The Daily

How do health wearables like Whoop and Oura rings use AI to provide personalized health recommendations?

These devices analyze sleep quality, exercise patterns, and recovery metrics —including stress levels, illness indicators, diet, and workout intensity—then translate that data into actionable daily scores. Whoop uses a three-color system (red, yellow, green) to show your body's readiness, though it's important to remember these are consumer products, not medical devices.

The wearables market is approaching $100 billion according to analysts, with half of Americans already owning at least one health tracking device. Devices like Whoop, Oura rings, and smartwatches continuously gather biometric information and feed it through algorithms designed to spot patterns in your behavior and physiology.

As Sapna Mashwari explains in The Daily episode , these tools can offer real value for people serious about optimizing their health—but they also blur the line between helpful insight and anxiety-inducing data overload. The color-coded recovery score, for example, tells you whether you're physically prepared to handle training or exercise that day, reducing the guesswork around when to push hard versus when to rest.

The fine line between insight and consumer product

What makes these devices compelling is their personalized, real-time feedback based on your individual baseline. Rather than a generic fitness recommendation, Whoop learns how your body responds to stress, sleep deprivation, and exercise over time, then adapts its recommendations accordingly. This is where machine learning earns its place—the algorithm improves as it collects more data about you.

Yet the critical distinction remains: these are consumer wellness tools, not clinical instruments. They're built to motivate and inform, not to diagnose or treat medical conditions. The metrics they track—heart rate variability, skin temperature, movement patterns—are real and measurable, but the conclusions drawn from them exist in a zone of probabilistic guidance rather than medical certainty. Anyone relying on a wearable to make serious health decisions should still consult a healthcare provider.

The deeper context is worth exploring: as the episode dives into , the convergence of wearables, AI, and our obsession with quantifying every aspect of our bodies raises questions about whether this data actually makes us healthier, or simply more anxious about metrics we didn't used to track.

"We envision a world where people will have their data from zero to 100, and right now people are starting to wear Apple watches around age 10, so we really think about zero to 10 as where we live."

Anushka Salinas — CEO, Nanit. Salinas leads one of the fastest-growing companies in baby health monitoring, reflecting the industry's ambition to capture health data from the earliest stages of life. Nanit raised $50 million last year as the market for AI-powered health devices accelerates.

One concrete example worth listening to: the episode explores how one user's Whoop age—a composite metric derived from recovery, sleep, and strain data—dropped from 44 at age 37, then improved to 35 after about one year of deliberate lifestyle changes. The full story of how that transformation unfolded reveals both the motivational power and the limitations of these devices.

Wearables track multiple health signals—sleep, exercise, stress, diet quality, and workout intensity—feeding them into algorithms that generate personalized recovery scores and recommendations.

Whoop's three-color system (red, yellow, green) indicates daily readiness, helping users decide whether to push hard or recover, based on their individual physiology and history.

These are consumer wellness products designed to motivate and inform, not medical devices; they should not replace professional healthcare advice.

Half of Americans own at least one health tracking device, and the wearables market is projected to reach nearly $100 billion.

What are the key functions and data tracking capabilities of modern baby monitors like Nanit?

Nanit monitors record a continuous stream of sleep data —tracking when babies wake and fall asleep, how long they stay awake between visits, eye movements, and the frequency of nighttime check-ins by parents. The app transforms raw video footage into a digestible summary dashboard showing hours slept, wake-up counts, and self-soothing duration.

The appeal is clear: while a typical pediatric checkup lasts only 22 minutes and children visit the doctor once a year on average, Nanit delivers granular, real-time insights parents can review nightly. As Sapna Mashwari explores in The Daily , the monitor connects to your home Wi-Fi and operates entirely through a smartphone app, turning what was once a simple audio baby monitor into an AI-powered health surveillance device.

What makes Nanit distinctive among baby health trackers is its focus on behavioral patterns rather than vital signs. The system doesn't measure heart rate or oxygen levels—instead, it uses computer vision to analyze movement and rest cycles. This data-heavy approach appealed to Mashwari when her first child was born four years ago, though she admits the constant visibility felt unsettling at first.

