature," she said. "He was like that in real life. So I think this would have been exactly the thing that he would have chosen. I suddenly got really emotional thinking about that."

    A landscape painting with a small lake in the center. To the right are tall tress and a small wooden house. To the left is a cluster of tall and medium height trees. In the distance, a hilly landscape is depicted against a cloudy, blue sky
    Ross spent about 26 minutes painting "Home in the Valley" on live TV in October 1993. It's been in storage ever since and will go on sale in November.
    (
    LA-CH
    /
    Bonhams
    )

    The Ross auction aims to help stations pay their licensing fees to the national TV channel Create, which in turn allows them to air popular public television programs including The Best of the Joy of Painting (based on Ross' show), America's Test Kitchen, Rick Steve's Europe and Julia Child's French Chef Classics.

    Bonhams says the auction proceeds will help stations — particularly smaller and rural ones — defray the cost burden of licensing fees, making Create available to more of them.

    "This enables stations to maintain their educational programming while redirecting funds toward other critical operations and local content production threatened by federal funding cuts," the auction house says.

    Ross' paintings rarely hit the market

    The 30 paintings going up for sale span Ross' career and are all "previously unseen by the public except during their creation in individual episodes" of The Joy of Painting, according to Bonhams. Many have remained in secure storage ever since.

    They include vibrant landscapes, with the serene mountains, lake views and "happy trees" that became his trademark.

    Ross started painting during his 20-year career in the Air Force, much of which was spent in Alaska. That experience shaped his penchant for landscapes and ability to work quickly — and, he later said, his desire not to raise his voice once out of the service.

    Once on the airwaves, Ross' soft-spoken guidance and gentle demeanor won over millions of viewers. His advice applied to art as well as life: Mistakes are just "happy accidents," talent is a "pursued interest," and it's important to "take a step back and look."

    "Ross' gentle teaching style and positive philosophy made him a cultural icon whose influence extends far beyond the art world," Bonhams says.

    While Ross was prolific, his paintings were intended for teaching instead of selling, and therefore rarely go on the market.

    In August, Bonhams sold two of Ross' early 1990s mountain and lake scenes as part of an online auction of American art. They fetched $114,800 and $95,750, surpassing expectations and setting a new auction world record for Ross at the time. Kowalski says that's when her gears started turning.

    "And it just got me to thinking, that's a substantial amount of money," she recalled. "And what if, what if, what if?"

    Bonhams officially estimates that the 30 paintings could go for a combined total between $850,000 and $1.4 million. But Starr, of the auction house, predicted in October that they will continue to exceed expectations, based on their artistic value, nostalgia factor and more.

    "Now we add in the fact that these are selling to benefit public television, I think the bidding is going to be very happy," she said. "Happy trees, happy bidding."

    Disclosure: This story was edited by general assignment editor Carol Ritchie and managing editor Vickie Walton-James. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.
    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • Fennessy to lead new federal agency
    A group of firefighters and highway officials stand behind a podium at a news conference.
    Orange County Fire Chief Brian Fennessy at a news conference Friday morning.

    Topline:

    Brian Fennessy is retiring as head of the Orange County Fire Authority in January to become the first director of the newly created United States Wildland Fire Service, according to a staff memo.
    OCFA Chief Fennessy retirement letter
    OCFA Chief Brian Fennessy announces his retirement to join new U.S. Wildland Fire Service

    Why it matters: The Trump administration announced the U.S. Wildland Fire Service in September to modernize wildfire management nationwide. It will be a joint effort between the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture.

    The context: The service's areas of focus will include strengthening response efforts among local, state and federal agencies, modernizing aviation and coordinating systems and improving technology that can help agencies respond to fires and protect personnel. In his retirement letter, Fennessy said the USWFS "represents a historic opportunity to strengthen interagency coordination, modernize capabilities, and elevate the profession of wildland firefighting."

    The backstory: Fennessy was OCFA fire chief for more than seven years. According to OCFA, his career began in 1978 as a hotshot crewmember with the U.S. Forest Service and the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management.

    What's next: A new chief has not been announced yet. Fennessy said he would “work closely with Executive Management and our Board of Directors to support a smooth leadership transition.”

  • Sponsored message
  • Republicans push plan, HSA

    Topline:

    Although GOP leaders have yet to coalesce around an alternative, several leading Republican lawmakers have proposed Americans who don't get insurance through an employer should get cash in a special health care account, paired with a high-deductible health plan.

    Why it matters: In such an arrangement, someone could choose a plan on an ACA marketplace that costs less per month but comes with an annual deductible that can top $7,000 for an individual plan.

    Some background: Today, nearly all health plans comes with a deductible, with the average for a single worker with job-based coverage approaching $1,700, up from around $300 in 2006.

