UNBIASED - Cornell Fraternity Lawsuit: Everything You Need to Know | SCOTUS Voter Checks, Trump's Pocket Rescission + Cuba

Episode Date: September 28, 2026

A former Cornell University student is suing the university and others alleging that she was drugged and sexually assaulted by members of the Chi Phi fraternity. The Tompkins County District Attorney has now reopened the criminal investigation. We break down what the lawsuit actually alleges, why criminal charges weren’t filed originally, what changed, Cornell’s response, and the legal questions surrounding the university’s potential liability. Then, we explain the Supreme Court’s latest ruling involving the federal SAVE voter-verification database, the State Department wanting to expand the use of passport data for voter-eligibility checks, the U.S. military planning for potential action involving Cuba, and President Trump's pocket rescission of $810 million. Today’s episode: 1. Everything You Need to Know About the Cornell Lawsuit (0:31) 2. Supreme Court's SAVE Voter-Verification Ruling (~27:57) 3. State Department Proposes Using Passport Records for Voter Verification (~36:47) 4. U.S. Military Plans for Possible Action in Cuba (~43:48) 5. Trump's $810M "Pocket Rescission" Explained (~47:57) 6. Quick Hitters (~56:30) 7. Critical Thinking (~1:01:41) ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  PilePad: Get 10% off and FREE Shipping at ⁠PilePad.com⁠. Use promo code UNBIASED. Incogni: Scammers are everywhere! But they can't harm you, if they can't find you! Use code JORDAN at ⁠https://incogni.com/jordan⁠ and get 60% off an annual plan! Bombas: Get 20% off your first purchase by going to Bombas.com/UNBIASED and using code UNBIASED at checkout. Quince: Quince.com/UNBIASED for FREE Shipping and 365-day returns. Monarch: Use code UNBIASED at Monarch.com com to get your first year of Monarch Core half off at just $50. Rocket Money: Join at RocketMoney.com/UNBIASED. Cozy Earth: Please let them know you heard it here on UNBIASED POLITICS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

My Rike League goalie says he plays for the love of the game. You gave up six goals last week, Steve. Maybe play to win, huh? Like with Bet365. I get paid the second my team goes out big with early payout and can cash out at any time before the game ends. Steve, Bet365, the home of winning early. Must be 19 and older.

Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you were someone you know is concerns about gambling, visit connectsontario.ca. Or call 1-866 5 through 1-2-6-100. Terms and conditions apply. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. it's Monday, September 28th, and today we're talking about the Cornell lawsuit, the Supreme Court's

recent ruling on the Save Act, the military planning for possible action in Cuba, and more. Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe if you're watching this show on YouTube. And if you're listening, audio only, share with a friend or leave a review. Both of those things are really, really helpful. I do my best to keep this show completely free. So one of the best ways that you can support me is by doing any one of those things that I just mentioned. So thank you in advance. All right, first story, a former Cornell student is suing Cornell University, a fraternity,

several current and former students and others alleging that she was drugged and raped by multiple fraternity members in 2024. So let's start with the allegations themselves, and then we'll walk through what Cornell says that it did after the original allegations back in 2024, what happened with the original criminal investigation, why prosecutors didn't file charges at the time and why the DA has now decided to reopen the investigation. I will warn you as we go through these allegations, there will be some pretty vulgar language, some details that maybe if you're listening with kids, or maybe you yourself don't want to hear these vulgar details. You may just want to fast forward through the next five, five minutes or so, maybe 10 minutes, just as a heads up.

Also, everything that I'm about to tell you, or at least all of the allegations that I'm about to tell you about, are all from the lawsuit. So they are from the woman's perspective, okay? And I will use allegedly throughout this story because of that. And then after we get through the allegations, we will talk about some of the other things outside of this actual lawsuit that we know. So the woman identified in the lawsuit is identified as Jane Doe. she was 20 years old and a Cornell student at the time of this alleged incident. According to the lawsuit on October 19th of 2024, she went to a tri-Delta sorority event at a bar called Mooney's Bar and Nightclub. She alleges that despite having an X on both hands, which indicated that she was underage,

employees of the bar continued to serve her alcohol despite her being visibly intoxicated. She left Mooney's around 11 p.m. and then went to another bar called Lot 10. At some point thereafter, she headed to the Kai Phi fraternity house to meet a student named Matthew Ingalls, who she refers to in the complaint as a friend. Once at the house, Ingalls gave Doe a beer and the two of them danced in the main room of the house. After dancing, Ingalls allegedly took Doe to a quieter area of the house and proposed having a threesome with him and another frat brother. Doe alleges that she was, quote, incapable of consenting, and quote, due to her drunken state. Ingalls then allegedly brought Doe to an upstairs room and left her with another frat member, Alex Vega.

After Doe and Vega talked for some time, Ingalls came back and allegedly led Doe to another room down the hall where another frat brother, Jonathan Newell, was sitting on a couch. While on the couch, Ingles and Newell allegedly pressured her to take what they told her was ketamine, a drug she says she had never done before. Ingles and Newell also allegedly, quote, plied her with marijuana and Jamaican liquor, end quote. Ingles and Newell were allegedly the perpetrators of the first assault. The lawsuit alleges that without Doe's consent, Ingalls initiated oral sex while Newell engaged in vaginal intercourse. Throughout the alleged assault, Doe says Newell slapped her on her butt multiple times, which she says resulted in bruising that she noticed the next day. The lawsuit says, quote, at one point, Ingalls could no longer maintain an erection, so he stopped participating and told the other two that he was going to take a nap. End quote. Ingls then allegedly got up, moved to a bed, and went to sleep.