Computer vision in baby monitors: The technology that powers Nanit analyzes video footage frame-by-frame to detect when a baby's eyes open or close, how much they move, and when they transition between sleep stages. The AI learns individual patterns over time, making the data increasingly personalized. The company itself has recognized the power of this early-stage data collection. Nanit raised $50 million last year and has positioned itself strategically in a booming market— as detailed in this episode , the broader wearables market is approaching $100 billion, and companies are racing to capture health tracking from birth onward. Nanit's leadership envisions capturing data from infancy through childhood, reasoning that since 90 percent of a child's brain develops between ages zero and five, early behavioral data could become invaluable.

"We envision a world where people will have their data from zero to 100, and right now people are starting to wear Apple watches around age 10, so we really think about zero to 10 as where we live."

Anushka Salinas — CEO, Nanit. Salinas leads the company's vision to establish continuous health data collection from infancy, positioning baby monitoring as the entry point to lifelong health tracking ecosystems.

For parents weighing the purchase, the practical benefits are tangible. Mashwari's investigation revealed that the data can help identify sleep disorders, optimize room temperature (Nanit research suggests 68–72 degrees Fahrenheit is optimal), and provide concrete answers to questions pediatricians often field in just 22-minute consultations. Yet the same tracking that reassures also amplifies parental anxiety—you can see every wake-up, quantify every disruption, and compare your child's sleep to algorithmic benchmarks.

One compelling detail worth exploring in the full episode: how Nanit compares to competing monitors like Owlet, and why some families find the psychological trade-off between data and peace of mind more complicated than they expected.

Nanit tracks sleep onset, wake times, duration of self-soothing, and parental visit frequency—all logged and visualized in a mobile app.

The monitor uses AI-powered computer vision to detect eye movements and behavioral patterns rather than measuring vital signs.

Nanit has positioned itself as the entry point to lifelong health data collection, with leadership targeting data capture from birth through childhood.

The wearables market is approaching $100 billion, and baby monitors represent a rapidly growing segment of early-stage health surveillance.

What are the broader economic and humanitarian consequences of the escalating conflict in the region beyond gas prices?

Saudi Arabia's entire economy and government budget depend on oil revenue, and their diversification efforts also rely on oil sales to fund costly investments—meaning a sustained blockade of all export routes is an existential threat to the kingdom's stability . At the same time, Yemen is tilting back toward full-blown war, which threatens to devastate tens of millions already living in one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.

An economy held hostage by blocked pipelines

Saudi Arabia has no real fallback plan if it cannot move oil to global markets. The kingdom's attempts to diversify—major investments in tourism, technology, and renewable energy—were all funded by oil revenue in the first place. As Vivian Neerheim explains in The Daily episode , blocking Saudi Arabia's oil exports is not simply an economic inconvenience; it strikes at the heart of how the kingdom finances everything. Without access to global markets, the government has no way to fund its ambitious Vision 2030 projects or sustain public spending .

The Houthis' control of the Bab al-Mandab Strait and their demonstrated ability to strike at both the East-West Pipeline and shipping lanes in the Red Sea means Saudi Arabia faces a genuine dilemma. The kingdom cannot easily reopen these routes through negotiation—the Houthis remain hostile—and military solutions have already proven costly and ineffective in the past.

Yemen's slide into catastrophe

The humanitarian toll is equally stark. Yemen has been in crisis since the Houthis became a major power player in 2014 and Saudi Arabia launched its bombing campaign in 2015. A UN-backed truce signed in 2022 brought a fragile ceasefire, but the latest escalation is reversing that fragile peace and pushing the country back toward open conflict.

For a population already living in one of the world's worst humanitarian emergencies—with widespread hunger, disease, and displacement—a return to full-scale war means catastrophic suffering for tens of millions. The conflict's expansion threatens to undo years of tentative stability, even as resources for humanitarian aid remain scarce.

"As long as there is still conflict in the region and as long as they have foes who are still willing and able to attack the pipeline, that will remain a risk."

Vivian Neerheim — Correspondent, The New York Times. Based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Neerheim covers the geopolitical complexities of the Middle East with particular focus on Iran-Saudi dynamics, regional conflicts, and their global energy implications. Her reporting addresses how conflicts in the Gulf reshape energy security worldwide.