    Read on... for what happened with a family who had high-deductible health plan.

    Sarah Monroe once had a relatively comfortable middle-class life.

    She and her family lived in a neatly landscaped neighborhood near Cleveland. They had a six-figure income and health insurance through her job. Then, four years ago, when Monroe was pregnant with twin girls, something started to feel off.

    "I kept having to come into the emergency room for fainting and other symptoms," recalled Monroe, 43, who works for an insurance company.

    The babies were fine. But after months of tests and hospital trips, Monroe was diagnosed with a potentially dangerous heart condition.

    It would be costly. Within a year, as she juggled a serious illness and a pair of newborns, Monroe was buried under more than $13,000 in medical debt.


    Part of the reason: Like tens of millions of Americans, she had a high-deductible health plan. People with these plans typically pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets before coverage kicks in.

    The plans, which have become common over the past two decades, are getting renewed attention thanks to President Donald Trump and his GOP allies in Congress.

    Many Republicans are reluctant to extend government subsidies that help cover patients' medical bills and insurance premiums through the Affordable Care Act.

    And although GOP leaders have yet to coalesce around an alternative, several leading Republican lawmakers have proposed Americans who don't get insurance through an employer should get cash in a special health care account, paired with a high-deductible health plan.

    In such an arrangement, someone could choose a plan on an ACA marketplace that costs less per month but comes with an annual deductible that can top $7,000 for an individual plan.

    "A patient makes the decision," Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said at a recent hearing. "It empowers the patient to lower the cost."

    In a post on Truth Social last month, Trump said: "The only healthcare I will support or approve is sending the money directly back to the people."

    "Skin in the game"

    Conservative economists and GOP lawmakers have been making similar arguments since high-deductible health plans started to catch on two decades ago.

    Back then, a backlash against the limitations of HMOs, or health maintenance organizations, propelled many employers to move workers into these plans, which were supposed to empower patients and control costs. A change in tax law allowed patients in these plans to put away money in tax-free health savings accounts to cover medical bills.

    "The notion was that if a consumer has 'skin in the game,' they will be more likely to seek higher-quality, lower-cost care," said Shawn Gremminger, who leads the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions, a nonprofit that works with employers that offer their workers health benefits.

    "The unfortunate reality is that largely has not been the case," Gremminger said.

    Today, nearly all health plans comes with a deductible, with the average for a single worker with job-based coverage approaching $1,700, up from around $300 in 2006.

    Plans with deductibles that exceed $1,650 can be paired with a tax-free health savings account.

    But even as deductibles became widespread over the last 20 years, medical prices in the U.S. skyrocketed. The average price of a knee replacement, for example, increased 74% from 2003 to 2016, more than double the rate of overall inflation.

    At the same time, patients have been left with thousands of dollars of medical bills they can't pay, despite having health insurance.

    About 100 million people in the U.S. have some form of health care debt, a 2022 survey showed.

    Most, like Monroe, are insured.

    Medical price shopping isn't easy

    Although Monroe had a health savings account paired with her high-deductible plan, she was never able to save more than a few thousand dollars, she said. That wasn't nearly enough to cover the big bills when her twins were born and when she got really ill.

    "It's impossible, I will tell you, impossible to pay medical bills," she said.

    There was another problem with her high-deductible plan. Although these plans are supposed to encourage patients to shop around for medical care to find the lowest prices, Monroe found this impractical when she had a complex pregnancy and heart troubles.

    Instead, Monroe chose the largest health system in her area.

    "I went with that one as far as medical risk," she said. "If anything were to happen, I could then be transferred within that system."

    Federal rules that require hospitals to post more of their prices can make comparing institutions easier than it used to be.

    But unlike a car or a computer, most medical services remain difficult to shop for, in part because they stem from an emergency or are complex and can stretch over numerous years.

    Researchers at the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, for example, estimated that just 7% of total health care spending for Americans with job-based coverage was for services that realistically could be shopped for.

    Fumiko Chino, an oncologist at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said it makes no sense to expect patients with cancer or another chronic disease to go out and compare prices for complicated medical care such as surgeries, radiation, or chemotherapy after they've been diagnosed with a potentially deadly illness.

    "You're not going be able to actually do that effectively," Chino said, "and certainly not within the time frame that you would need to when facing a cancer diagnosis and the imminent need to start treatment."

    Drowning in bills

    Chino said patients with high deductibles are often instead slammed with a flood of huge medical bills that lead to debt and a cascade of other problems.

    She and other researchers found in a study of more than 8,000 cancer patients presented last year at the American Society of Clinical Oncology that cancer patients who had high-deductible health insurance were more likely to die than similar patients without that kind of coverage.

    For her part, Monroe and her family were forced to move out of their house and into a 1,100-square-foot apartment.

