The Young Turks - Orange Chicken - April 23, 2025

Episode Date: April 24, 2025

Trump Is on a Planet All by Himself When It Comes to the S&P 500. Trump’s Inner Circle Considers Push for Higher Taxes on Millionaires. Supreme Court Justices Appear Set to Allow Opt-Outs From LGBTQ Stories. FTC Sues Uber Over Alleged Deceptive Billing and Cancellation Practices. Hosts: Ana Kasparian SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. The new BMO ViPorter MasterCard is your ticket to more. More perks. More points. More flights. More of all the things you want in a travel rewards card.

And then some. Get your ticket to more with the new BMO ViPorter Master. and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit bemo.com slash the iPorter to learn more. Welcome to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we have roller coaster of a show ahead for you today. First off, let me begin by saying that in the second hour, Jank Yugar will be joining us to make a massive announcement, so stick around for that. But before we even get to that, we have a lot of news to update you on, including where Trump

currently stands on his tariffs policy. It appears that he's backed off a little bit, except Caroline Leavitt, White House press secretary is kind of contradicting what he's saying. So we'll get into the details on that. We'll also talk about this schism within the Trump administration in regard to tax policy. It appears, and there are names named here, that some of the individual's in Trump's orbit absolutely want to raise taxes on the rich in order to balance the budget. So we'll tell you who those individuals are and what the likelihood is that this tax bill,

a GOP tax bill would actually include a provision, increasing taxes on the wealthiest among us. We'll also talk about what the Supreme Court is likely going to decide when it comes to LGBT school curriculum. This has to do with elementary schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, But obviously, depending on how they rule, it's going to have a huge impact on public education all across the country. So we're going to get to all of that. We're going to have a lot of fun on the show today. Without further ado, let's start with this first story. The SMP has dropped the most under Trump for any president at this point in their presidency since the SMP 500 was in fact created back in 1957.

And indeed, it is not anywhere close, folks. It's not anywhere close. Under Trump, it's dropped. Get this, 14% if Donald Trump believes that he can somehow escape blame if there is in fact a recession, I'm here for a reality check. He will simply put not be able to do so. Blame Trump if there's a recession in the next 12 months, look at this, a lot or quite a bit.

That's the majority winner right there at 52%. Those are some pretty bleak numbers for President Donald Trump, who has lost quite a bit of favorability in regard to his economic policies. Obviously, it has a lot to do with his tariffs policies. It has to do with the fact that it keeps threatening to fire Jerome Powell, the head of the Federal Reserve. But those numbers that Harry Enten just shared with us could be the reason why Trump appears to be softening his message, a little bit at least when it comes to two of his biggest

crusades, higher tariffs, of course, and lower interest rates. But Trump's press secretary Caroline Levitt is contradicting what he's saying, so there's still a A lot of uncertainty in the market right now, and we're gonna get to all of that in just a minute. Before we get to Caroline Levitt, let's start with the tariffs policy and what Trump is saying now. So yesterday, Trump reportedly and repeatedly stated that the sky high, 145% tariffs on China will not be permanent. In fact, let's watch him talk about that. 145% is very high, and it won't be that high. It's not going to be that high. It got up to there.

We were talking about fentanyl where, you know, various elements built it up to 145. No, it won't be anywhere near that high. It'll come down substantially, but it won't be zero. It used to be zero. We were just destroyed. China was taking us for a ride and just not going to have. I think it's going to work out very well. But no, it's at 145%.

It will not be anywhere near that. So that is a softening of Trump's tone for sure. Now what's behind it? Well, there could be a number of different reasons, but it turns out that executives from Lowe's, Home Depot, Walmart, and Target hit the president up, showed up at the White House, they met with him. And they started warning about some of the ramifications of these super high tariffs. One of those ramifications could be empty store shelves. And honestly, that messaging toward Donald Trump, I can see how effective it could be because of what it evokes. It evokes the supply chain disruptions that led to empty shelves during COVID. I think COVID was the main reason why Trump lost his reelection

bid in 2020. So it appears that that had some influence over him. But if you look at the different numbers that his administration is now considering in regard to tariffs against China or products imported to the United States from China, it doesn't really seem like they're going to be soft on China. I'm going to keep it real with you. So let's get into those details right now. So this morning, the Wall Street Journal reported more details on what the Trump administration has in mind when it comes to China tariffs. One senior White House official said the China tariffs we're likely to come down to between roughly 50% and 65%. I mean, whether it's 145% or 60%, does it really matter?