The deeper context matters here: as The Daily explores in detail , these are not isolated crises. Saudi Arabia's oil export crisis directly feeds global gas price inflation—a 20-cent jump per gallon happened overnight in U.S. markets when the conflict intensified—while Yemen's humanitarian spiral affects millions with no voice in global negotiations.

What are Saudi Arabia's limited options to address the blockade of all oil export routes?

Saudi Arabia faces two constrained paths forward: renew a costly military campaign against the Houthis that already failed once, or pursue diplomacy with an adversary known for maximalist demands and no guarantee of compliance. Neither option breaks the blockade with certainty.

The first option is military. A return to war with the Houthis means Saudi Arabia must force them to back down by combat—a strategy that has already been tried. Saudi Arabia's prior bombing campaign from 2015 onwards did not crush Houthi resolve, and the group has only grown stronger and more entrenched since then. The costs of renewed conflict would be substantial, and there is no indication a second attempt would succeed where the first failed.

The second option is diplomacy. But as Vivian Neerheim reports in the episode , the Houthis have a documented history of tabling maximalist demands during negotiations. They currently hold the upper hand—controlling the Bab al-Mandab Strait and other critical chokepoints—and feel emboldened by their military gains. Even if Saudi Arabia negotiates a settlement, there is no guarantee the agreement would be durable or that the Houthis would honor its terms.

"As long as there is still conflict in the region and as long as they have foes who are still willing and able to attack the pipeline, that will remain a risk."

Vivian Neerheim — Correspondent, The New York Times. Based in Riyadh, she covers geopolitical developments across the Middle East, with deep expertise in the Iran-U.S. conflict and its spillover effects on regional energy security and Gulf Arab strategy.

This statement reflects a deeper structural problem: even a diplomatic agreement cannot fully eliminate the risk to Saudi Arabia's exports as long as hostile actors remain capable of targeting infrastructure. The Houthis, backed by Iran, have demonstrated repeated willingness to attack pipelines and shipping routes —and no treaty can guarantee they will stop if political conditions shift or grievances resurface.

What makes this dilemma particularly acute for Saudi Arabia is timing. The blockade is already disrupting global oil markets, evidenced by the overnight 20-cent spike in U.S. gas prices in a single 24-hour period. Saudi Arabia cannot afford a prolonged stalemate, yet both available paths—military and diplomatic—are uncertain and expensive. The full episode explores how these regional tensions ripple through global energy supply , from the Red Sea to the pump prices American drivers pay every day.

Why did the Trump administration decline to intervene militarily against the Houthis despite Saudi Arabia's requests for support?

Trump rejected military intervention against the Houthis for three core reasons: the Houthis have no desire to attack the United States directly, only Saudi Arabia ; the U.S. previously launched an airstrike campaign against them with poor results; and they have repeatedly forced far more powerful adversaries to concede defeat, making military engagement an unlikely path to victory.

The Trump administration's reluctance reflects a strategic calculation rooted in recent history. A previous U.S. airstrike campaign against the Houthis proved brief and ineffectual , yielding no lasting military advantage and suggesting that air power alone cannot resolve the conflict. This precedent weighs heavily on current decision-making.

More fundamentally, the Houthis have demonstrated an unusual capacity for resilience against overwhelming force. Despite facing adversaries with vastly superior resources and military capabilities, they have forced multiple foes to back down from sustained engagement. This pattern—repeated across years of regional conflict—suggests that traditional military solutions may not apply to this particular threat.

As detailed in The Daily's reporting from the region , the Houthis control the Bab al-Mandab Strait at the mouth of the Red Sea, a strategic chokepoint that gives them leverage far beyond what their economic or military resources would normally permit. Their threat to Saudi oil infrastructure stems not from technological superiority but from geography and will.

"As long as there is still conflict in the region and as long as they have foes who are still willing and able to attack the pipeline, that will remain a risk."

Vivian Neerheim — Correspondent, The New York Times. Based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Neerheim covers geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East with a focus on the Iran-U.S. conflict and its effects on Gulf Arab states and global energy markets. Her reporting provides on-the-ground perspective on how regional power struggles directly shape oil markets and U.S. foreign policy decisions.

Trump's stated logic reveals a pragmatic, if unconventional, approach: avoid a costly military commitment against an adversary that poses no direct threat to American soil and has proven difficult to defeat through force. The administration appears willing to accept Saudi Arabia's vulnerability as the cost of staying out of a conflict it views as unwinnable—a stark departure from previous U.S. interventionism in the Middle East.