The complaint alleges that Newell began reaching for Doe's vagina multiple times, and each time Doe pushed his hand away. Soon after, defendant Lopez then allegedly entered the room, grabbed Doe away from Newell and began kissing her. while Newell continued reaching for her vagina from behind. Lopez and Newell then allegedly placed Doe on a bed and both began having sex with her without her consent. Then at about 142 AM, Newell sent a message in a Snapchat group called Kai Phi Activities, and the message said, quote, free pussy and a Lum P.U., end quote. Someone in the group replied to Newell's message, writing, quote, this is crazy work, end quote. Another student named Scott Norris then wrote, quote, free dot, dot, dot, end quote. Another student named Scott Kreshmore then wrote, quote, Diego went seven minutes ago and is not AFK.

So, end quote. Now, AFK might mean away from keyboard. That's typically like that AFK nowadays is slang for that, but it's not entirely clear what this person meant by AFK. Ingalls then wrote in the chat, quote, I fucking love Kai-Fi, end quote. A student named Winston Lee wrote Kai-Fi in all caps. Kreshmore then wrote again in the chat, quote, the alumni shit is not a bit, first-person POV, not a bit.

End quote. Then Ingalls writes again in the chat, quote, like you can walk in and whip it out. End quote. The lawsuit alleges that over the next few hours, she was assaulted by multiple students, despite trying to hide under the covers and shield her naked. body. Doe alleges that at this point in the night, her phone was on the other side of the room, and she felt as if there was no way for her to escape. At one point, Newell allegedly poured a line of ketamine onto his erect penis and, quote unquote, commanded that Doe snorted it,

which she did. The lawsuit alleges that a total of seven men, while she was lying on her back on the bed, poured and snorted lines of ketamine all over her body. Now, Ingle is one of the men who the lawsuit alleges snorted ketamine off Doe's body. But the lawsuit doesn't say, you might remember, we talked about Ingalls having said he was going to take a nap. The lawsuit doesn't say when Ingalls allegedly came back into the picture after he went and took a nap. So it's not clear when he entered the scene again. But eventually this lawsuit claims that five of the defendants exited the room and Ingles and Lee then took Doe to another room. And Doe alleges that once she was in that other room, Ingles and Lee made her snort more lines of ketamine, and at this point, she was, quote,

completely incapacitated, end quote. However, despite being, quote, unquote, completely incapacitated, Doe alleges that Ingles and Lee proceeded to force oral and vaginal sex upon her simultaneously, and that, quote, around 5.45 a.m., this assault concluded, and Doe lost consciousness, end quote. When Doe awoke the next day, she returned to her sorority house where she lived, and later that same day, she learned that what had happened to her at the frat house was being talked about on campus. Then about three weeks later, on November 8th, Doe went to the Cornell University police and reported what happened. Cornell immediately temporarily suspended the Kai Phi chapter, as well as the seven students who were accused of misconduct.

Cornell conducted its own internal investigation and disciplinary process, and the university says its Office of Civil Rights and its Office of Student Conduct, investigated and adjudicated the allegations under Cornell's policies. But this is where some of the controversy surrounding Cornell's response comes in. Doe's attorney says that Cornell held at least 12 hearings and claims that of the seven fraternity members accused, two were expelled, but the other received lesser punishments. Cornell, however, has not confirmed the individual punishments because it cites federal student privacy law that prevents it from publicly discussing disciplinary action involving specific students. Now, I do want to clarify this essay part of the story because I've seen,

I've seen this part specifically getting a lot of attention online. Outlets like CNN for one and other outlets as well have said that Doe's attorney said that Cornell expelled two of the seven students, but the others received lesser punishments like suspensions, workshops, or written assignments. However, when these outlets say that, it is not in quotes. So the outlets are not quoting Doe's attorney when reporting that. So it's not clear exactly what Doe's attorney said or whether those attorneys specifically said that some students were given written assignments as their sole punishment. The lawsuit, which Doe's attorney wrote, says that once Doe went to the university police, quote, temporary suspensions were issued for several students who were afforded the

opportunity to mitigate their conduct by submitting essays to Cornell. And quote, that's the only thing the lawsuit says about essays or written assignments. The lawsuit never says that essays were the ultimate punishment. So I'm not entirely sure where that online characterization is coming from. Cornell said in a statement today that there was a range of sanctions for the accused students, including suspensions and expulsions, but quote, none of the individuals charged were offered the opportunity to write essays as a sole consequence of their involvement. And quote. Now, this takes me to my next point, which is that we don't know much about the campus's actual investigation, nor do we know a lot about the punishments. The university has

specifically said federal law prevents it from discussing disciplinary action involving specific students. So we do not know a lot on that front. And if we do eventually find out more, it'll probably be through proceedings related to this new lawsuit. What we do know is that the Kai Phi fraternity is still barred from Cornell's campus to this day. And we know that after that, after this incident, Cornell launched a sexual assault task force, and that task force is still operating at the university. We also know that one of the students who was expelled actually filed his own lawsuit against Cornell. That was this past March. He alleges that he was not given adequate due process, and that lawsuit actually gives us a little bit of information about the school's investigation.

So the complaint summary for that lawsuit says that the student who filed it was initially, charged with two counts under Cornell's Title IX policy, sexual assault and sexual exploitation. He was specifically accused of viewing the alleged victim in a state of undress without permission and touching his nose to her torso while inhaling ketamine. However, after defending against those charges at a hearing, he submitted evidence and testimony, the hearing panel ultimately found him not responsible for those specific charges. It did find him responsible, though, for attempted sexual exploitation. And that charge was allegedly based on his presence at the frat house after seeing the

Snapchat messages. Now, the student appealed the hearing decision and argued that there was a lack of notice of the new attempted sexual exploitation charge. And he argued that a panel member was distracted during some of the critical testimony that he was giving because the panel member was driving a car at the time. Now, the appeal panel upheld the attempted sexual exploitation charge, but the reason this is relevant is because the filing of this lawsuit tells us a couple of things. Number one, it tells us that of the two students who were ultimately expelled, one of them was found responsible for attempted sexual exploitation, but

not sexual assault or sexual exploitation. And two, it tells us however these hearings were conducted, they don't appear to be in a totally formal setting, considering that one of the panel members was driving during the hearing. So those are little things that we found out through this separate lawsuit that was filed by one of the students who was ultimately expelled as a result of this investigation. but that's pretty much all we know about the university's investigation at this point. And like I said, if we do find out more, it'll be through proceedings related to this lawsuit. Now let's talk about the criminal investigation.

