UNBIASED - HHS Cuts $500M in mRNA Vaccine Funding, Bondi Orders Grand Jury Investigation Over Obama-Era Russian Intelligence, Where the Trump Admin Stands on IVF Access, and More.

Episode Date: August 7, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: More States Jump Into the Re-Districting Fight; Civil Arrest Warrants Issued for Democratic Lawmakers (0:00) AG Bondi Orders Grand Jury Investigation Over Obama-Era Alleged Manipulation of Russian Intelligence (8:38) Trump Reportedly Walks Back Promises on IVF Access; Here's What We Know (14:41) HHS Cuts $500M Worth of mRNA Vaccine Research Funding; Answering Your Questions (17:37) Quick Hitters: Shooting at GA Military Base, New ICE Detention Facility, Apple's New Investment, Trump Calls for New Census (28:25) Rumor Has It: Did the Library of Congress Delete Sections of the Constitution from its Website? (31:45) Critical Thinking Segment (34:08) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, August 7th. Let's talk about some news. Starting with an update from Monday's episode. So in Monday's episode, we talked about the redistricting fight in Texas. And since then, it's sort of escalated to a national level with states like New York, Illinois, California, Florida, all jumping into the rest. So the first part of this discussion will basically be a recap from last episode and then we'll get

into how these other states are getting involved. As we've talked about last week, Texas Republican lawmakers released their first draft of a new congressional map, which proposed changing district lines in a way that would result in five Democratic seats flipping to Republican seats for next year's midterm elections. And as we talked about on my mind, day, this is a process called gerrymandering. So partisan gerrymandering is legal so long as it doesn't violate federal law, meaning whichever party has the majority in a state's legislature can redraw the district lines in a way that favors their political party, but they can't dilute a minority vote in doing so or draw lines based on race. That would violate federal law. So what we're

seeing in Texas is the boundaries for the congressional districts in Houston, Austin, Dallas, and across southern Texas would be redrawn in a way that would rework those five districts to heavily favor Republicans instead of Democrats. So if the draft passes the legislature, it would give Republicans not only a better chance of maintaining their control following the 26 midterms, but also a bigger majority, right? Because they would flip five seats that are currently held by Democrats. In response to this effort from Republican lawmakers, Democratic lawmakers left the state. And the reason they left the state is because there has to be at least two thirds of the 150 member legislative body present to conduct business in the legislature. So if more than 50 lawmakers

are out of town, the legislature can't conduct business and therefore can't pass its proposed map. After Monday's episode, in fact, I think this happened within hours, maybe even an hour of Monday's episode going out, Texas Governor Abbott went ahead and issued civil warrants for the lawmakers' arrests. The House voted to do so, and then the governor subsequently issued those warrants. A couple of things to note in regard to the warrants, though. Number one, these Democratic lawmakers won't face civil or criminal charges as a result

of these arrest warrants. It's just to physically compel their return to, you know, the legislature. And two, the warrants only apply within state lines. So Texas can't use out-of-state law enforcement to bring the lawmakers back. Now, most of the lawmakers are in other states like New York and Illinois. So there's really no way to enforce these arrest warrants in those other states. ultimately because most of these legislators are out of state, the move really is a symbolic one more than anything because the civil warrants don't have any effect. Unless, of course, the lawmakers do come back to Texas for one reason or another, then the warrants could actually be enforced. I know today the FBI granted a request from the Texas legislature to help

locate, specifically locate, the lawmakers in other states, but there's been no further details released on that front. So I'm really not sure if the FBI will just be doing exactly that and just, you know, locating the lawmakers and figuring out where their whereabouts are or if the FBI's power will extend further. So stay tuned on that. Now let's talk about the national fight. New York, California, Illinois, Florida, Missouri, and Ohio have all threatened to partake in their own redistricting to counteract, or in some cases, assist Texas's plans. Obviously, California, Illinois, and New York are blue states, Florida, Missouri, and Ohio are red states. So New York, California, and Illinois would be redistricting to counteract Texas's move, but Florida,

Missouri, and Ohio would be redistricting to assist Texas in adding more Republican seats. California's governor told Democratic lawmakers in the state to start redrawing California's congressional districts. He said his plans are to, quote, fight fire with fire. New York's governor also discussed the possibility of new maps in her state and said they're ready to do it if necessary. So how far can this go and how viable are these threats across the states? The answer is that it depends on the state. Each state has different laws and restrictions that would dictate the feasibility of changing these districts ahead of the midterm elections. For example, restrictions in New York would make it very difficult for them to redraw their districts before the midterms.