    She drained her savings. Her credit score sank. And her car was repossessed.

    There have been other sacrifices, too. "When families get to have nice Christmases or get to go on spring break," Monroe said, hers often does not.

    She is thankful that her children are healthy. And she continues to have a job. But Monroe said she can't imagine why anyone would want to double down on the high-deductible model for health care.

    "We owe it to ourselves to do it a different way," she said. "We can't treat people like this."

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF.
    Copyright 2025 KFF Health News

  • Paramount tries to beat Netflix with $108B offer

    Topline:

    Paramount Global has sweetened its offer to acquire Warner by a bunch, offering an all-cash deal valued at $108 billion to take over the parent company of HBO, Warner Bros. Studios and CNN, among other notable properties. It would appear to significantly outstrip the deal worth $83 billion that Netflix and Warner announced just last Friday, although that agreement is solely for Warner's streaming service and studios.

    The backstory: The Ellisons started the ball rolling earlier this year, forcing the hand of Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav by making an unsolicited bid. He ultimately put the company on the chopping block. In remarks on a conference call Monday with investors and reporters, Paramount executives accused Warner of "never engaging meaningfully" with its six various proposals.

    Reaction: Warner did not respond to a request for comment. Netflix is expected to hold a call with investors Monday afternoon.

    The context: Combining with Warner would let the Ellisons create a Hollywood behemoth to take on Netflix, already the world's largest streamer. The Ellisons are also mindful of other major movie and TV streamers, particularly Amazon, Apple, and Disney, which bulked up a few years ago by acquiring most of Fox's entertainment assets.

    Get out your popcorn because there's more drama in the fight over the media powerhouse Warner Brothers Discovery:

    Paramount Global has sweetened its offer to acquire Warner by a bunch, offering an all-cash deal valued at $108 billion to take over the parent company of HBO, Warner Bros. Studios and CNN, among other notable properties.

    It would appear to significantly outstrip the deal worth $83 billion that Netflix and Warner announced just last Friday, although that agreement is solely for Warner's streaming service and studios. If that deal were to go through, CNN and other cable channels would be spun off.

    Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the world's richest people, and his son David, the movie producer and founder of Skydance Media, took over Paramount this summer. It's the parent company of CBS, Paramount Studios, the Paramount+ streaming service and more.

    Combining with Warner would let them create a Hollywood behemoth to take on Netflix, already the world's largest streamer. The Ellisons are also mindful of other major movie and TV streamers, particularly Amazon, Apple, and Disney, which bulked up a few years ago by acquiring most of Fox's entertainment assets.

    The Ellisons started the ball rolling earlier this year, forcing the hand of Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav by making an unsolicited bid. He ultimately put the company on the chopping block.

    In remarks on a conference call Monday with investors and reporters, Paramount executives accused Warner of "never engaging meaningfully" with its six various proposals.

    Warner did not respond to a request for comment. Netflix is expected to hold a call with investors Monday afternoon.

    Despite Zaslav's reluctance to sell to the Ellisons, they thought they had a dominant hand to play: they were offering a premium for the company's value on the open market and they were bidding for the entire enterprise.

    What's more, they had built strong ties to President Trump, whose government regulators ultimately would have to approve any such acquisition by an already established major Hollywood player.

    Larry Ellison is a donor, informal adviser and friend of the president. David Ellison has made two key hires at CBS — specifically in its news division — to ensure it will be perceived as less adversarial to Trump. A conservative former think tank chief has become its new ombudsman to review complaints. And Bari Weiss, founder of the right-of-center Free Press, has taken over the news division as editor in chief. Paramount's previous leadership had paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump against CBS News that legal observers described as flimsy.

    Presidential preferences are supposed to be held at arm's length from such reviews by antitrust regulators at the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Justice Department. But that's not how Washington operates under Trump.

    Even so, Trump's approval is never a sure thing. The Netflix announcement stirred instant opposition from a handful of U.S. senators in both parties. Trump was noncommittal in remarks Sunday.

    "Netflix is a great company and they've done a phenomenal job," Trump said. "They have a very big market share, and when they have Warner Bros., you know, that share goes up a lot, so I don't know, that's going to be for some economists to tell and also, I'll be involved in that decision too."

    However, Monday morning, Trump lashed out at CBS News for a 60 Minutes interview with Trump ally-turned-critic U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican who has announced she is stepping down. Paramount came in for particular scorn.

    "My real problem with the show, however, wasn't the low IQ traitor, it was that the new ownership of 60 Minutes, Paramount, would allow a show like this to air," Trump wrote Monday morning in a post on Truth Social — after the Ellisons announced their hostile bid for Warner. "THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP, who just paid me millions of Dollars for FAKE REPORTING about your favorite President, ME! Since they bought it, 60 Minutes has actually gotten WORSE!"