The broader context involves energy markets and regional stability. This episode of The Daily traces how the Houthis' control of shipping routes has reshaped global oil flows and contributed to price spikes, connecting regional geopolitics directly to American gas pump prices. Understanding why Trump chose not to intervene requires seeing the Houthis not as a problem to be militarily eliminated, but as a persistent political fact that military action is unlikely to resolve.

A pattern of resilience against much stronger powers

The Houthis' track record stands as the primary evidence underpinning Trump's decision. They have forced wealthier, more militarily advanced nations—including Saudi Arabia itself—to negotiate or withdraw rather than accept continued casualties . This pattern stretches back to their emergence as a serious regional power in 2014, through their advance into Sana'a and beyond.

Saudi Arabia's own experience offers the clearest example. Despite launching a sustained bombing campaign beginning in 2015, Saudi military superiority never translated into the decisive victory Riyadh sought. A UN-backed truce in 2022 reflected, in part, the exhaustion of conventional military solutions. For Trump, this historical lesson appears decisive: military intervention against the Houthis risks repeating a costly, inconclusive effort that The Daily has documented in detail across multiple episodes.

What specific events in July and recent weeks led to the collapse of Saudi Arabia's oil export alternatives?

In July, the Houthis declared a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea , then pushed toward the coast and seized the Bab al-Mandab Strait. On the same Friday they took this strategic territory, Saudi Arabia announced its crucial east-west pipeline had been attacked and had to be shut down, choking off nearly all remaining exits for Arabian Peninsula oil.

The sequence of events unfolded with striking timing. The Houthis' territorial gains positioned them to control one of the world's most critical shipping lanes, but the real shock came when the pipeline attack occurred on the same day—leaving Saudi Arabia without its backup route for exporting oil. As Vivian Neerheim explains in the episode , this double disruption created an unprecedented squeeze on global energy supplies.

The pipeline had served as Saudi Arabia's insurance policy after the Strait of Hormuz became a flashpoint during the Iran war. With both routes now compromised or closed , the kingdom's ability to move oil to international markets collapsed almost overnight. This wasn't a gradual market shift—it was a sudden, coordinated loss of export capacity that rippled immediately into gas prices at pumps across the United States, where consumers saw a 20-cent jump per gallon in a single 24-hour period .

"As long as there is still conflict in the region and as long as they have foes who are still willing and able to attack the pipeline, that will remain a risk."

Vivian Neerheim — Correspondent, The New York Times. Neerheim reports from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, covering geopolitical developments in the Middle East with particular focus on the dynamics between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and regional conflicts. Her reporting on the Iran-U.S. war and its ripple effects on global energy markets provides direct insight into how Red Sea instability translates into economic impact across the Gulf region.

The stakes became tangible for gas station owners like Cam Judy in Florida, who detailed his experience in this podcast , watching prices shift dramatically between one day and the next. What started in March at $3.99 a gallon during the early stages of the Iran conflict spiraled further as Saudi Arabia's export options narrowed. The pipeline closure left no room for maneuver— oil supply tightened globally, and prices moved accordingly .

For a deeper look at how the Houthis built their power to reach this moment, or how Saudi Arabia came to rely on the east-west pipeline in the first place, the full episode explores the strategic context behind these recent events .

How did the Houthis emerge as a major power player in Yemen and what triggered their recent military advances?

The Houthis started as a ragtag religious movement in northern Yemen and became increasingly important starting in 2014, when they swept into Sana'a and…

What geographic advantage allowed Saudi Arabia to maintain oil exports while the Strait of Hormuz was blockaded during the Iran war?

Saudi Arabia built a massive oil pipeline stretching across the kingdom to the Red Sea , which allowed them to bypass the Strait of Hormuz when it became blockaded. This pipeline had been constructed as a precautionary measure years earlier and suddenly became essential when the Iran conflict threatened their primary export route.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most critical energy chokepoints, responsible for moving vast quantities of oil to global markets. When regional tensions escalated and the strait faced potential blockade, this strategic vulnerability threatened Saudi Arabia's economic lifeline. However, the kingdom had planned ahead.