I mean, like, is that really going to make much of a difference? It's not, okay? With tariffs that high, we're not going to import, or businesses are not going to want to import products from China into the United States. But nonetheless, I personally think it's effectively the same thing, or it's going to have the same outcome. So the administration is also considering a tiered approach, similar to the one proposed by the White, by the House Committee on China late last year. That includes a 35% levy for items. The United States

deems not a threat to national security, and at least 100% for items deemed as strategic to America's interests. So look, I think that doing targeted tariffs could make a lot of sense. Said this repeatedly, I'll say it again, Donald Trump's tariffs against China in his first term were targeted, and in fact, they worked out so well that the Biden administration kept them in place and expanded on them further. But Biden didn't expand on them in a ridiculous way. He did it carefully, thoughtfully, strategically, in a way that suits America's interests. And that's why I wouldn't have a problem with Trump doing something similar, targeted tariffs. In this case, he just kind of bit off more than he could chew.

He assumed he could bully all these different countries into giving him exactly what he wants. And in the case of Xi Jinping, the president of China, he's actually calling Trump's bluff. And Trump's starting to panic a little bit about that, as you can see from how these negotiations are going. In fact, experts are arguing that those 50% tariffs that the Trump administration is considering against Chinese imports would basically still shut down almost all trade between the United States and China, so we'll see what he ends up deciding in the end. But China clearly believes that they are the ones with the upper hand here. I don't know if that's necessarily true. We have 330 million Americans here. That's a lot of consumers that China wants to, of course, profit from, make money from. But in China's policymaking circles, Trump's

comments on Tuesday of this week were viewed as a sign of him folding people who consult with Chinese officials said. And guess what, Trump has been hoping that he'd get a call from President Xi. That hasn't happened. In addition to that, the administration has been pushing for China's foreign minister to hit up Marco Rubio and have a chat with him. So far, that hasn't happened either. But while Trump softened his tone on China, his press secretary, Caroline Levitt,

kind of contradicted his messaging. Take a look. Is it fair to say, Caroline, that the president's stance on tariffs with China is softening? I don't think that's fair to say. In fact, I spoke to the president about it this morning. He is not going to give up on ensuring that there are fair trade practices around the world. He is not giving up on the fact that China has been ripping off the United States of America for far too long.

Let me be clear, there will be no unilateral reduction in tariffs against China. The president has made it clear, China needs to make a deal with the United States of America. And we are optimistic that will happen. And when that continues, it'll be up to the president what the tariff rate on China will be. But we certainly need to see a reduction in tariffs and non-monet monetary tariff barriers from China as well. Okay, but I think it's pretty clear that China isn't willing to negotiate here, right? Based on what Trump has kind of opened with, President Xi has not budged at all.

So this idea that the percentage that Trump wants to tack on for Chinese tariffs isn't going to come down until China engages in a negotiation, again, it's kind of counter to what Trump was saying earlier. This just leads to more uncertainty in the markets. Again, I want to reiterate, I wouldn't have a problem with tariffs if they're targeted, strategic, and actually did serve the best interests of the American people. Even if there's a little bit of short-term pain on some items, you know, it's. If it suits our national security or what have you, especially as it pertains to things like

pharmaceutical drugs, I would be open to that. But that's not what we have here. We have this weird blanket policy. I get that you want to start a negotiation off with like the highest possible number. And then you just kind of go back and forth until you come up with a number that makes sense for both parties. But again, President Xi just will not budge on this so far. So when it comes to China, you know, the future still appears to be incredibly uncertain

when it comes to our trade relationship. So that's what we know for now when it comes to Trump's tariff's policy. But let's move over to the notion of firing Jerome Powell, the head of the Federal Reserve, because of the fact that he's unwilling to do Trump's bidding and lower interest rates prematurely. So President Donald Trump is now backing off of his threats toward Jerome Powell. He had said earlier that he wants to fire him, and now he's like, what, who me? Me, you think I want to fire Jerome Powell? Okay, so let's back up.

This is what I love. Like he says something one day. Next day, he says something entirely different and tries to make you out to be the crazy one. So basically, this kind of started last week when Trump wrote, Powell's termination cannot come fast enough. Now again, Trump wants the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates. Jerome Powell is holding off on that, partly because of the uncertainty that comes along with Trump's tariffs policy, but also because of the fact that inflation has been far more sticky than he expected. Now, the Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates a little bit,

and they were planning to continue doing so for the rest of the year, but they have kind of paused on that, and that's why Trump is so upset. So he also said last week, if I want Powell out, he'll be out of their real fast, believe me, Willie? Now look, it wasn't just Trump who was making statements like this. Apparently White House Economic Advisor Kevin Hassett said Friday that Trump and his aides were actively studying the possibility of firing Powell. Now, as we shared with you all earlier this week, the President of the United States does not have the ability to oust the head of the Federal Reserve unilaterally without cause. Powell would have to engage in malfeasance or some sort of bad behavior that would justify

the president being able to fire him, to get rid of him. But because of congressional legislation that passed earlier, again, the president would be unable to just fire Powell. And Powell is unwilling to resign despite the pressure he's been facing from Donald Trump and his administration. So now, all of a sudden, after the stock market reacted poorly to Trump's attempts to, you know, oust Jerome Powell, Trump's now softening his message on Powell as well. In fact, let's take a look at what he has to say. or active in terms of his idea to lower interest rates.