The Tompkins County District Attorney's Office reviewed the investigation conducted by Cornell police, so it did not conduct its own independent investigation. However, the DA says that that's consistent with how cases are handled in a lot of upstate New York counties. But in reviewing the Cornell investigation, the DA's office decided there wasn't enough evidence to bring criminal charges at the time. Yesterday, though, the district attorney Matthew Van Houten said the allegations contained in this new lawsuit are quote-unquote dramatically different from what Doe originally told police. According to Van Houghton, Doe's original statement did not allege that she had been drugged. It did not allege. It did not

alleged that she was forced to engage in sexual activity, and it did not, it did not allege that she was physically helpless, unconscious, or incapacitated while she was at the frat house. In fact, Van Houten said that her initial statement to police described the sexual activity as, quote, conscious and consensual, end quote. In talking about Doe's original 2024 statement to investigators, Van Houghton said, quote, she never says that she was drugged without her knowledge. She admits to taking drugs and alcohol voluntarily and with knowledge. She does not allege that she was forced to engage in any acts. She does not say that she was physically helpless or unconscious or incapacitated at any point during the time at the fraternity house. And quote, and Van Houten said that that is

ultimately why his office did not bring criminal charges at the time. Van Houghton also said his office never received the Snapchat messages as part of the original investigation. Doe's attorney, however, has said that the original police report was not materially different from what was contained in this lawsuit and criticizes the DA's office for not doing more at the time. Doe's attorney said, quote, other than her initial contact with Cornell police, she was not contacted by investigators from the Tompkins County District Attorney's Office or any investigators trained in interviewing rape survivors. And quote, does attorney also added that Doe went to the police initially because she, she

she believed a crime had been committed and that investigators failed to adequately follow up with her. So because this new lawsuit contains these additional allegations and this new evidence that Van Houghton says his office didn't have before, he has now made the decision to reopen the case. And he says that so long as Doe cooperates in the investigation, he intends to present the case to a grand jury. Now remember, a grand jury's job is to decide whether there's enough evidence to formally bring criminal charges. A grand jury does not decide actual guilt or innocence. So the DA will now investigate these new allegations and this new evidence. And if he believes there's enough to present the case, he will take it to a grand jury.

The grand jury would then decide whether there's probable cause to indict anyone involved and therefore move the case forward. So we have the Cornell investigation, we have the criminal investigation, and we have the civil lawsuit. These are three very different systems with different rules and standards. Now, keep in mind, just because criminal charges were not brought before. that doesn't mean that a civil suit can't now be filed. A criminal case and a civil lawsuit are two completely different legal processes, right? In a criminal case, prosecutors have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest burden of proof in our legal system. In most civil cases, though, the plaintiff has to prove their claims by a preponderance of the evidence,

which means their version is more likely than not to be true. It is a much lower standard than in criminal cases. In fact, I'm sure a lot of you remember O.J. Simpson's case. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murder, but he was eventually found liable for wrongful death. That's because the standard of proof is different. It's sometimes easier to win a civil case than get a guilty verdict because the standard of proof is not nearly as high in a civil case. So even if prosecutors ultimately decide again not to bring charges against these students, that wouldn't prevent Doe from pursuing the civil lawsuit. And on the other side, the fact that Cornell, you know, disciplined certain students because of their actions,

doesn't necessarily mean that a criminal court or civil court has to reach the same conclusion. They're all independent of one another. Let's take a quick break here. When we come back, we will finish this conversation by talking about some of the legal aspects of the case. And then we'll move on to the Supreme Court's latest ruling on the Save Act and more. Our fantasy commission says for him it's all about the friendships. Cute, Kevin. But I disagree.

Like with Bet365. I get paid the second my team goes up big with early payout and can cash out at any time before the game ends. No hard feelings, Kevin. Just faster payouts from Bet365. The home of winning early. Must be 19 and older. Ontario only.

Please play responsibly. If you were someone you know is concerns about gambling, visit connectsontario.ca or call 18665 through 1,2600. Terms and conditions apply. Welcome back. So just to finish this Cornell story, I want to talk about some of the legal aspects of this case because keep in mind that Doe is not just suing the fraternity brothers, the fraternity in Cornell.

She's also suing organizations connected to her sorority. She's suing a former Kai Phi chapter president. She's suing the bar she went to before she ended up at the frat house. And there's several other defendants here. Now, as it pertains to the seven fraternity brothers, the plaintiff is accusing all seven of them of sexual assault and sexual battery. Those are two different civil claims. sexual assault as it's alleged in this lawsuit is intentionally acting in a way that causes someone to anticipate imminent, harmful, or offensive sexual conduct. So or sexual contact. So the contact

doesn't actually have to happen for this assault claim. Okay. Sexual battery, on the other hand, involves actual touching. In this case, the lawsuit alleges touching without dose informed consent and with the intent to cause harmful or offensive bodily contact. So sexual battery and sexual assault two different claims. In addition to those claims, the lawsuit also includes violations of state law against the bar that she went to before she eventually got to the frat house. Breach of contract allegations against Cornell, negligence claims against Cornell, her sorority, and kaifi, and more. There are 10 causes of action total. but I know a lot of you have questions about Cornell's liability specifically, so I want to

address that part of this. For Cornell to ultimately be held liable for negligence, Doe would have to prove several things, including that Cornell owed her a legal duty, that Cornell breached that duty, and that the breach contributed to her injuries. And a big question when we're talking about a crime allegedly committed by other students is foreseeability, because a university is not automatically liable whenever a student commits a crime against another student. In fact, New York's highest court has said colleges don't have a blanket duty to protect adult students from the dangerous behavior of other students simply because they're students. However, there are circumstances where a university can have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect students from foreseeable criminal conduct, particularly when the university, has control over the property or the people involved and has some sort of notice that there's a

danger. When assessing this, courts will look at things like what the university knew beforehand, whether there had been similar or related incidents, how close those incidents were in time and location, and whether the university actually had the ability to do something about the risk. There's a pretty similar case out of New York from just a few years ago called Brown v. University of Rochester. And in that case, a former student alleged that frat members drugged and sexually assaulted women at an on-campus frat house and that the university had previously received credible reports of ongoing sexual misconduct. In 2023, a New York appellate court ruled that those allegations were enough for the negligence claim against the university to move forward. Now, the court was not deciding that the university was, was in fact negligent at that point.