As Vivian Neerheim explains in The Daily episode , the East-West Pipeline provided an alternative route that fundamentally changed the equation. Rather than depending entirely on shipping through the contested strait, Saudi Arabia could move oil overland to Red Sea ports, then export to the rest of the world from there.

This infrastructure decision, made well before the crisis, transformed how the kingdom managed geopolitical risk. The pipeline became a practical hedge against blockade scenarios that many analysts thought were merely theoretical until the conflict actually unfolded.

"As long as there is still conflict in the region and as long as they have foes who are still willing and able to attack the pipeline, that will remain a risk."

Vivian Neerheim — Correspondent, The New York Times. Based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Neerheim covers geopolitical developments across the Middle East, with particular expertise in the dynamics between Iran and Saudi Arabia, regional conflicts, and their cascading effects on global energy markets and Gulf Arab economies.

The pipeline's existence illustrates a broader principle of energy security: diversifying export routes reduces vulnerability to any single chokepoint . Saudi Arabia's foresight in building this infrastructure decades earlier meant that when the Strait of Hormuz suddenly became threatened, the kingdom had a viable alternative already in place, allowing it to continue supplying oil to customers worldwide without interruption.

However, as discussed in this episode of The Daily , the Red Sea route itself carries its own risks. The Houthis, who control the Bab al-Mandab Strait at the opening of the Red Sea, have demonstrated willingness and capability to target oil infrastructure, creating a new set of vulnerabilities for energy shipments moving through that corridor. This means that while Saudi Arabia gained flexibility by building the pipeline, the kingdom traded one strategic chokepoint for another.

Infrastructure as Strategy

The East-West Pipeline was not built in response to the current conflict—it was constructed years earlier as a precautionary measure to protect Saudi Arabia against exactly this type of scenario. This forward-thinking approach reflected the kingdom's understanding that the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of global oil passes, was inherently fragile.

When tensions with Iran escalated and the possibility of a blockade became real, this infrastructure suddenly shifted from being a backup option to being an operational necessity. The pipeline allowed Saudi Arabia to maintain its role as a global energy supplier even as one of the world's most important shipping routes faced disruption. The full episode explores how this geography of energy and geopolitics shaped global oil markets and, ultimately, gas prices at the pump in places like Florida.

How did President Biden's selection of Franchetti differ from Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin's recommendation?

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin's first choice for Chief of Naval Operations was Sam Paparo, a senior Navy officer with extensive experience in the…

What was the combat exclusion ban and how did it affect Lisa Franchetti's early Navy career?

The combat exclusion ban was a policy that prevented women from serving on combat ships or in combat aircraft , which severely limited their ability to advance to high ranks in the Navy. When Lisa Franchetti joined the Navy in the 1980s under this restriction, she was one of only 184 female surface warfare officers in the entire United States Navy. The ban was lifted by President Clinton in the 1990s, which finally opened doors for women officers to command combat vessels and reach senior leadership positions.

A bottleneck that lasted decades

The combat exclusion ban created an almost complete ceiling on women's advancement in the Navy during the 1980s and early 1990s. Only 184 female surface warfare officers existed in the entire service when Franchetti began her career in 1989, a starkly small number for a military branch of that size. Without access to combat assignments, women officers were excluded from the career trajectories that typically led to the highest ranks—admiral positions were almost entirely inaccessible.

As Greg Jaffe reports in The Daily , this structural barrier meant that even talented officers could not progress based purely on merit. The policy did not simply limit opportunities; it systematically blocked an entire demographic from the advancement pipeline that defined successful Navy careers.

The policy reversal and Franchetti's rise

President Clinton's decision to lift the combat exclusion ban in the 1990s fundamentally changed the trajectory available to women officers like Franchetti. Suddenly, command of combat vessels became possible , opening pathways to flag rank that had previously been closed. Franchetti seized these new opportunities and eventually rose to become Chief of Naval Operations—the highest position in the Navy.

Her confirmation as Chief of Naval Operations was overwhelming: 95 to 1 bipartisan Senate approval demonstrated broad recognition of her qualifications and readiness for the role. This journey from being one of only 184 female surface warfare officers under exclusion to commanding the entire Navy illustrates both the constraints of the ban and the capability that had existed all along, simply waiting for policy to change.