This is a perfect time to lower interest rates. If he doesn't, is at the end? No, it's not, but it would be good timing. It would be, it would, she could have taken place earlier. But no, I have no intention to fire him. You know, Jerome Powell would lower interest rates if Trump actually followed through with his campaign promise to lower inflation. But as we know, tariffs lead to inflationary

pressure in the economy, and that's part of the reason why Jerome Powell is kind of pausing, backing off of the original plans of lowering interest rates further this year. So look, again, I think Trump has backed himself up in this ridiculous corner and he didn't need to do that. If he had focused on targeted tariffs, if he had focused on ways to alleviate the inflation that Americans had been experiencing and have been experiencing in the economy when it comes to certain sectors of the economy, I think he'd be in a way better position right now when it comes to getting one of the main things he wants, lower interest rates. But that requires

planning ahead. That requires, you know, having a cohesive policy ahead of time and moving forward with it. It kind of seems like he's the kind of guy who likes to throw things at the wall and see what sticks, which is fine in other contexts, but not when it comes to the economy. And not when it comes to the context of the economic situation most Americans working Americans have been dealing with, which again, high inflation, you know, the housing market is still in shambles. It's a complete and utter disaster for Americans who are looking to buy a home. It's hard for Americans who want to rent in certain parts of the country. These are issues that Trump could be focusing on. He could ban private equity firms from

buying up residential real estate. These are things he could do easily to improve his approval rating when it comes to his economic situation or handling of the economy. But that's not what he's doing. He's kind of going forward with a policy that's kind of hard to decipher at the moment. Now it turns out that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik were the two individuals within the administration who encouraged Trump to back off calls to get Jerome Powell fired. So apparently they say that, look, these threats to fire Jerome Powell are adding fuel to the fire. It's leading to more, you know, an unstable situation in the economy. The stock market's not reacting well to it. Don't do this. And on top

of that, they're also saying, look, if you get rid of Powell, he's going to be replaced with someone who's very likely going to have a similar monetary policy that he has. And so what's the point? It's only going to harm the markets, the stock market specifically. Let's just back off this idea and see if we can maybe catch some flies with honey. We'll see, we'll see what happens. But Trump is, you know, he's a little bit chaotic. You never know what he's gonna say on any given day, and what's also not really inspiring much confidence is the fact that different administration officials say different things.

You'll hear Trump say one thing, and then hours later, his press secretary contradicts the very thing he said about his plans. So we'll see what happens, but right now, those low approval ratings, on the economy for Trump, not a good look, and I know it probably gets under his skin. The good news is it doesn't seem as though he's immovable. It seems as though with enough pressure, with enough, you know, evidence that his policies are actually causing harm to his administration, he is willing to negotiate and kind of back off some of the more damaging, you know, policies or ideas he has. So we'll see what happens.

But I do want to talk a little bit more about something else that's kind of developing within the administration as it pertains to the economy and taxes. Social Security, no tax, no tax on overtime to make up that gap. I hate to say this. I know you got a bunch of still Republican orthodox folks out here. You're going to have to raise taxes on the wealthy. Some in President Donald Trump's inner circle are amusing the possibility of pretty significant tax hikes on the nation's wealthy. in order to not necessarily balance the budget, but at least raise some revenue for the federal government in order to justify another $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. Now, as we all know,