It was deciding whether, assuming the allegations were true, the plaintiff had alleged enough to have a viable case. And the court said the plaintiff did. The court said that when a university receives credible reports of ongoing and pervasive criminal conduct against students happening on campus and being committed by students within the university's control, the university can have a duty to appropriately respond. So if we apply that here, one of the big questions is going to be, based on what Cornell allegedly knew before this incident on October 19, 2024, was this type of harm reasonably foreseeable? Now, Doe's lawsuit says that upon information and belief, one week prior to this subject assault, police responded to a drug-related incident at the frat house in question. if discovery shows that police really did respond to the Kai Phi house for a drug-related incident

only a week before Do's alleged assault, the details of that incident are going to matter a lot, right? We're going to need to know what were the specifics of the drug-related incident. Was it one frat member caught with marijuana? Was it a completely isolated drug incident that Cornell never even found out about? Did it involve ketamine? Did it involve students becoming incapacitated? did it involve dangerous drug use at the frat house? Did it involve some of the same fraternity members that are named in this lawsuit?

And importantly, was Cornell aware of the incident? So the prior drug incident that's referenced in this lawsuit doesn't automatically make Cornell liable, but if Doe can show that Cornell knew or reasonably should have known about dangerous drug activity or similar misconduct at this frat house before her alleged assault, and Cornell had the ability to take reasonable steps in response to the, that prior incident, those things could strengthen her negligence claim against Cornell. On the other hand, if that earlier drug incident was completely unrelated or it was something minor or something that Cornell never found out about, it would be much weaker evidence that

this alleged assault was foreseeable. So that's the foreseeability component of this negligence claim. Now, Cornell did release another statement today. It says in part, quote, Cornell University supports the decision of the Tompkins County DA to provide an opportunity for the victim's story in the 2024-Khi-5 fraternity sexual assault case to be heard by a criminal grand jury. Cornell also conducted a thorough Title IX investigation, which is separate from a criminal proceeding over the course of several months. Any suggestion that the university did not impose consequential punishments for those involved is false. A continuation of the false narrative that there were minimal consequences in this case is irresponsible, will make survivors feel

less supported, less safe and supported, and will perpetuate the underreporting of sexual assault. quote. And that's in addition to the statement Cornell issued last week that said in part, quote, Cornell University is aware of a lawsuit concerning the deeply disturbing allegations of sexual assault involving members of the student community that occurred in 2024. We will respond in detail through the legal process. We take sexual violence extremely seriously. And quote, at this point, at least two of the men named in the lawsuit have also issued a statement. An attorney for Scott Kreshmars said, quote, we wholeheartedly deny the allegations in the complaint against Scott Kreshmore. It is disappointing the claims against him were even made,

considering we possess documents that thoroughly corroborate our position, including her own words, statements from other parties, and scientific evidence demonstrating that they are false. And quote, another former student, Scott Norris, has also come forward and denied participating in any sexual activity or drug use, although he did acknowledge sending the one Snapchat message that said, quote, Diego went seven minutes ago and is not AFK. So, end quote. Norris says he briefly entered the room, but he was not there when the alleged misconduct occurred and says Cornell did not find him responsible for sexual misconduct or drug use. I know a lot of you had had questions about where these students are now.

There are two students who are still enrolled at the school, so two of the seven named in the lawsuit are still enrolled in the school, and then the other five, I believe, are out in the workforce. But that is what we know at this point. So keep in mind that the lawsuit sets forth allegations. Those allegations have to be sorted out in court. And now the DA's office has reopened the criminal investigation and says it will present the case to a grand jury so long as Doe cooperates with the investigation. All right. Next story.

On Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to start using an expanded federal database that states can use to help verify whether registered voters are U.S. citizens. Now, you probably saw the headlines that said that the court cleared the way for Trump's voter verification database. And that is true. But there are a few pretty important pieces of context here. So, number one, this database is not new. Number two, the Supreme Court didn't issue a final ruling saying that the expanded version of this program is legal. This was a temporary ruling. And three, because we're already within 90 days of the midterm election, Friday's ruling is pretty limited in terms of what states can do.

do with this system before November. And we'll talk about that more in a minute. But first, I want to back up and I want to talk about what this database even is first. So the system is called save, which stands for systematic alien verification for entitlements. It's been around since 1986. It was originally created so federal, state and local government agencies could verify someone's immigration or citizenship status whenever that person applied for certain public benefits. states have also used SAVE to verify citizenship for voting purposes. But for most of its existence, SAVE relied mostly on immigration-related records. So it was a lot better at checking people who had interacted with the immigration system at some point, maybe because they applied for a green card, maybe because they received work authorization, something like that, then it was at checking someone who was born in the United States and never had an immigration file. But last year, the Trump administration expanded it. So Trump signed an election-related executive order in March of last year. It gave many, many instructions to his cabinet related to elections and election integrity.