"When you start firing people for political reasons, it's not just the person you fire, but it's the message that sends throughout the entire force that if you want to move up, there are political litmus tests that you have to pass through."

Greg Jaffe — Staff Writer and Military Correspondent at The New York Times. Jaffe has covered the U.S. military since 1999, spanning 26 years of reporting. He co-reported this investigation with colleague Kate Kelly, examining how Pete Hegseth's tenure as Secretary of Defense has reshaped the senior officer corps through dismissals and blocked promotions he links to diversity initiatives. Jaffe describes the current period as unprecedented in scale within his entire career covering military personnel decisions.

The broader context of this episode explores how recent Pentagon leadership changes now stand in sharp contrast to the decades-long struggle that Franchetti and her peers endured. Where the combat exclusion ban was eventually overturned to expand opportunity, current policy is moving in a different direction, with no women nominated to admiral rank for the first time in at least a decade under the current administration.

What is the current status of women in senior Navy leadership under Pete Hegseth?

For the first time in at least a decade, if not longer, there will be no women nominated to admiral rank under Hegseth. Women currently make up…

Why is the politicization of military promotions considered dangerous for national security?

Greg Jaffe argues that when people are fired for political reasons, it sends a message throughout the entire force that advancement requires passing…

What role did lawyer Tim Parlatore play in the Caudill nomination process?

When Caudill needed to address the Inspector General complaint, he retained lawyer Tim Parlatore, who had previously represented other naval officers in IG…

What was the Inspector General complaint against Admiral Daryl Caudill and how was it resolved?

The Inspector General complaint against Caudill, approximately a year old when his nomination was being considered, centered on remarks he made to sailors…

What did Admiral Daryl Caudill do to position himself for the Chief of Naval Operations job while Franchetti was still in post?

While Franchetti was still in her role, Caudill directed a senior officer on his staff to reach out to Hegseth multiple times during December to offer help…

Why did Pete Hegseth fire Admiral Lisa Franchetti as Chief of Naval Operations?

Hegseth had criticized Franchetti in his 2024 book, arguing she was not qualified for the job and had only gotten it because she was a woman, identifying…

Who is Lisa Franchetti and how did she rise to become Chief of Naval Operations?

Lisa Franchetti grew up in Rochester, New York, attended Northwestern University, and joined the Navy after being recruited on campus. She rose through the…

How many generals and admirals has Pete Hegseth fired or blocked from promotions since becoming Secretary of Defense?

According to Greg Jaffe and his colleague Kate Kelly, Hegseth has fired more than a dozen generals and admirals since taking over as secretary, and they…

What role did Françoise Dolto play in shaping French parenting philosophy?

Françoise Dolto was a psychoanalyst who profoundly shaped generations of French parenting through her books and a widely listened-to radio program. She is credited with revolutionizing the concept of children's rights in France — championing the idea that children are people who deserve to be spoken to as such. At the same time, she maintained a deeply hierarchical, Catholic bourgeois worldview that reinforced France's rigid cultural rules rather than dismantling them.

Dolto's influence is central to understanding why the French parenting debate feels so loaded today. Her legacy is genuinely dual: she opened a door toward recognizing children's inner lives and dignity, yet she did so within a framework that never questioned the authority of adults or the social structures that governed family life. In France, this created a particular cultural tension — a country that claims to respect children as individuals, while simultaneously expecting them to conform to strict norms around behavior, meals, and hierarchy.

That tension is precisely what Madeline Schwartz explores in her reporting on the debate now dividing French parents. The emergence of figures like psychologist Caroline Goldman — who argues that a generation of French children has been abandoned by adults practicing an "exclusively empathic attitude" — and positive-parenting advocates like Isabelle Filliozat (whose book sold half a million copies in France) can both be traced, in different ways, back to how Dolto's legacy was interpreted and contested over the decades. To understand the current debate, listen to the full episode on Listenly — Schwartz maps it with remarkable precision.

"Parents were essentially abandoned by adults with exclusively empathic attitude — and for Goldman and her allies, that is exactly why it is time to go back to a more disciplinary form of education."