Texas has free reign to do so. They don't have any state restrictions that would prevent them from doing so. They've already done this in 2003. California has said that they could redraw their maps before the midterms, but only if voters approve of it in a ballot initiative that would have to be on the ballot this November. And Florida could technically redraw their districts as well, but Florida has to be. has a constitutional amendment that actually prevents partisan gerrymandering. So it varies state by state. And, you know, could all 50 states threaten to jump into the ring? Sure. But there are states that have

rules in place that prevent them from doing so. Time will tell what happens here. That's the latest update. Before we jump off to the next story, a few of you wanted to know how courts determine whether congressional maps violate voting rights of a minority party and are therefore illegal. So whenever a state's maps get challenged for potentially being unlawful, the court will look at a couple of things. Does the map violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment or the Voting Rights Act of 1965? And depending on which constitutional, you know, whether it violates the Equal Protection Clause or the Voting Rights Act, the analysis is a little bit different. So under the Equal Protection Clause, the key question the court has to answer is, was race the predominant factor in drawing the district lines?

Meaning, did race override traditional redistricting criteria like geography, communities of interest, et cetera? If yes, race was the predominant factor, the court would apply strict scrutiny to determine whether the map can stand. In other words, the state has to prove that the use of race was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. If the state can show that, the maps are fine. If the state can't show that, the map must be struck down because it violates the Constitution. Under the Voting Rights Act, maps can't deny or dilute the voting power of a racial or language minority group. So to succeed with this type of challenge, the plaintiff has to show that, one, the minority group is large and geographically compact enough to form a majority in a district. Two, the group is politically cohesive, meaning it votes in a similar way.

And three, the majority votes as a block in a way that usually defeats the minority's preferred candidate. If the plaintiff can show all three of those things, the court will be able to be a block. then look at the totality of the circumstances. So things like historical discrimination, racial appeals and campaigns, whether elected officials are responsive to the minority group's needs. These things will be taken together and the court would determine whether a map can stand or must be struck down. So that's a little bit about how a court decides whether congressional maps violate the Constitution or federal law, which without really, really getting into the weeds of court analysis and all of that. Moving on, Attorney General Pam Bondi has formally

ordered the Department of Justice to open a grand jury investigation into allegations that the Obama administration, or I should say Obama administration officials manipulated intelligence related to Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. So as we talked about in my July 25th and July 31st episodes, the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, had sent a criminal referral to the DOJ, claiming that Obama-era officials took part in a treacherous conspiracy to falsely link President Trump to Russian collusion. And this criminal referral followed the declassification of certain materials like Gabbard says supports her claim. Some of those materials include evidence of a meeting in which Obama allegedly instructed

his top intelligence officials to compile a report in December 2016 after Trump had won outlining Russia's interference tactics and intentions. Gabbard claims that that process, starting with Obama's meeting, laid the groundwork for what became years of politically motivated investigations against Trump during his first presidency. Elaborating a little bit further on that, Gabbard argues that the intelligence community, meaning the CIA, FBI, NSA, et cetera, under the direction of Obama and his top officials pushed a deliberate narrative that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump win. Gabbard does not dispute that Russia interfered in the election,

but she says the goal of Russia's interference was to spread distrust in American democracy, not to help Trump, like Obama officials said. And Gabbard says the creation of this false narrative. that Russia was intending to help Trump constitutes criminal conduct by these Obama-era officials because they knew the information they were putting out was false. Gabbard also alleges that the U.S. intelligence community suppressed findings that went against the narrative that Obama officials were wanting to put out. So following the declassification of materials a couple of weeks ago,