    Editor's note: Warner Bros. Discovery is among NPR's financial supporters.
    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • SCOTUS case could expand presidential powers

    Topline:

    The Supreme Court hears Monday arguments in a case that could end the independence of independent agencies, overturn a 90-year-old precedent, and reshape the balance of power between Congress and the president.

    The issue: President Donald Trump fired Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, whom Trump appointed in 2018, during his first term, to fill a Democratic seat on the Federal Trade Commission. President Biden appointed Slaughter to a second term, which was supposed to end in 2029. Instead, in March, Slaughter received an email from the White House Office of Presidential Personnel informing her that she was being removed from office, effective immediately. She was told her "continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration's priorities."

    A bipartisan agency: Congress created the FTC in 1914 as a bipartisan, independent agency tasked with protecting the American economy from unfair methods of competition. By law, the five-member commission can have no more than three members of the same political party, and commissioners can only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." Slaughter had been given no such reason for her removal, and so she sued. A lower court declared that Slaughter had been unlawfully removed from the FTC and ordered her back to work. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, and in September, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order removing her from her seat until the merits of her case could be heard. Justices voted 6 to 3 along ideological lines to allow her firing to stand — for now.

    The Supreme Court hears Monday arguments in a case that could end the independence of independent agencies, overturn a 90-year-old precedent, and reshape the balance of power between Congress and the president.

    At issue is whether President Donald Trump can fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, whom Trump appointed in 2018, during his first term, to fill a Democratic seat on the Federal Trade Commission. President Biden appointed Slaughter to a second term, which was supposed to end in 2029.

    Instead, in March, Slaughter received an email from the White House Office of Presidential Personnel informing her that she was being removed from office, effective immediately. She was told her "continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration's priorities."

    Congress created the FTC in 1914 as a bipartisan, independent agency tasked with protecting the American economy from unfair methods of competition. By law, the five-member commission can have no more than three members of the same political party, and commissioners can only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."

    Slaughter had been given no such reason for her removal, and so she sued. A lower court declared that Slaughter had been unlawfully removed from the FTC and ordered her back to work. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, and in September, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order removing her from her seat until the merits of her case could be heard. Justices voted 6 to 3 along ideological lines to allow her firing to stand -- for now.

    Reconsidering a 90-year-old precedent

    Black and white photo of a man wearing a tuxedo, sitting at a desk with a microphone on it
    President Franklin D. Roosevelt during a radio broadcast circa 1933–40.
    (
    Harris & Ewing
    /
    Library of Congress
    )

    Proving that history does repeat itself, in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to fire an FTC commissioner over ideological disagreements. In that case, called Humphrey's Executor, the court unanimously held that while the president has the power to remove purely executive officers for any reason, that unlimited power does not extend to agencies like the FTC, whose duties "are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative."

    Following that 1935 decision, Congress went on to create many more multimember, independent agencies whose members likewise can only be removed for cause. Since January, Trump has also removed Democratic members from some of those agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    In Slaughter's case and others, the Trump administration argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's Executor was flawed, due to a misunderstanding of the FTC's functions at the time. The administration maintains that the FTC did in fact exercise executive power then and says those powers have only grown in the decades since.

    During Trump's first term, the Supreme Court chipped away at Humphrey's Executor when it permitted Trump to fire the head of another independent agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the firing was permissible because the CFPB is run by a single director rather than a multimember board. Chief Justice John Roberts described Humphrey's Executor as applying to multimember agencies "that do not wield substantial executive power."

    On Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in line with that guidance. In a 2-to-1 decision, the court said Trump's firings of Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris and National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox were lawful, citing those agencies' "significant executive powers."

    A man with white hair wearing a blue suit and pink tie stares off into the distance. He is standing in front of a wood-paneled wall.
    President Trump attends a press event at the White House on Dec. 2.
    (
    Andrew Caballero-Reynolds
    /
    AFP via Getty Images
    )

    A clash of views on independent agencies

    Slaughter believes that it is vital for the Supreme Court to preserve the independence of bipartisan multimember agencies and allow her to be reinstated.

    "Independence allows the decision-making that is done by these boards and commissions to be on the merits, about the facts, and about protecting the interests of the American people," she said. "That is what Americans deserve from their government."

    James M. Burnham, an attorney who has served in both Trump administrations, offered an opposing view.

    "I don't think there is such a thing as an independent agency because everything has to be in one of the three branches of government," he argued. "I don't think they've ever been independent because I think the removal protections have been unconstitutional from the beginning."

    The court will continue its deliberation on Humphrey's Executor on Jan. 21 when it considers another case involving Trump's attempted firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
    Copyright 2025 NPR