— Madeline Schwartz, Reporter, The New York Times · The Daily, August 2026 About Madeline Schwartz

MS Madeline Schwartz

Reporter · The New York Times

Madeline Schwartz is a reporter for The New York Times based in Paris. She grew up moving between New York and Paris after her American mother and French father separated when she was a baby, attending school in both cities throughout her childhood. This bicultural upbringing is not incidental to her reporting: it means she absorbed French and American parenting norms simultaneously, firsthand, at the ages when those norms matter most — in classrooms, at family dinner tables, in the everyday texture of childhood. That lived experience gives her an authority on this subject that goes well beyond desk research. When she reports on why the French parenting debate has become so emotionally charged, she speaks as someone who has been shaped by both sides of it. Her depth of knowledge spans the key figures in the debate, from Dolto's foundational influence to the competing camps of Goldman and Filliozat today.

What is 'parental pessimism' and how does it reflect the broader social context of French parenting today?

A sociologist studying parenting in France coined the term 'parental pessimism' to describe the stress and overwhelm French parents feel because, while they…

How did French experts publicly divide over the parenting debate through open letters?

In 2022, Caroline Goldman and over 350 early childhood experts signed an open letter in Le Figaro arguing that too much positive parenting was harming…

What did the French government's official daycare guidelines say about punishment?

The French government issued official guidelines for daycare workers and childcare professionals explicitly stating that if a child misbehaves, punishment of any kind is not allowed — including a timeout. This government-backed position brought the debate over discipline into the institutional sphere, moving it well beyond a disagreement between individual parenting philosophies.

For psychologist Caroline Goldman and her allies, the ban goes too far. Goldman's book Go to Your Room advocates for timeouts of at least 30 minutes for children over the age of four, positioning them as an essential and legitimate tool that gives children a clear, bounded consequence for crossing a boundary. To see the French state officially categorize the timeout alongside all other forms of punishment was, for Goldman, a serious provocation — and a sign that the gentle parenting movement had gained real institutional leverage. In 2022, Goldman and over 350 early childhood experts signed an open letter in Le Figaro pushing back; 280 competing experts signed a counter-letter in Le Monde defending the no-punishment approach.

This official stance sits within a broader legislative trend: France passed the Anti-Spanking Law in 2019, forbidding both physical and psychological violence against children. The daycare guidelines extended that logic further, into the territory of consequences and structure. You can follow the full conversation between Michael Barbaro and reporter Madeline Schwartz on The Daily on Listenly .

"Parents were essentially abandoned by adults with exclusively empathic attitude — and for Goldman and her allies, that is exactly why it is time to go back to a more disciplinary form of education."

— Madeline Schwartz, Reporter, The New York Times

About Madeline Schwartz

MS Madeline Schwartz Reporter · The New York Times Madeline Schwartz is a Paris-based reporter for The New York Times who covers French society and culture. Her authority on this particular debate is rooted in lived experience as much as journalism: she was raised between New York and Paris, attending school in both cities, with an American mother and a French father who separated when she was a baby. Growing up at the intersection of two radically different parenting cultures — American warmth and expressiveness on one side, French structure and authority on the other — gave Schwartz a firsthand, embodied understanding of what is actually at stake in this debate. That bicultural background shapes both her reporting instincts and the clarity with which she maps the fault lines between the two camps: those who see discipline as care, and those who see it as harm.

What did the 2019 French Anti-Spanking Law change, and why is it controversial in the parenting debate?

France's 2019 Anti-Spanking Law forbids both physical and psychological violence against children, including what it terms "ordinary educational violence." The law's critical flaw — and the source of ongoing controversy — is that it never defines what "ordinary educational violence" actually means, leaving parents, practitioners, and legal experts in a genuine grey zone.

That definitional gap has become a battlefield in the broader French parenting debate. Psychologist Caroline Goldman and her allies argue that practices like the timeout — sending a child to their room as a disciplinary measure — are entirely lawful and even beneficial. Goldman's book Go to Your Room explicitly recommends timeouts of at least 30 minutes for children over the age of four, framing them as a healthy, structured consequence that helps children understand which boundary they have crossed.

But a significant bloc of early childhood educators reads the law very differently. For them, timeouts fall squarely within the prohibited category of psychological violence — a position backed by the 280 experts who signed a competing open letter in Le Monde opposing the use of timeouts. The result is a situation where the same parenting tool is simultaneously defended as responsible discipline and condemned as a violation of the law — with no official clarification in sight. The full conversation behind this dispute is available on Listenly in the episode of The Daily .

