Hey, I'm Robert Vinlo and I'm from New York Times Games and I'm here talking to people about Wordle and the Wordle Archive. Do you all play Wordle? I play it every day. Alright, I have something exciting to show you. It's the Wordle Archive. Okay, that's awesome. So now you can play every Wordle that has ever existed. There's like a thousand puzzles. What? Wordle Archive. Oh, cool. Now you can do yesterday's Wordle if you missed it. Yeah.
New York Times game subscribers can now access the entire Wordle Archive. Find out more at nytimes.com slash games. From the New York Times, it's the headlines. I'm Tracy Mumford. Today's Wednesday, March 26th. Here's what we're covering. Today at the Capitol, Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has organized a hearing titled Anti-American Airwaves. where the chief executives of NPR and PBS are set to face sharp questions about what Greene claims is liberal bias at their networks.
Greens expected to ask them about how they handled specific stories that have been hot-button issues on the right, like Hunter Biden's laptop and the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. Green has said that the network's coverage of those topics verged on propaganda. For their part, NPR and PBS's leaders say they're prepared to defend their organization's work and the government funding that helps support it.
Any cuts could weaken their networks of TV and radio stations, which stretch from New York to Nome, Alaska. Republicans in Congress have tried to cut back that funding for decades. But this year, the threat has taken on new weight. Congressional Republicans have introduced bills that would eliminate public media funding altogether. And Elon Musk has also targeted the organizations as part of his effort to slash federal spending.
Recently, both PBS and NPR have taken steps to comply with new rules from the Trump administration. PBS closed its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion office. NPR has changed how it approaches diversity in hiring. Still, the executives have been preparing for combative questioning from Green and her colleagues, similar to what college presidents and Democratic mayors have faced at other hearings convened by conservative lawmakers.
At the White House. There was no classified information, as I understand it. They used a app, if you want to call it an app. President Trump and his administration are downplaying the leak of sensitive war plans in a group chat that came to light earlier this week. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared details about an attack on Yemen before it happened in a chat on Signal that seemed to have accidentally included a journalist. Trump said no one needed to apologize for it and, quote,
You learn from every experience. And on Capitol Hill... Director Radcliffe, this was a huge mistake, correct? No. The director of the CIA, who was in the chat himself, acknowledged that sensitive information had been shared, but refused to call the leak a mistake. He was testifying in a previously scheduled hearing. Democratic lawmakers grilled him about the intelligence breach. This is utterly unprofessional. There's been no apology. There has been no recognition of the gravity of this error.
Some Democrats have called on Hegseth and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, who added the journalist to the chat, to resign. Today on The Daily. A conversation with that journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic. For the Trump administration, one defining characteristic so far has been its willingness to criticize and question the courts. And the Times has been tracking how that effort, to challenge the validity of a whole other branch of government,
mirrors a trend that's been building at the state level for years. What we've been seeing increasingly around the country is an effort by conservative lawmakers predominantly in Republican-leaning states to challenge what lawmakers believe are liberal courts. They've been very unhappy with some of the decisions that
Judges have rendered on hot-button issues like abortion and transgender issues. And so they've decided to introduce a whole bunch of legislation in an effort to change both the rules and even change the makeup of the courts. My colleague David Chen covers politics. He says the most aggressive proposals about how to reshape the courts have come out of Montana, where lawmakers have suggested dozens of overhauls.
Everything from being able to disqualify a judge based on their facial expressions to creating an entirely new court with judges appointed by the state's Republican governor. I think what we're going to see down the road is an increasing appetite by conservative lawmakers to continue challenging the system. They feel that the judiciary system has been stacked against conservatives for too long, and they feel that...
Big change is necessary to kind of balance things out. Critics, however, say that these conservative lawmakers are just mad that they've been on this judicial losing streak. And so they want to... Basically change the umpires, change the refs in order to produce a more desirable result. And they say that that could set a very dangerous precedent because if you install an ump who's biased. then you're really undermining faith in the judiciary and by extension, the entire government.
In Gaza yesterday, protesters took to the streets in a rare show of dissent against Hamas. They chanted slogans calling for an end to the war and for Hamas to give up control of the territory. While many people in Gaza blame Israel for the widespread death and destruction over the past year and a half.
Some also hold Hamas responsible for kicking off the conflict with the October 7th attacks. One protester told the Times that he wants to keep protesting until, quote, the bloodshed stops and Hamas leaves. In the almost two decades that Hamas has controlled Gaza, it's cracked down harshly on protesters and has been accused of routinely arresting and torturing its opponents.
Despite Israel's aggressive campaign to wipe the group out, Hamas is still believed to command thousands of armed fighters inside Gaza. And finally, a criminal trial is unfolding in France this week over chairs. The case centers on antiques purchased by the Palace of Versailles. The lot was valued at nearly $3 million and was supposed to include two Louis XV era chairs. They were authenticated by the go-to 18th century French chair expert, a man who literally wrote a book on the subject.
But it turns out they were fakes. The expert, Bill Payot, is now on trial for his role in the scheme. He's admitted that he and a woodworker basically got curious one day about just how good of a fake they could make. Their ruse raked in millions. But Payot was discovered, in part, by a fellow antique dealer who'd been raising doubts about him for years. That dealer said the subtle notes of licorice gave it all away.
He told Vanity Fair that he knew woodworkers sometimes used melted licorice to give wood an old, vintage look. And when he saw some antiques that Payot claimed were authentic, he got real close to them and, quote, I licked the chair and voila, I could taste the fraud. Those are the headlines. I'm Tracy Mumford. We'll be back tomorrow.