Gabbard submits this criminal referral to the DOJ, and a criminal referral is a recommendation to a prosecuting authority, in this case the DOJ, to investigate or prosecute individuals for potential criminal activity. Following that criminal referral, Bondi, Attorney General Bondi, first created a special DOJ strike force, which was meant to review the documents submitted by Gabbard and then determine next steps. Then Bondi personally directed an unnamed federal prosecutor to start presenting evidence to a federal grand jury. Directing a prosecutor to present evidence to a grand jury is a formal move towards a criminal investigation. And what it does is it allows the use of grand jury powers. Okay. So investigating potential crimes, issuing subpoenas,

evaluating whether charges should be filed, potentially even filing an indictment if the evidence supports it. These are all grand jury powers that kick in once, you know, a prosecutor is directed to start the grand jury investigation. Notably, though, no individuals have formally been named as specific targets of the investigation. No specific charges have been disclosed. And the Justice Department has not set a timetable for when the grand jury will convene. So this is still very much in the early stages, at least as far as, you know, the public is aware. With that, said, we do know a few of the people who this investigation appears to be focused on. These are Obama-era intelligence officials such as James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper,

who all played roles in the development of that 2017 intelligence assessment that ultimately concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 election to hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign and help Trump's. And the reason we know that these people are some of the people being looked into is because Trump officials have specifically named those individuals in talking about these allegations. Now, many of you have asked me what the truth is here. I don't know. I can tell you that Trump officials say the evidence is damning. Critics, including former national security officials and legal analysts, have described the move as a political stunt. As we've talked about in past episodes. There were bipartisan reviews and investigations after the 2016 election that found,

yes, Russia did interfere in the election. That's not disputed. But those bipartisan reports found there was no evidence that Obama officials took part in a criminal conspiracy or that Trump and Russia were working together. I would say a good indication of the truth here will be what comes of this grand jury investigation, meaning if a grand jury actually convenes, if evidence is actually presented to a grand jury, perhaps there is some evidence to support the administration's claims. But if we don't see anything develop, if a grand jury never meets and so far one hasn't, it's likely that there's not enough evidence to support the administration's claims, right? And that's why they're not convening a grand jury. And even if a grand jury does meet,

if no indictment is returned, that's another indication that there's not enough evidence to support the administration's claims. On the contrary, if indictments are returned, then it's safe to say there is evidence to support the administration's claims. So a good indication of the truth will be whatever comes of this grand jury investigation. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about some developments on the IVF front and the funding cuts for MRNA vaccine development. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement

any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at at IKEA.ca. Welcome back. There's been a lot of talk in the last, I would say the last few days about Trump backing down on his promise to make IVF free. So I want to give you some context and tell you what we know where this is coming from. What we know is that this story originated from the Washington Post. Okay. So the post reportedly spoke with two people with knowledge of an internal White House discussion. And the post subsequently reported that the White House does not plan to require health insurers to provide coverage for IVF services. and this is something that Trump talked about doing on the campaign trail.

The two individuals that spoke to the Post also reportedly said that White House officials are backing away from proposals discussed internally to mandate IVF coverage for people on Obamacare. The Washington Post also reported that a senior administration official said, quote, while expanding IVF access remains a huge priority for Trump, the president can't legally make IVF an essential health benefit without Congress first approving legislation to do so. And quote, and just to give a little more clarity there, to require health insurers to cover the cost of something, it has to be classified as an essential health benefit.

It's up to Congress to dole out that classification, not the president. And insurance companies generally can't be told to cover things that are not essential health benefits. So what this senior official is saying is that Trump can't require health insurers to cover IVF without Congress first making the move to classify IVF as an essential health benefit. As we know, on the campaign trail, Trump promised to make IVF free. He said that if he returned to office, the government would find a way for IVF to be covered for all women and couples wanting the treatment, whether that was the government paying for

it or mandating that insurance companies pay for it. He also at one point called himself the father of IVF. So the reason this Washington Post article is being picked up is because it seems to shows that the administration does not actually have plans to act on that promise. We know back in February, President Trump said an executive order titled Expanding Access to In Vitro Fertilization, which gave the assistant to the president for domestic policy 90 days to submit a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment. That 90-day deadline expired in May, which presumably

means the president received that list of policy recommendations months ago, but we have not seen the White House say much on the issue since. That's not to say they're not working on it behind the scenes. That's not to say they'll eventually come out and say something about IVF. That's just to say nothing's been talked about despite that report being due in May. Okay. We're to move on now to the MRNA cuts. So this week, the HHS announced that it's winding down MRI vaccine development activities under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, also known as BARDA. BARTA, just for some context, is a government agency that helps the U.S. prepare for public health emergencies by funding and accelerating the development of medical

technologies like vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics. It focuses, Barta focuses, on threats like pandemics, bioterrorism, and outbreaks of dangerous, infectious diseases. So it often works with private companies to fast track tools and vaccines for combating things like COVID, Ebola, anthrax, chemical exposure, etc. And it was Barta that played a key role in Operation Warp Speed, right? That was the push to get vaccines out quickly during the pandemic. So that's a little bit about BARDA. All cuts are to projects being funded by BARDA.