Key term from the episode

"Ordinary educational violence" — the phrase used in France's 2019 Anti-Spanking Law to describe the category of behaviour it prohibits. The law bans it without ever specifying what acts fall under this label, which is precisely what makes it legally and philosophically ambiguous. Whether a timeout constitutes ordinary educational violence remains a live, unresolved question among French childcare professionals.

"Parents were essentially abandoned by adults with an exclusively empathic attitude — and for Goldman and her allies, that is exactly why it is time to go back to a more disciplinary form of education."

— Madeline Schwartz, Reporter, The New York Times · The Daily , August 9, 2026 About Madeline Schwartz

MS Madeline Schwartz

Reporter · The New York Times

Madeline Schwartz is a reporter for The New York Times, currently based in Paris. Her authority on the French parenting debate is not merely professional — it is deeply personal. Born to an American mother and a French father who separated when she was a baby, Schwartz grew up dividing her life between New York and Paris, attending school in both cities throughout her childhood. She absorbed both cultures from the inside, experiencing firsthand the contrasting assumptions about childhood, discipline, and authority that now sit at the heart of this national controversy. That bicultural biography makes her a uniquely credible witness: she is not interpreting French parenting from the outside, but reporting on a debate she has lived. Her conversation with Michael Barbaro on The Daily draws directly on this dual experience to illuminate why a seemingly domestic question — how to raise children — has become one of France's most polarising cultural flashpoints.

What does Caroline Goldman say about timeouts as a parenting tool?

Caroline Goldman is a strong advocate for the timeout as a core disciplinary tool, arguing that it sends children a clear signal about which boundary they have crossed while allowing everyone involved to calm down. In her book Go to Your Room , she outlines a list of forbidden behaviors starting from age one and recommends timeouts of at least 30 minutes for children over the age of four — a duration that directly contradicts most established research on the subject, which calls for significantly shorter periods.

Goldman's position on timeouts sits at the heart of a fierce national debate in France between traditional disciplinary parenting and the newer "positive parenting" movement championed by figures like psychologist Isabelle Filliozat. For Goldman and her allies — who numbered over 350 early childhood experts when they signed an open letter in Le Figaro in 2022 — the problem with the gentle parenting wave is that it left children without the clear limits they need. The timeout, in her framework, is precisely that limit made concrete and felt.

The pushback was swift and organized. Some 280 early childhood experts signed a competing open letter in Le Monde specifically opposing the use of timeouts — an unusually direct rebuttal in French public intellectual life. The disagreement is not merely about duration; it reflects a deeper conflict about what children need from adults. You can follow the full exchange between these two camps in the episode on The Daily .

"Parents were essentially abandoned by adults with an exclusively empathic attitude — and for Goldman and her allies, that is exactly why it is time to go back to a more disciplinary form of education."

— Madeline Schwartz, reporter, The New York Times About Madeline Schwartz

MS Madeline Schwartz Reporter · The New York Times Madeline Schwartz is a reporter for The New York Times, based in Paris. She grew up between New York and Paris, attending school in both cities — the child of an American mother and a French father who separated when she was a baby.

This bicultural upbringing is not incidental to her reporting: it gives her direct, lived experience of both French and American approaches to childhood, schooling, and family life. She knows from the inside what it means to be raised under two very different sets of rules.

That firsthand perspective shapes the authority and nuance she brings to covering the parenting debate in France — a story that is, at its core, about what values a society chooses to transmit to its children, and who gets to decide.

Who is Isabelle Filliozat and what does she promote in the French parenting debate?

Isabelle Filliozat is a 68-year-old major figure in the positive education movement in France, widely read and present on television, Instagram, and…

What is positive parenting or gentle parenting and how did it arrive in France?

Positive parenting, as it is known in France, originated in English-speaking countries including the United States and Australia, and began making its way…

What is the book 'Bringing Up Bébé' and why did it resonate so strongly with American parents?

'Bringing Up Bébé' was published in 2012 by Pamela Druckerman, an American journalist who moved to France and had three children there. The book became a…

What is the traditional French parenting style and what are its defining characteristics?

Traditional French parenting is highly rule-bound, centered on integrating children into adult society through firm boundaries. Children are expected to eat…