One of those instructions told DHS to create a better system for state and local election officials to verify the citizenship of registered voters as well as people trying to register to vote. Another instruction told the Social Security Administration to make its records available to DHS for that purpose. So then two months later, DHS rolled out this expanded, modified version of Save. And there were two big changes. Number one, Save could now check information against Social Security Administration Records. And two, states could now conduct what are called bulk searches. So instead of searching one person at a time, election officials could upload information for multiple people at once. So under this expanded system, a state could submit someone's information through Save to confirm whether the person is a U.S. citizen, Save then checks that information against several federal databases, which now includes social security records too. And if the federal records confirm the person is a citizen, Save will tell the state that. If Save can't confirm somebody as a citizen, election officials are supposed to contact the person and ask them to provide additional

proof of citizenship if they want to register or remain registered to vote. So just to be clear here, the big changes are that save can now check information against social security administration records in addition to the records it could search against before and states can now do bulk searches. So once this expanded program was rolled out, several organizations, including the League of Women's Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center sued the administration. And they made three main arguments. So first they argued that sharing this social security information violates federal laws, protecting the confidentiality of Social Security records. Second, they argued that the government violated the Privacy Act, which also limits how federal agencies can disclose personal information and

requires agencies to go through certain procedures before changing how records are used. And third, they argued that DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which is the law that tells federal agencies how to make changes like this or the proper procedure for making changes like this. The Trump administration, though, argues that Congress already gave DHS the authority to share this kind of information through an older 1996 federal immigration law. And that law says that government officials and agencies can't prohibit or restrict the sharing of information with DHS about someone's citizenship or immigration status. And then a separate part of the law says that DHS must respond when states or local governments ask it to verify. someone's citizenship or immigration status. So the administration argues that Congress already created an information sharing system here, which means DHS can get citizenship related information

from other agencies like Social Security and then use that information to respond to requests from state election officials as it's required to do by law. But the challengers say that the administration is reading this law too broadly. Their position, the challenger's position, is that Congress saying agencies can share citizenship information with DHS doesn't mean that DHS can ignore other federal privacy laws that specifically protect social security records and this type of personal information. And initially, when this lawsuit was filed, a federal judge in D.C. agreed with the challengers. Back in June, she ruled that the expanded Save program violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, and she blocked the changes from taking effect.

The Trump administration then appealed that decision and asked the appeals court to let it keep using this expanded system while the appeal plays out. But the appeals court said no. So the administration went to the Supreme Court. And that is, that's what gets us to Friday. The Trump administration was asking the Supreme Court the same thing. It asked the appellate court to let it keep using this expanded version of save while it appeals the case. And on Friday, the Supreme Court said yes. Now, despite this only being a temporary ruling, okay, so it wasn't a final ruling on the,

the merits, the Supreme Court said you can use this expanded version of save while the appeal plays out. Despite that, that temporary ruling, the majority did give us a pretty good idea of where it stands on the underlying legal question. The court said that the challengers' legal claims are likely to fail because in the majority's view, that 1996 law that we just talked about likely does allow DHS to receive and request citizenship information from other agencies despite other federal laws restricting disclosure. The majority also said that part of the reason it allowed the administration to continue using this program while it's on appeal is because the government could be harmed if the system

remained blocked because federal law requires DHS to respond whenever state and local governments ask it to verify someone's citizenship and the lower court's ruling that was in place prevented DHS from using using this system. Okay. So that was the majority's view on this. The court's three liberal justices, justices Jackson Sotomayor and Kagan dissented. Jackson agreed with with the challengers here and argued that the majority, the court's majority, is reading this 1996 law too broadly and that it does not give DHS blanket authority. to get around federal privacy protections. She also argued that the majority wasn't giving enough weight to the potential harm to eligible voters.

So the lower court had found examples involving recently naturalized citizens who either had to provide additional proof of citizenship or in one case had their voter registration revoked without their knowledge. So Jackson's position is that even if the number of affected voters ends up being small because of this expanded save system, the court should still be taking that potential harm into account before allowing the system to operate. Now, one more very important piece here. We are currently inside what's called the 90-day quiet period before a federal election. Under the National Voter Registration Act, states are supposed to complete programs designed to systematically remove ineligible voters from their voter rolls at least 90 days before a federal election. And this is something the Supreme Court specifically acknowledged on Friday. The majority said that this 90-day rule limits the practical impact of its ruling ahead of the midterms. The court said that states can still conduct.

individualized inquiries during this 90-day quiet period, but states can't use Friday's decision as a green light to start just broadly running voter rolls through this save system and systematically removing people this close to the election. So at least, you know, as far as the law stands right now, Friday's ruling won't impact the midterms too much. Now, that's not to say that there won't be individual voters who could be affected by this before election day, but that is to say that states can't conduct massive purges of voter rolls at this point. Okay, now this next story ties directly into this saved database. So we're just going to roll right into it. The Trump administration is now moving to expand the use of U.S. passport records for voter citizenship

checks. What the State Department is proposing here is a change to the rules governing when passport information can be shared and who it can be shared with for the purpose of verifying voter eligibility. And while this change is not expected to take effect before the November midterms, I do know that people have questions about it, so I just want to briefly talk about it. The State Department maintains this record system called passport records state 26. It includes a bunch of information about everyone who's ever applied for a U.S. passport going going all the way back to 1925. It has records like passport applications, birth certificates, copies of driver's license, consular reports of birth abroad. Depending on the file, there might be other

personal financial or medical information if it was, you know, submitted in connection with a passport application. But the administration's proposal so far doesn't spell out which pieces of information would be shared with election officials for purposes of verifying citizenship status. Because remember, there are privacy laws at play here. We just talked about one of the privacy laws in the last story. When the, when the federal government collects personal information about you for a specific purpose, an agency can't just turn around and use or disclose that information for whatever purpose it wants. Now, one way an agency can share information is through something called a routine use,

which is essentially an officially approved use of those records that has to be compatible with why the information was collected in the first place. So, for example, law enforcement is already an approved routine use for passport records, meaning if investigators are looking into somebody for passport fraud or identity theft involving a passport, the state department can share information from that person's passport records with law enforcement because that type of disclosure has already been approved as a routine use. But voter eligibility is not currently approved as a routine use for passport records. That's why we're hearing about this proposal. The State Department is proposing to add voter