In total, the HHS is terminating 22 MRNA vaccine development investments totaling just under $500 million. The department said that it will allow the completion of some of the final stage contracts to quote, preserve prior taxpayer investment, but that no new MRNA-based project. will be initiated. So what I want to do is go over the baseline talking points for the story, like why it's happening, what the impacts will be. And then I'll answer some of the more specific questions that some of you submitted yesterday on Instagram. First, why is the HHS doing this?

According to HHS Secretary Kennedy, it's because MRNA technology poses more risks than benefits, specifically for respiratory viruses like the flu and COVID. Kennedy, explained, quote, most of these shots are for flu or COVID, but as the pandemic showed us, MRNA vaccines don't perform well against viruses that affect the upper respiratory tract. Here's the problem. MRNA only codes for a small part of the viral proteins, usually a single antigen. One mutation, and the vaccine becomes ineffective. This dynamic drives a phenomenon called antigenic shift, meaning the vaccine paradoxically

encourages new mutations and can actually prolong pandemics as the virus constantly. constantly mutates to escape the protective effects of the vaccine." And quote, Kennedy used the example of those that caught the Omicron variant of COVID after already being vaccinated and said that's an example of a single mutation that can make the vaccine ineffective. Now, is what Kennedy said true partially? There are studies that support what he's saying and show that MRNA vaccines are not effective, but there's also many others that show that they're extremely effective.

ultimately a lot of the controversy stems from what people consider to be effective. So as an example, many of us know someone who got COVID even after being vaccinated. Maybe it even happened to you. Those people, despite being vaccinated, could still spread the virus to others. So that's an argument for it being ineffective. But many studies also show that these people were getting less sick than they would have been if they didn't get the vaccine and were less contagious because of the vaccine. So that's an argument for effectiveness. Then you have the mutations. As COVID mutated, the vaccine becomes less effective. That's why booster shots were created. So that's another argument for ineffectiveness. So really the controversy stems from what is effectiveness, right? What does it

mean to be effective? Notably, critics of Kennedy argue that the claim that MRI vaccines are ineffective at preventing upper respiratory infections reflects a narrow interpretation of the data that does not represent their ability to reduce severe illness, hospitalizations, and death. Experts further argue that MRNA vaccines are the only vaccine technology that can be developed quickly enough to respond swiftly to a new pathogenic threat, and the fact that they can slow the spread, reduce illness, and prevent hospitalizations is incredibly effective for those purposes. So what can we expect as far as impacts? Well, this is a massive cut in federal funding for mRNA vaccine development specifically. So

pharmaceutical companies and private companies will no longer have access to these federal funds to support these research efforts. Could pharmaceutical companies and private companies still fund research on their own dime? Sure, but they'll no longer have access to government funds. Now, this could trigger a lot less MRNA research, potentially even cause pharmaceutical companies and private companies to stop researching mRNA vaccine development altogether. To be clear, though, these cuts only impact mRNA vaccine development, not other uses of

MRI technology, and we'll touch on this more in a couple of minutes. For the second part of this discussion, I want to answer some of your more specific questions. First, what is an mRNA vaccine? So, MRI stands for messenger RNA. Think of it like an instruction sheet that your body uses to build proteins. Okay. So the vaccine gives your body this MRI, which has the instructions to make one small

piece of the virus, usually the spike protein, which is the part the virus uses to enter your cells. Your cells then read the instructions and make that spike protein. Your immune system sees the spike protein and says, wait, wait, this is a foreign object. and so it then builds antibodies and trains other cells to fight anything that looks like it in the future. If you're exposed to the real virus later, your immune system remembers that spike protein and it can then quickly attack the virus before it spreads or makes you more sick.