Donald Trump and the Republican Party want to extend the 2017 tax cuts that Trump secured back in his first term. But in order to do that, they need to justify it, they need to cut spending, they need to get rid of waste fraud and abuse, and they also need to find ways to raise revenue, which is why the topic of raising taxes on the rich has come up now. Now this news was confirmed by two administration officials who spoke to the Washington Post. There were three other individuals who were briefed on the matter, they confirmed the story to the Washington Post. And according to Jeff Stein, who reported this story for WAPO, there are some surprising figures in the Trump administration who are totally on board for raising

taxes for the rich. Those individuals, by the way, include Vice President J.D. Vance and someone I would never expect the budget director, Russell, vote. So they both express support to raise taxes on the rich. Also in support is the guy that you heard from in the very beginning of this story, Steve Bannon. He's been publicly urging Donald Trump to endorse the plan in order to defang the Democratic Party and their attacks on the GOP being the party of the rich. Now look, make no mistake about it. So far, the Republican Party continues to be the party of the rich. There's been a lot of rhetoric from Donald Trump's campaign and now the Trump administration

about how they're looking out for the middle class, the working class. I haven't really seen much policy to bolster those claims. If they do actually raise taxes on top earners in the country, now we're having a conversation. But is that likely to happen? Hold. You're about to hear from the opponents to this policy in just a minute. But before you do, here's what Steve Bannon said. He says this, meaning raising taxes on the rich, guts the AOC Bernie oligarchy tour. Politically, when it comes to higher taxes on the rich, it's game set match.

It's a no-brainer. This would destroy the Democrats. And look, I think he's right about that, to be quite frank. I think that Bannon, despite all of the issues I have with him, is actually pretty smart. He's savvy when it comes to political strategy. And so he wants to destroy the one significant talking point the Democratic Party has had against Republicans. And that's the fact that they've always looked out for corporate executives over the best interests of the American people, over the best interests of American workers. Now Trump claims he wants to change that, but will he?

And again, we haven't really seen much evidence to bolster that claim yet. Now, Bannon also got into the nitty-gritty of how the tax bill could work. So one proposal would allow the top tax rate to revert to its level before the 2017 tax law. Oh, my God. I mean, could they even survive that? So from 37% to 39.6%. This would raise taxes for those with more than $626,350 in earning. people were paying that rate prior to the 2017 tax bill and guess what, income inequality in

this country was still growing. So they're gonna be right, they're gonna be okay if the tax rate, that is the top tax rate. So they're not gonna pay 39.6% on the entirety of their income, but the top or a certain amount of money they make above the $625,000 will be taxed at that 39.6% rate. So that's one of the proposals. What else is going on? Well, there are other things that they're considering. So Bannon and some other Trump allies have also discussed a third idea to create an even higher top tax bracket for those earning more than $3 million or $5 million, two of the people said. One of the other ideas, by the way, was to create

a bracket that would charge higher taxes for individuals earning any, any amount of money above a million bucks a year, right? So they're playing with these ideas. In the end, it's unlikely to go anywhere. But I think that it's interesting to hear that there are people within Trump's orbit that are pushing for these types of policies. Now, here's what's also super surprising. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is allegedly open to a range of ideas, including the possibility of raising taxes on Americans, earning more than $5 million per year. Now, let's talk about the anti-tax pro-deregulation group, which honestly makes up the bulk of the Republican Party. Obviously, those folks still exist within the Trump administration as well.

And there's a lot of outside individuals, outside allies of Trumps who are in his ear to discourage him from raising taxes on the wealthy. Those individuals include Newt Gingrich, Steve Moore, who Trump actually tapped for the Fed board back during his first term, Larry Cudlow and Sean Hannity. You know, the typical neoliberal Republicans. And so Moore, who's now the president of some think tank called the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, pointed to former president George H.W. Bush's embrace of higher taxes as political suicide. He's like, remember what happened to George H.W. Bush when he raised taxes? He didn't win a second term, so that's what he's trying to warn Trump about. But George H.W. Bush made a pretty bold promise during his 1988 address. And if you weren't around back then, or if you can't remember what he said, here's a little reminder.

And I'm the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent now says he'll raise them as a last resort or a third resort. a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into. And I, my opponent won't rule out raising taxes, but I will and the Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no, and they'll push and I'll say no, and they'll push again And I'll say to them, read my lips. No new taxes. Yeah, he then raised taxes and people were really upset about that.

But he coupled those tax hikes with massive unpopular spending cuts. And yeah, that did hurt him politically. So the president accepted several tax increases, most notably, an increase in the top personal tax. rate to 31% from Reagan's 28%, Democrats accepted spending cuts twice as large in dollar value. When Americans are experiencing higher taxes, but they're getting less in return in terms of government programs, yeah, they're gonna be very upset. But, you know, Trump's a little different. I mean, I think Trump actually can get away with raising taxes on the highest

earners in the country, raise revenue for the federal government. government and still present himself as a working class hero because he's not raising taxes under these plans that we're talking about. It's not like he's advocating to raise taxes on working class people, but I don't think he's going to end up raising taxes on anyone, to be quite honest with you. And I think that's going to be the case because of the influencing figures within the administration and more importantly what's going down over at Capitol Hill, because we're already hearing a lot of pushback from people like House Speaker Mike Johnson. Now, can Trump bully him if Trump