eligibility to that list of routine uses. Now, if an agency wants to add a new routine use, it has to notify the public through the federal register at least 30 days before that new use can take effect and give people an opportunity to comment. The agency that, has to consider those comments before it finalizes the rule and starts actually disclosing records under this new use. So in this case, the State Department would essentially have to publish a notice saying, hey, we are intending to start allowing passport records to be shared for purposes related to verifying voter eligibility and explain who could receive that information and what the information would be used for and then give the public at least 30 days to weigh in. Then the process would

be finalized and the new rule would take effect. Once that new rule takes effect, that is when we could potentially see a legal challenge over questions like whether voter verification is compatible with the purpose for which this passport information was originally collected. Because remember, it has to be compatible. That's part of the rules. So the reason that I said this story ties into the save story we just talked about is because it's all part of the same broader effort. The administration is trying to give states access to more. federal information that they can use to verify citizenship. In the last story, that meant expanding saved to include social security records. Here, the State Department is proposing to add passport

records as a source of citizenship information. And one more point here, because I know people are going to have this question. Obviously, not every U.S. citizen has a passport. So this change wouldn't require everyone to have a passport to register to vote. It would just make passport records another possible source of information that election officials or federal verification systems could use to confirm citizenship when that information exists. All right. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the military planning for possible action in Cuba.

We'll talk about Trump rescinding $810 million in federal funding and the controversy surrounding pocket rescissions. And then we'll finish with quick hitters and critical thinking. Our fantasy commission says for him it's all about the friendships. Cute, Kevin, but I disagree. Like with Bet365. I get paid the second my team goes up big with early payout and can cash out at any time before the game ends. No hard feelings, Kevin.

Just faster payouts from Bet365. The home of winning early. Must be 19 and older. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you were someone you know is concerns about gambling, visit connectsontario.ca. Or call 1866-5-1-2600.

Terms and conditions apply. Welcome back. Another big story from this weekend is that the military is doing more planning for potential action involving Cuba. Now, I will preface this story by saying there are no deployment orders currently and President Trump just told reporters this weekend he doesn't think the military will be necessary. He said he thinks the U.S. and Cuba will make a deal. But here's what happened. CBS News obtained an internal army memo that was sent out last week asking Army Reserve commands to report back on whether six different types of military formations could potentially be

available for U.S. Southern Command within 90 to 120 days. Now, Southern Command or Southcom is the part of the U.S. military that's responsible for Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. That of course includes Cuba. The memo does not mention Cuba specifically, but multiple U.S. officials that are familiar with the planning told CBS that Cuba is what this particular request is tied to. So basically, the Army is checking on the availability of support units just in case Trump were to decide to carry out an operation. Support units would include things like a military police brigade, engineers, medical units, emergency surgical teams,

different logistics units that would help move supplies, fuel, equipment. Really just overall support for a potential operation. The document doesn't give any details as to how many troops would ultimately be needed. It doesn't say where any of these troops would go. It doesn't say what specific type of operation they would be supporting. it just asks whether these different units could potentially be available in that 90 to 120 day time frame. As for Southcom, it wouldn't comment on any particular operation, but it said it's constantly coordinating with the rest of the military and assessing what forces it could need

for different missions and contingencies. It's pretty routine that the military plans for different scenarios so that if the president does ultimately order something, commanders are prepared. However, what makes this worth paying attention to is that this isn't the first, Cuba-related military planning we've learned about this year, right? Earlier this year, U.S. forces conducted recognizance around Cuba's coastline and maritime approaches, and U.S. Air Forces were put on heightened readiness and told to pre-stage personnel for a possible deployment. Then in May, U.S. intelligence officials were studying how Cuba might respond if the United

States did take military action. In July, military planners reportedly presented different options for possible action involving Cuba. So what we're seeing now is another step in that ongoing planning process. Now, all of this is happening while the Trump administration has been putting a lot more pressure on the Cuban government back in January, Trump declared that national emergency related to Cuba arguing that the Cuban government's relationships with countries like Russia, China, and Iran threatened U.S. national security. Since then, the administration has expanded sanctions against Cuban officials and as well as government linked entities. So, you know, Trump has been talking more about Cuba. And he's been. much more clear about what he wants to happen in Cuba. During his UN speech Tuesday, he said his administration is seeking what he called a fundamental change in Cuba. And he said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in deep negotiations with the Cuban government. Cuba, though, disputes that earlier this month. This foreign minister said there were no negotiations underway, but did say that

the two countries are in contact with one another. Now, one more question if we continue hearing about possible military action is, could Trump order the military into Cuba without Congress? Well, You know, this goes back to the debate. We've come time and time again. We've talked about this. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but it makes the president commander in chief. So, presidents from both parties have ordered military operations without a formal

declaration of war because presidents argue that the president has independent authority to use military force as commander in chief. However, how far that authority goes is something that Congress and presidents have fought over for decades. So as of right now, there's no information to tell us that the United States is getting ready to invade Cuba, but we do know the government is at least planning for that possibility and really has been planning for it for months. All right, next story, President Trump is holding $810 million in federal funding. And now it's causing a fight over something called a

pocket rescission. So let's talk about what the money is that we're talking about, exactly what the money is for. Then I'll explain what a pocket rescission is because that's really where the legal fight lies here. The biggest chunk of the $810 million is about $5.10 million is about $567 million from HHS's refugee and entrant assistance account, which funds programs to the Office of Refugee Resettlement. That includes services for refugees, assailees, and other eligible non-citizens, along with programs involving unaccompanied migrant children. Then there's about 25 million from education department programs for migratory and seasonal farm workers and their families. Another 25 million from two DHS immigration programs, including one that funded case management and social services for people