MRNA vaccines have received a lot of attention since the pandemic because, one, they were created in such a short amount of time, and two, COVID was really the first time they were used mainstream. What do I mean by that? Well, MRI vaccines were first approved for human use in 2013, but at that point, they were only used to treat prostate cancer. It wasn't until the pandemic that this kind of vaccine became widely available to everyone. And again, it's because they can be developed so quickly compared to other types of vaccines. That was the whole operation warp speed. At the same time, though, it was like this double-edged sword because they were developed so quickly. That's also why they received so much criticism.

from some. So the reality is MRNA vaccines being used on a widespread basis is relatively new. The studies are new. The research is new. We don't have decades of history to really look at the data. So that is a little bit about MRNA vaccines. How do MRNA vaccines differ from other vaccines? The main difference between MRNA vaccines and other vaccines is in how they trigger an immune response. So as we just talked about, MRNA vaccines contain that messenger RNA, which is a molecule necessary for protein production that provides those instructions for cells to produce the viral protein. That protein then triggers the immune response, which then teaches the body to recognize and defend against the specific

disease. Traditional vaccines, on the other hand, which include live vaccines, inactivated vaccines, and conjugate vaccines, use part of a bacteria or virus. virus, the actual bacteria or virus, to stimulate the immune response. So live vaccines, as an example, use a weakened form of a particular virus to trigger an immune system response and build antibodies against that virus. Some other differences, MRI vaccines are typically faster to develop than traditional vaccines, as we've talked about. MRNA vaccines also have a shorter shelf life than traditional vaccines. MRNA vaccines can also record. multiple booster shots to maintain immunity because of their temporary nature, whereas

traditional vaccines offer more long-term immunity, with some even offering lifelong immunity. Next question. Do the funding cuts apply to all mRNA vaccine research or just research related to specific flu and airborne diseases? The cuts do not apply to all MRI research. These cuts only impact certain mRNA vaccine developments under BARDA. Remember, BARDA is that division within the HHS that specifically works on health technology to protect the nation from emergencies like pandemics and biological attacks. The HHS as a whole funds many other uses of mRNA technology that will not be impacted by these cuts. That takes us to our next question, which is how will the cuts affect research for things like cancer? These cuts will not affect

research on cancer. Again, these cuts only affect the 22 projects under Barta. The concern from cancer vaccine experts, the reason we're hearing about this is because cancer vaccine experts are worried that if the Trump administration takes a more aggressive stance against MRI technology more broadly, then other applications like cancer therapy could be affected as well. But right now, the cuts that we're talking about today do not impact MRI research. for cancer. Only projects under Barta. And finally, do we know where the $500 million will go now that it's been cut from MRNA research? It is unclear what specific projects the $500 million will be allocated to now that it's been cut from MRNA vaccine research. However, the HHS did

say the funding would be redirected to vaccine platforms with stronger safety records and broader applications. In its press release, the HHS wrote, quote, going forward, Barta will focus on platforms with stronger safety records and transparent clinical and manufacturing data practices. Technologies that were funded during the emergency phase, but failed to meet current scientific standards will be phased out in favor of evidence-based, ethically sound solutions like whole virus vaccines and novel platforms. End quote. But as far as specific allocations, that we do not know. Let's take our second and final quick break here.

When we come back, we'll do quick hitters, rumor has it, and we'll finish with critical thinking. Welcome back. It's time for some quick hitters, starting with this shooting yesterday at a military base in Georgia. So yesterday, five soldiers were shot at the Fort Stewart military base in Georgia in an area that houses the second armored brigade combat team. The shooter has since been identified as 28-year-old Sergeant Cornelius Radford from Jacksonville, Florida. He's an active duty soldier who joined the army in 2018, and he currently serves as an automated logistical specialist. The shooting took place just before 11 a.m. on Wednesday, and according to officials, soldiers in the area identified the shooting immediately and without hesitation tackled the suspect. Five soldiers were injured, three needed surgery, but all are expected to recover.

Officials say Radford had allegedly gotten into a disagreement with one of the victims the day before, and on Wednesday morning when he arrived at the military base, He followed one of the victims to a maintenance area and shot that person in the chest with his personal 9mm handgun. Once Radford was subdued and arrested, he was taken into custody and interviewed by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division, and he is currently in pretrial confinement while he awaits a charging decision. On Tuesday, the DHS announced a partnership with the state of Indiana to construct another ICE detention facility.