actually wants to raise taxes on the rich? Maybe, yeah, I think that's possible. But no, I mean, when you listen to what Johnson's saying, he seems like he will be undeterred. He will not sign off on higher taxes for his donors. I mean, the richest among us. So let's hear a little from his interview recently. I believe it was on Fox News, if I'm not mistaken. Here's what Mike Johnson has to say about the possibility of Congress passing a tax hike on the rich. There have been some reports out there that the Trump administration is looking at pushing the top tax rate for those making over a million dollars back up towards 39 40% is

that something that we should expect from a Republican bill I would not expect that we have been working against that idea I'm not in favor of raising the tax rates because that's our party is the the group that stands against that traditionally so there were lots of ideas throwing out on the table along this process over the last year but I would just say for everybody just just wait and see there's more details coming and I think you're gonna be very pleased by what you see. I don't think we're raising taxes on anybody.

What we're trying to do is prevent the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Was that tinted lip balm? His lips were very rosy looking. Anyway, I'm not surprised at all that Mike Johnson is not in favor of raising taxes on the rich. His campaigns are funded by the rich. The rich do not want to see their taxes go up. And joining him are the who's who of neoliberal Republicans, including Senator Dave McCormick from Pennsylvania.

Senator Ted Cruz. And so again, with the pushback in Capitol Hill, with the fact that there are close Trump allies discouraging him from raising taxes on the rich, I genuinely predict that it's not going to happen. But I'm at least having a little bit of fun with the panic that we're seeing among the opponents to these tax hikes. So let's talk a little bit about Steve Moore, a little more about Steve Moore, because he's hilarious, man. So he's totally losing it over the idea that a Republican administration might raise taxes on the rich. He says, quote, this is a potential crisis in the party. It sounds like Bernie Sanders economics.

In fact, some have especially soured on Vice President J.D. Vance because of his economic populism, which actually appears to be somewhat sincere. So Vance's openness to higher taxes in some circumstances has provoked alarm among some conservatives, given his strong position to claim the GOP presidential nomination in 28. Vance in 2023 said he opposes further cuts to the corporate tax rate, which the president's 2017 tax law lowered from 35% to 21%. While in the Senate, Vance also explored bipartisan measures to close tax loopholes for large businesses. So I love watching the panic, I really do.

Even though I'm not dumb enough to think, I'm not naive enough to think that a Republican administration is going to push for high taxes or higher taxes on the richest Americans. Still though, the idea that there are diverse, like there are diverse thoughts, diverse opinions within the administration, I think that's a good thing, I really do. And who knows, maybe that very, very small, that minuscule populist wing of the Trump administration could grow into something bigger in the future, who knows? Either way, I think that both parties are realizing that there is real anger in the country among working people who have gotten a raw deal for many, many decades.

Wages stagnant since the 1970s, Americans are unable to buy homes. When we talk about the American dream being dead, every facet of life has become far too expensive. And people look at the small group of people who get to hoard all the wealth and they're angered by it. Now, talking about raising taxes is one thing. And I think the mistake that the left makes is we just kind of leave it at that. We have the debate about how we need to raise taxes and then we move on. I think we need to have a better conversation, a real debate about where those resources end up going. as well. Because there is, in my opinion, a lot of waste in the government. And I'm not talking

about social services and things like that. I'm talking about funding wars abroad. I'm talking about defense contracts with these private defense contractors who obviously, you know, I think that they overestimate, I'll put it that way, the amount of money it costs to develop various weapons that the government contracts with them to obtain, like it's just, there's just a lot of grift going on in the federal government. And when there's grift going on in the federal government, you and I are the ones who get screwed over. It's our tax money. And by the way, the other thing is, I think the Medicare system should negotiate drug prices for all pharmaceutical drugs. Not for a handful for all pharmaceutical drugs. It is so incredibly unjust that we are

being price gouged by pharmaceutical companies. We all know it, the federal government knows it. In fact, the federal government allows it to happen. So if Trump really wants to find some cost savings, how about start with the pharmaceutical drug prices and allow Medicare to negotiate those prices so they're not being price gouged. I doubt he's going to do that, but there are some real ways to save money. It's just that Republican benefactors, donors, they're not fans of that.

those strategies, so unlikely to happen. All right, we gotta take a break when we come back. We'll talk about the Supreme Court and it's likely decision on allowing parents to opt their children out of curriculum that touches on LGBTQ issues. We'll probably cover it on the show tomorrow, but Senator John Fetterman is urging Donald Trump to absolutely destroy Iran, not just bomb it, but make it a wasteland. Anyway, like, if you had told me back when John Fetterman was running for a Senate seat, that I would agree more with Tucker Carlson than Federman on foreign policy.