going through immigration proceedings and another one that helps lawful permanent residents prepare for citizenship. $15 million from the DOJ's Community Relations Service, which works with communities dealing with conflicts involving race, religion, national origin, or other protected characteristics. And then about 70 million from international education programs that fund things like foreign language instruction, international studies, and fellowships. Then there's $56 million from Hood's housing, counseling program, which helps people with things like buying or renting a home, avoiding foreclosure,

avoiding eviction, understanding mortgages, things like that. $28 million from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which funds healthcare research, $10 million from the Minority Business Development Agency, about $9 million from a program that allows certain foreign countries to reduce debt owed to the United States in exchange for funding conservation products, and then another $5 million from HHS's Office of Minority. Health, which funds and coordinates programs that are aimed at improving health outcomes among racial and ethnic minority populations and American Indian and Alaska native populations, things like chronic disease prevention, maternal health programs, health education, training

for health care providers, things of that nature. Now, the White House says that its justification for the holding of these funds is that some of the immigration-related programs were using taxpayer money to support illegal immigration, that some of the education, health, and housing programs were promoting DEI, or what it refers to as woke ideology, that some of the research is duplicative or unnecessary, and that some of the remaining refugee funding is no longer needed because border crossings have fallen. So from the administration's perspective, this is money that Congress already appropriated, yes, but that either doesn't need to be spent anymore or is going toward programs that Trump believes taxpayers should not be funding.

As I said, though, Congress already appropriated the money. And under the Constitution, Congress controls spending. Congress says how money is going to be spent. The executive branch then spends the money accordingly. Now, presidents do have a legal process they can use to ask Congress to cancel money that Congress has already approved. It comes from a law called the impoundment control act of 1974. And under that law, a president can send Congress what's called a rescission proposal. Once the president sends that request, the administration can temporarily hold.

the money while Congress considers it. Congress gets 45 days of continuous session to approve the rescission request. If Congress agrees, the money is canceled. If Congress does not agree, the money has to be made available for the purpose Congress originally approved it for. That is the normal rescission process. A pocket rescission, though, is what happens when the president sends that request so late that the money is scheduled to expire before Congress can get through a 45-day review period. That's what's happening. here. Trump sent this rescission request to Congress on Friday, so September 25th. The federal fiscal year ends Wednesday, September 30th. So there are only five days between Trump asking Congress

to cancel this money and the money actually expiring. The administration argues that the impoundment act allows it to withhold money while Congress considers the request and that the law doesn't specifically prohibit the president from sending the proposal toward the end of the fiscal year. So if the money happens to expire while it's being lawfully withheld during that 45-day period, then it expires. Critics, though, say that that interpretation completely defeats the purpose of the law because Congress never actually gets the full opportunity to decide whether it agrees with the rescission. If the president can just wait until the last few days of the fiscal year, withhold the money and then simply let it expire, critics argue that the president has effectively canceled spending without Congress ever approving the cancellation.

And the government accountability office, which is Congress's independent watchdog, agrees with that interpretation. It looked at this exact issue in 2018 and concluded that the impoundment control act does not allow a president to withhold money until it expires just because the 45-day review period hasn't ended yet. GAO's position is that if Congress hasn't approved the rescission, the administration has to release the money with enough time left for the agency to actually use it. Otherwise, GAO says the president could effectively undo Congress, you know, congressional spending or spending that Congress enacted without ever getting Congress to agree. But keep in mind that while GAO's interpretation means something, it's not binding. GAO's legal opinions don't bind federal courts like a Supreme Court ruling would. And we'll get to the Supreme Court in just a minute. But I do just want to note here that pocket recisions are not new.

There were a handful of situations back in the 70s that were pretty similar to what we're seeing here. They're not common by any means, but they're not new. So in 1975, for instance, President Ford proposed for sending $10 million in funding that ultimately expired while Congress was still within its review period. In 1977, President Carter proposed rescinding $21 million. That was in foreign military credit funding. That also expired before the 45-day period was over. However, in Carter's situation, Congress did ultimately approve the rescission, but it expired during that 45-day review period. So there is precedent for money expiring during this process, but it's not common. Now, let's talk about what happened last year, because we saw almost

the exact same thing that we're seeing right now. In August 2025, Trump sent Congress a pocket rescission package trying to cancel nearly $5 billion in foreign aid funding right before the funding was scheduled to expire. A federal judge ordered the administration to spend the money. The administration appealed and eventually the Supreme Court allowed it to remain withheld long enough for the money to expire. However, the Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of pocket rescissions. That was another emergency ruling. The majority said that the administration, had made a sufficient showing that the groups challenging the freeze might not have been able to bring that particular lawsuit, as well as that the harm to the president's ability to conduct

foreign affairs outweighed the potential harm to the groups challenging the freeze. So the money ultimately expired, yes, but the Supreme Court never answered the ultimate legal question of whether a president can legally use the impoundment control act to do one of these pocket rescissions. And also, it's worth mentioning, too, there is, although it's a similar situation, there is a pretty big difference between that case that happened last year and what we're talking about now. Last year's case involved foreign aid. And the Supreme Court specifically referenced the president's authority over foreign affairs when it allowed the money to stay frozen. Most of this new $810 million package involves domestic programs, HHS, education, DOJ, DHS. So you can't

necessarily take what happened last year and assume the same thing would happen this time around if it were challenged. Now, practically speaking, there's very little time left here, right? The funding expired Wednesday. So we could see somebody sue over this, specifically one of the organizations that's affected. If a lawsuit is filed before funding expires, then a court might have more options to preserve the funding while the case plays out. But once that money expires on Wednesday, it becomes a lot harder for a judge to bring the funding back because the underlying budget authority would no longer exist. It expires on Wednesday. So if we do see a lawsuit, it'll likely be filed sometime before end of day Wednesday. If there's no lawsuit and Congress