The new detention facility, also called the Speedway Slammer, will be located at the Miami Correctional Facility, not to be confused with Miami, Florida. This is a correctional facility in Indiana. The facility, which can currently house around 3,000 people, is located about 70 miles from Indianapolis on a former Air Force base. DHS Secretary Christine Oams said the new partnership will expand detention bed space by 1,000 beds. Apple announced another $100 billion commitment to America yesterday, totaling a U.S. investment of $600 billion. Over the next, next four years. Apple CEO Tim Cook said in a statement, quote, today we're proud to increase our investments across the U.S. to $600 billion over four years and launch our new American

manufacturing program. This includes new and expanded work with 10 companies across America. They produce components that are used in Apple products sold all over the world and were grateful to the president for his support, end quote. And speaking of the president, President Trump said in a social media post that he directed the Commerce Department to, quote, immediately begin working on a new and highly accurate census based on modern day facts and figures, end quote. He added that those in the country illegally will not be included in the census. Now, it's unclear whether Trump is referring to a modification of the official 2030 census or some new type of census that would take place earlier. Notably, in Trump's first term, he did

attempt to change the official U.S. census to exclude non-citizens, but in 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Department's attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census violated federal law. For more quick hitters, don't forget to subscribe to my newsletter, which goes out tomorrow. It goes out every Tuesday and Friday. The sign-up link can always be found in the show notes for each episode. All I need is your email address. And every Tuesday and Friday, you'll be hit with quick hitters in politics, pop culture, business, international, and health news. So a lot of genres covered. Now it's time for rumor has it, my weekly segment where I confirm to spell and or add context to recent rumors submitted by all of you.

This week's rumor has it is sections of the Constitution were deleted from the government's official web page. This is true. Portions of Article 1, Section 8, as well as the entirety of Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 were removed from the text of the Constitution on the Library of Congress's Constitution website. As of yesterday, as of today, they are back up. So the missing portion started about two-thirds of the way through Article 1, Section 8. Article 1, Section 8 lists all of Congress's core constitutional powers. So starting at to provide and maintain a Navy, everything just kind of disappeared. Section 9, which deals with things like the writ of habeas corpus, Bill of Attainter, Taxes, Titles of Nobility, that was also gone.

Section 10 of Article 1, which includes provisions such as states not being allowed to enter into treaties, states not being allowed to impose taxes on imports and exports without the consent of Congress, and states not being allowed to engage in war unless invaded was also gone. Remember, Article 1 of the Constitution is all about Congress, right? Article 2 is all about the executive, and then Article 3 is all about the judiciary. So the three branches of government are split up into the first three articles of the Constitution. So it was those two and a half sections of Article 1 specifically that were missing. In a post on X yesterday at 11 a.m., the Library of Congress wrote, quote, it has been brought to our attention that some sections of Article 1 are missing from the Constitution-annotated website. We've learned that this is due to a coding error. We have been working to correct this and expect it to be resolved soon.

Then around 3 p.m., the Library of Congress wrote, quote, update. Missing sections of the Constitution annotated website have been restored. upkeep of Constitution annotated and other digital resources is a critical part of the library's mission and we appreciate the feedback that alerted us to the error and allowed us to fix it. When I checked the site myself around 1 a.m. today, everything was back up and running as normal. As a final note, the full text of the Constitution is also available on the National Archives website and there have been no issues there. Finally, let's finish with some critical thinking. This segment not meant to be too complex. It is not meant to stump you. It's just meant to be an exercise

for your brain in a world where we are constantly told how and what to think. My whole goal here is just to get you challenging your own opinions and asking yourself why you feel the way that you do about a particular issue. So let's go back to the MRI funding cuts. First, I'll pose a general question and then I will challenge both the supporters and the opponents of these cuts. So starting with a general question, what should effectiveness mean when we talk about vaccines? Should it mean preventing infection? Should it mean reducing severity? Lowering transmission, maybe all of the above, or maybe something else. But what should effectiveness mean and why? Now, for those that support the cuts, here are my questions for you. Number one, if MRNA is currently the fastest vaccine platform we have,

What are the potential risks of scaling back mRNA technology in future pandemic responses? And two, are the concerns about MRI's reduced effectiveness against upper respiratory infections, specifically strong enough to justify cutting all Barta federal investment? Or is there a better approach? Whatever your answer is, ask yourself why.

for those that oppose the cuts here are my questions for you number one if r m rna vaccines are less effective at stopping infection especially for upper respiratory viruses should we continue to fund them at the same level or instead invest that money into other technologies and vaccines that might prove to be more effective and two is it fair to expect taxpayers to continue to funding mRNA vaccine development indefinitely, even if pharmaceutical companies are some of the richest companies out there and have the resources to self-fund research. And again, remember to ask yourself why your answers are what they are. That is what I have for you today. Have a great weekend. Thank you so much for being here. As always, don't forget to subscribe to the

newsletter. And I will talk to you again on Monday. Thank you.