I wouldn't believe you, but here we are, but here we are. It's insane. On Iran in particular, I think Tucker is totally right in regard to avoiding a hot war with Iran. But Federman would love it. And by the way, make it a wasteland, like would destroy Iran as if there aren't any innocent civilians living there. As if there aren't any infants, babies, children, innocent women, elderly people living there. Fetterman is a disgusting human being. Anyway, we might cover that on the show tomorrow.

But for now, let's check in with the United States Supreme Court. Whale Elkosherry is homeschooling his fourth grade daughter. Treehouse, two words. After he says the public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland infringed on their Muslim faith. The teachings he objects to involve classroom readings of books like these. featuring stories with gay, lesbian, and transgender themes. They were love stories. So it was not just exposure to LGBTQ characters.

We're talking specifically about family life and sexuality issues where some kids aren't really prepared to learn about these things. The United States Supreme Court will soon decide whether public schools have to provide an opportunity for religious parents to opt their children out of school lessons that pertain to sexuality or information about the LGBTQ community. So for context, what is this case about? How did this case develop? Well, it all kind of started with the Montgomery Public Schools. They expanded their English language arts curriculum back in 2022 to include books with LGBTQ plus characters as part of an effort to better reflect the diversity of families in the countries or counties, religiously diverse and politically liberal population.

So there is a list of mandatory books or books that teachers are told to use during this instruction. Two of the books kept coming up during the Supreme Court hearing on this. One of them was Uncle Bobby's wedding, which is about a girl who finds out that her favorite uncle is getting married to another man. And then there's Love Violet, which tells the story of a young girl who has a crush on her female classmates. Now, I think the age of the students that would be, you know, consuming this content or these books is important here, right? We're not talking about high school students or middle school students. The students are in fourth grade and fifth grade, which, as you can understand, led to some parents having concerns about

it, but this isn't an attempt to ban the books. This is about giving parents the ability to simply opt their children out of the lessons in which these types of books are being utilized. And so basically the school, or school system, I should say, Montgomery Public Schools in Maryland, initially did give the parents the opportunity to opt their children out. But then they reneged and that's what led to this lawsuit against the school district. So Montgomery County is an extreme outlier, according to the lawyer representing the parents in this case, the plaintiffs, insisting that every elementary school student must be instructed that among other controversial matters, doctors guessed at their sex when they were born and

that anyone who disagrees is hurtful and unfair, said Eric Baxter, senior counsel for the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty. And so after the parents were told, yeah, you can't opt your kids out of this, a coalition of parents from a variety of religious backgrounds. This isn't just some like far right Christian group that's trying to ban books. There are Muslim parents who are concerned about this, obviously Christian parents as well. So this coalition got together and started protesting what the school district was doing. And then three couples and the organization kids first ended up suing.

So this case makes its way up to the Supreme Court and just recently the Supreme Court heard arguments both for and against allowing parents to opt their children out. All right, so that's the context. Now let's talk about what happened during the hearing because I thought there were some really interesting moments you should know about. So justices Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel Alito, so a liberal and a conservatives sparred over the very nature of the books that were used or will be used, and whether they're controversial or inappropriate, specifically for elementary school kids.

Let's take a look. Is there any affidavit from any parent that merely looking at people getting married, holding hands, none of them are even kissing in any of these books, the most they're doing is holding hands. Before we move away from the book that Justice Sotomayor was referring to, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, I've read that that book as well as a lot of these other books. Do you think it's fair to say that all that is done in Uncle Bobby's wedding is to expose children to the fact that there are men who marry other men? No, Your Honor.

And this court in Obergefell promised that parents would be able to continue to teach what this court called decent and honorable beliefs that same-sex marriage is immoral, according to their beliefs. And it's a far stretch from that for schools to compel students to attend. Parents are paying taxes, they have to pay a threat of criminal fines or penalties or the expense of private school. And then to have teachers telling them things that are directly contrary to the book has a clear message. And a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message. But it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with.

So Justice Alito, he's making an argument in regard to religious beliefs, yes. But put that aside, because I think what he's also touching on that's really relevant to the arguments being made here is the fact that it's not just simply that these books have characters that happen to be gay. It's that they have an overarching message that pushes acceptance or, yeah, acceptance toward gay marriage or whatever. that religious folks have issues with. And so it's it's the nature of the books that Alito feels that, you know, the liberal just kind of minimizing, whereas in reality, you know, these books bring up some issues in regard to ideology, right? In regard to pushing a certain take on gay marriage.