doesn't otherwise act, then the administration will continue withholding the $810 million through Wednesday, at which point it would expire and it would no longer be available for the programs that I just mentioned a few minutes ago. Okay, let's do quick hitters. British counterterrorism police have arrested five men near Raff Fairford, a Royal Air Force Base used by the U.S. military, on suspicion of preparing a terrorist attack. Police were alerted after a local farmer spotted three suspicious vans and a group of hooded and masked men near the base and called the authorities. Five men, all British nationals from London in their early 20s, were arrested on suspicion

of explosives, offenses, and preparing a terrorist attack. They've since been released on bail, but they do remain under-investig. Police say they are looking at several possibilities, including whether the men may have been knowingly or unknowingly acting on behalf of a foreign state, while Iran has denied any involvement. About 85 nearby households were evacuated when the bomb disposal teams searched the vans, and officials now say the area is safe, residents can come back home. Notably, Raff Fairford, the reason that Iran is being discussed here, it's been used by U.S. forces for missions against Iran, including to carry out strikes on Iran. So President Trump has alleged that the suspects were planning to cause major damage, but British police have not publicly confirmed that claim. Speaking of Iran, President Trump says he's rejected Iran's latest proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resume negotiations

within seven days. Under Iran's proposal, the U.S. would lift its naval blockade, remove restrictions on Iranian oil sales, and reinstate a regional ceasefire. Iran would then reopen the strait and restart nuclear talks, but Trump said the terms were not acceptable and argued that Iran is pushing for a deal because of the economic and military pressure it's facing. Iran's foreign minister says Iran is still waiting for an official response through mediators and continues to support a negotiated solution. Despite rejecting the proposal, Trump does say that he expects more talks with Iran this week. Federal prosecutors have charged 46-year-old Christopher Lunsford with six counts of wire fraud and two accounts of money laundering in an alleged $105 million investment scheme involving semi-trucks.

Prosecutors say hundreds of investors paid between $25,000 and $40,000 per truck after being promised guaranteed weekly income, but alleged that roughly $75 million from newer investors was used to pay earlier investors and more than $25 million was spent on Lunsford's personal expenses. The indictment says only about $2 million of investor money was used for actual business expenses. Prosecutors are seeking forfeiture of about $105.9 million, and Lunsford could face up to 20 years in prison on each wire fraud count if convicted. DHS says ICE has launched a nationwide enforcement surge in jurisdictions with quote-unquote sanctuary policies. DHS identified jurisdictions in 11 states and Washington, D.C., and says agents will prioritize people with criminal records,

including those released from local jails. At the same time, DHS is denying reports that ICE has been instructed to stop arresting undocumented immigrants who do not have criminal records, saying instead that anyone in the country illegally can be arrested. DHS has not said how many additional agents will be deployed or how long this new surge will last. President Trump is expected to announce a proposed $15 billion steel plant in Iowa. Minnesota-based Misabi Metallics says the plant could begin producing steel in 2030 with an initial capacity of about 7.5 million tons per year and the potential.

to eventually reach roughly 10 million tons. The White House says the project is expected to create about 1,750 permanent jobs, although the exact location in Iowa has not been announced. Masabu Metallics also recently opened a $2.5 billion iron ore mine in Minnesota that would supply raw material for this new plant. The White House blocks CNN from traveling on Air Force One with President Trump during his Saturday trip to Tennessee, even though CNN had been scheduled to serve as the television pool network for the trip. CNN was replaced by Real America's Voice, which as we've talked about, is not part of the five network television pool, but Real America's voice did say it would share the footage. CNN recently did have its access restored to the White House, but that court ruling specifically addressed its White House press credentials.

It did not address pool assignments or access to Air Force One. In the past, courts have recognized that presidents have more discretion over press access to tightly controlled limited access spaces like Air Force One, like the Oval Office. And the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court today to temporarily reinstate a Bureau of Prisons policy that limits certain medical treatments and accommodations for federal inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria while a legal challenge continues. Under the policy, inmates could still receive psychotherapy and psychiatric medication, but the Bureau of Prisons would generally no longer provide hormone therapy, gender transition, surgeries, or accommodations like wigs, chest binders, and breast padding. A federal judge blocked the new policy, finding the challengers were likely to succeed on their argument that the Bureau of Prisons didn't adequately justify the change. A federal appeals court later declined to let the policy take effect while the case is on appeal, so the administration has now gone to the Supreme Court. Let's finish this episode with some critical thinking. We are going back to the Cornell lawsuit.

So first, how do we hold two ideas at the same time? how do we hold the idea that these allegations are serious and deserve to be taken seriously, while simultaneously holding the idea that the people accused are entitled to have the evidence against them tested before we ultimately decide what happened here? And then second, if the allegations in this lawsuit are ultimately proven, How far should responsibility extend beyond the people accused of committing the assaults themselves? What would Cornell, the fraternity, the sorority organizations, or even the bar have needed to know or do for you to believe they also bear some responsibility in this? That is what I have for you.

On Thursday, we'll do rumor hazard, of course, and we are going to cover Trump's political ads and whether taxpayer dollars are being used to pay. pay for them because I know a lot of you have questions about that. So if that is something that you have questions about, be sure to tune into Thursday's episode. As always, thank you so much for being here. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you. It means so much that I can continue doing this for my work. And I've, you know, you guys have allowed me to make a career out of this. Out of this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I know I say thank you at the end of every episode. But I just really need you to know that I don't say it in passing. I really do appreciate you. And I hope you have a great week. And don't forget to share the show with your friends.

leave me a review and I'll talk to you on Thursday. My reg league goalie says he plays for the love of the game. You gave up six goals last week, Steve. Maybe play to win, huh? Like with Bet365, I get paid the second my team goes up big with early payout and can cash out at any time before the game ends. Come on, Steve, Bet365, the home of winning early. Must be 19 and older, Ontario only.

Please play responsibly. If you were someone you know is concerns about gambling, visit connects ontario.CA or call 1866 5 through 1,2,600. Terms and conditions apply.