Now look, I'm 100% in favor of gay marriage, I have absolutely no. problem with gay marriage and if I had children, I would not have a problem with them consuming that type of material. I think there's nothing wrong with these books. Let's just put it that way. I would be deeply, deeply concerned if this were a situation in which the religious parents were trying to be the arbiters of what all the students can learn. But that's not what's happening here. They're not calling for the banning of these books from the school district. They're They're not calling for the banning of this type of curriculum in the school district. They're simply saying these are our sincerely held religious beliefs.

These are the books that are being used for our kids in fourth grade and fifth grade. We're not ready to broach these conversations with our kids yet. And we're not comfortable with them learning about these things yet, especially when it, you know, butts up against our religious beliefs. So we just like to opt our kids out. The school district's like, no, it's too difficult for us to do. I don't agree with the school district on that, to be honest with you. Because while I'm not religious, I think it's important to protect religious liberty in this country.

You want public schools, which are funded by everyone and they're universally available for everyone, to be a welcoming environment for people of all faiths, all beliefs. And if there are, you know, very narrow situations in which the lesson plan, you know, butts up against religious beliefs, I think the parents should have the ability, especially in elementary school, to opt their children out. So, but there's more because surprisingly, this is really surprising. Justice Elena Kagan, who's a liberal justice, seemed to agree with Samuel Alito in regard to the nature of the book. So let's take a look at that.

I want to take you back to some of the questions that Justice Alito was asking because I, too, was struck by these are, you know, young kids, picture books and on matters concerning sexuality. I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren't all that thrilled about this. and then you, you know, add in religion, and that's, you know, even more serious. So, you know, she's acknowledging, yeah, the material here is sensitive material. It's sexual in nature. And, you know, even if you're not a religious parent, you might not be thrilled with your fourth grader or fifth grader. reading these types of books or looking at the images in these books as part of the elementary school curriculum. But I should note that Kagan also has a problem with the potential slippery slope nature of allowing parents to opt out of certain lesson plans. So Kagan

worried about the sweeping implications of a Supreme Court ruling that gives parents a broad right to pick and choose across the school curriculum. Once we say something like what you're asking us to say, she told the lawyer for the parents, that's Eric Baxter, it will be like, you know, opt-outs for everyone. So she's making a slippery slope argument, which gives you a sense of where her decision is likely to head in for the ultimate ruling for this. But the conservative justices, as we all know, outnumbered the liberal justices. So they seem poised to allow parents to opt out. Now, conservative justices repeatedly pressed Alan Schoenfeld, who is is the lawyer for the school system on why the school system can't be accommodating to parents

who just want to opt their kids out of these lessons. Let's take a look at how that went down. Well, the plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum. They're just saying, look, we want out. Why isn't that feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this? Why can't this all be put? We're going to read Uncle Bobby's wedding and these other books, but we're going to read it during a period of time that includes the health class, and children are already able to opt out of that so they can opt out of reading these books. I think there's no constitutional obligation to treat these books that introduce people to

LGBT characters in a curriculum that is meant to teach about different matters. I'm not understanding why it's not feasible. The county had an opt-out, you said. Every other school board in the country has opt-outs for all sorts of things. The county has opt-outs for all sorts of things. The other Maryland counties have opt-outs for all sorts of things. And yet for this one thing, they changed in mid-year and say no more opt-outs. I'm just not understanding feasibility.

So based on that line of questioning from the conservative justices, the legal experts who have weighed in on this hearing have predicted that by the summertime, the Supreme Court is very likely going to rule. in favor of the playtips here. Those are the parents who want the ability to opt out of these very specific lessons. But look, one final thing that I'll say is, I gotta give conservatives credit because they were right in a different prediction that they made all the way back in 2008. And what was that prediction? Well, at that time, we were, the country was debating the idea of legalizing gay marriage, which didn't get legalized until years later. But nonetheless, one of the arguments that conservatives kept making was they want to teach your elementary school kids about gay marriage and everyone on the left accused them of

just fear-mongering. But now it seems like they want to teach elementary school kids about gay marriage, which again, I personally wouldn't have a problem with if I had children, right? But I know that a lot of parents would have a problem with that. And I do think that it's okay to give them an opportunity to opt out of those very specific lesson plans if there really is a violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. But I'm curious what you all think. Leave some comments in the comment section. I really am curious what people think. I think it's totally reasonable to allow parents to opt out, but you might disagree. So I'm looking forward to hearing from you. For now, we're gonna take a quick break. We'll be right back.

Let's get right to our next story. The Federal Trade Commission is now suing Uber. Uber and CEO, Derek Koushahi, each reportedly donated $1 million to the president's inaugural fund. and Uber spokesperson telling CBC the company is disappointed by the FTC's complaint, but is confident the courts will rule in its favor, Joe. So I think for all those folks who thought that, you know, that's not why. They could be just patriotic and want to participate in the inauguration of the U.S. President. Stop being so cynical.

Andrew Ross Sorkin and Joe Kiernan hate each other. And it's the most entertaining thing to watch. It really is. And that's not really what the story is about. But this little tiff that they have about the influence of money in politics is just chef's kiss. Because Andrew Ross Sorkin understands how, you know, the legalized bribery that's now been baked into our political system, how that all works. And his co-host wants to deny it. So let's just watch a little bit more, a little bit more from their exchange. And then we'll get to the details of this FTC lawsuit. I'm gonna start drawing the line at some of the

We've got to move on. We've got to come together. We've got to come together. We've been apart for, remember the HW? Got to come together. Dana Carvey, we've been apart. Coming up. Let me just tell you, I spoke to so many CEOs who wrote those checks. And they wanted something? Who will privately tell you exactly what they think, which is that this was a down payment. And all I'm suggesting to you is it was a down payment. on nothing. Because it was a down payment on the rug being pulled out from collectively from under them? Good. These corporate fat cats. Joe, no one loves those corporate fat cats more than you do. Come on, come on.

Obviously those massive donations to the Trump administration were meant to prevent this type of lawsuit being filed against Uber. But based on the allegations that are being made here by the federal trade. Commission against Uber. Seems like this lawsuit makes a lot of sense, and I'm glad they have decided to file it. So here's Andrew Ross Sorkin with some details. The government claims that the ride handling company provided misleading information to users about the Uber One subscription service failed to provide a simple way to cancel memberships and charged people without their consent. The move is the first FTC action against a major tech company during President Trump's second term.

All right, so let's talk about Uber One. And this is why I'm always very skeptical of these like free trial subscription service things because I always feel like they're looking to get you. And it appears based on the allegations, which must be proven in court obviously, they really did screw over some of their customers. So the Uber One subscription service offers users, or it's supposed to offer users zero fee food and grocery delivery, 6% credit back on every ride, and exclusive promotional offers. Now, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson argues that Americans are tired of getting signed up

for unwanted subscriptions that seem impossible to cancel. The Trump Vance FTC is fighting back on behalf of the American people. Ooh, okay. Now, what are the allegations here? So Uber told users that Uber 1 would give users $25 per month, or save users $25 per month in savings. The FTC has found that that is untrue. Obviously, it depends on how much you use the app in order to get those savings. So that allegation is a little bit shaky, but there's more. Uber promised free trials for its users, but would charge them anyway before the trial period ended. Now, if the FTC proves that in court, that is super shady and super gross.

Now, Uber told users they could cancel Uber one at any time, but they also made the process incredibly difficult to do so, absurdly difficult in fact, in some cases requiring users to go through 23 screens and take 32 actions to actually cancel the service. Honestly, since you can do that online and remotely, I don't even see that as burdensome as canceling a gym membership in some cases where you literally have to like fill out a form and go to a location, like physical location to give the person the form to cancel your gym membership. Have you ever had that happen? I'm not driving anywhere after work, okay? So I still have the gym membership. It's still there.

I'm paying for it. I haven't been in, I don't know, over a year. If a user was within 48 hours of getting billed for their subscription, Uber would remove the option for them to cancel and tell users to contact customer service instead. And guess what? The wait times were disastrous, incredibly long and sometimes kept users from canceling before the billing date. The FTC said those practices violate the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act, which requires online. sellers to clearly disclose certain terms, obtain consumers consent before charging for a service, and provide a simple way to cancel a recurring subscription. So this is a silver lining. This is a little bit of good news in this massive wave of bad news

that we've been dealing with in the country. I loved Lena Khan as the Federal Trade Commission chair. I was really sad to see that Trump let her go and replaced her. But even so, it looks like The FTC is still doing some good work, and if Uber is in fact engaging in this predatory activity against its own customers, they should be brought to justice. And I especially love the fact that these executives paid Donald Trump a nice hefty amount for his campaign and didn't seem to get the protection they were expecting from an FTC lawsuit. So we'll see how it plays out, I would be really sad if the FTC ends up dropping this for some reason. These are some pretty significant allegations against Uber.

We'll see if this lawsuit goes anywhere. For now, we're gonna take a quick break. When we come back, Jank Uger joins us for a big announcement. Thank you.