UNBIASED - January 15, 2026: ICE Agents Have Absolute Immunity. True or False? PLUS State Dept. Suspends Visa Issuances, Clintons Refuse to Testify in Epstein Probe, Trump Announces New Health Plan, and More.

Episode Date: January 15, 2026

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠SUBSTACK⁠. 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: Judges React to Arguments in Transgender Athlete Cases; What Their Reactions Tell Us About a Potential Ruling (0:38) State Dept. Suspends Visa Issuances for Nationals from 75 Countries (11:19) Minneapolis Updates: Do ICE Agents Have Absolute Immunity? Who Has Jurisdiction Over the Investigation? FBI or State Law Enforcement? What Role Did Renee Good Play in ICE Monitoring Efforts? DHS Claims Agent Suffered Internal Bleeding (~17:24) Clintons Refuse to Testify in Congressional Epstein Probe (~29:16) Trump Unveils New Health Plan, Calls on Congress to Act (~37:00) Quick Hitters: Trump Signs Bill Allowing Whole Milk in Schools, Secret Service Agent Put on Leave After Revealing Sensitive Info to Undercover Journalist, ACLU Sues ICE and CBP, Mortgage Rates Hit Low, Trump Threatens to Invoke Insurrection Act (~44:04) Rumor Has It: Did Trump Refer to Himself as Acting President of Venezuela? Did Vance Say ICE Would Go Door-to-Door? Did the FBI Search the Home of a Washington Post Reporter? (~48:21) Critical Thinking Segment (~51:32) 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

When the weather cools down, Golden Nugget Online Casino turns up the heat. This winner, make any moment golden and play thousands of games like her new slot, Wolf It Up, and all the fan-favorite huff and puff-and-puff games. Whether you're curled up on the couch or taking five between snow shovels, play winner's hottest collection of slots, from brand-new games to the classics you know and love. You can also pull up your favorite table games like Blackjack, roulette, and craps, Or go for even more excitement with our library of live dealer games. Download the Golden Nugget Online Casino app,

and you've got everything you need to layer on the fun this winter. In partnership with Golden Nugget Online Casino. Gambling problem call ConX Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600. 19 and over. Physically present in Ontario. Eligibility restrictions apply. See Golden Nugget Casino.com for details. Please play responsibly.

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, January 15th. Let's talk about some news. First, as a quick heads up, there will be no episode on Monday because of the holiday. However, you can always subscribe to my substack to stay informed. I have been posting some more articles there, which will soon be behind a paywall, but for now it's free. And so the link to subscribe to the substack is in the episode description of this episode.

It's in the episode description of every episode. So very easy to find. All right. Let's start with today's news. On Monday, we talked about the two transgender athlete cases that were heard at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. And I essentially prepped you ahead of oral arguments and told you what those cases were about and what arguments we could expect to hear from both sides.

So if you want the full rundown of each of those cases, just be sure. to tune in to Monday's episode. Today, what I want to do is fill you in on the justices, questions, concerns, and reactions during those Tuesday arguments. That way we can talk about some potential rulings come the summertime when those decisions, you know, are ultimately released. So just as a quick refresher, both of these cases are about whether state laws that limit participation in women's and girls sports to biological women and girls, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and or Title IX of the Education Amendments. So one of the two cases focuses primarily on the Equal Protection Clause.

The other focuses primarily on Title IX, which is a federal law. The general consensus following oral arguments in both cases is that the states are likely to prevail, meaning the laws are likely to be upheld. but it's not clear at this point how broadly or how narrowly the court will rule. And what I mean by that is this. The justices do not have to issue this broad sweeping ruling if they rule in favor of the states, right? They can issue a narrow ruling. So they don't have to say like every law that draws distinctions based on transgender status

is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and is lawful under Title IX. Instead, they could say something like, hey, when it comes to sports specifically, these kinds of laws do not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX. And that's the part that's unclear. How broad, how narrow, you know, how exactly are the justices going to rule? So when it came to the Title IX arguments, specifically several justices brought up the Javits Amendment to Title IX, which specifically allows for sex classifications. in sports based on biological sex. Remember that Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex when it comes to

any educational program that receives federal funding. And that includes sports. But interestingly, the text of Title IX didn't actually ever mention athletics. It wasn't until the Javits Amendment was enacted two years after Title IX was enacted, that athletics, you know, was really discussed. And what the Javits Amendment said is basically, it basically clarified that while Title IX bans sex discrimination, the amendment also recognized the practicalities of sports. And it allowed for separate sports teams based on sex so long as both sexes had equal opportunities in athletics programs. So the regulations provided that if a school had a school had equal opportunities in athletics programs.

a team for one sex and not the other, members of the excluded sex have to be allowed to try out for the team that is offered unless the exception is if the sport is a contact sport. So it makes for an interesting question because with the inclusion of the Javits Amendment, Title IX's text and regulations consider the separation of the sexes in certain circumstances, but also simultaneously prohibit sex discrimination. The law does not address how Title IX applies to transgender athletes specifically, and that is what the justices are weighing. So as I said, several justices brought up the Javits Amendment and how it should be interpreted in this case. The court's three liberal justices seemed to acknowledge that the challengers in both of these cases face a difficult path. So their

questions really focused on narrowing the potential impact of a court's ruling, either by dismissing one case or by limiting the scope of any decision. Because remember, the liberal justices and perhaps some of the conservative justices, but mostly the liberal justices, they want to avoid a broad sweeping ruling that could have impacts far beyond sports, right? And speaking of sports, specifically, there was broad agreement among the justices that at least in the two cases before the court, there is no clear scientific consensus on the extent to which transgender girls and women might have a competitive advantage over biological girls and women. Some conservative justices suggested that the court should just avoid imposing a nationwide rule until we know more

about the science. And that's why it's looking like, yes, although the states may prevail in these cases, we should probably expect a more narrow ruling. Now, again, based on the justice's questions alone, it's not totally clear how this is going to go, but there are a few options that we can talk about. And we'll take these one at a time. So option one is that the court avoids deciding the issue, at least when it comes to the equal protection clause, because as we talked about on Monday, in Little versus Hecox, there is a question of mootness. Lindsay Hecox has said she no longer wants to compete in women's sports in Idaho, which raises the issue of whether she even still has a personal stake in the outcome of this case. If the majority of the justices decide the

case is moot, they could just go ahead and dismiss it without ruling on whether Idaho's law is constitutional. That would mean no decision on the equal protection issue. However, Even if that were to happen, the court would still have to decide the Title IX issue in West Virginia versus BPJ. Option two is that the courts rule very narrowly. So this would mean deciding only the specific legal questions in these cases without setting a broad national rule or diving into similar bans in other states. So in Little v. Hecox, the court might say Idaho's law specifically survives constitutional review. And leave it at that and not not decide any other, you know, similar state law and the constitutionality of those laws. In West Virginia, the court could say something like Title IX allows for sex separated sports teams or Title IX doesn't clearly require the inclusion of transgender athletes.

That would allow states to maintain flexibility in enacting laws like this. But it would also mean that there would be ongoing litigation across the multiple states. states that do have similar bans. A third option is that they let the state laws stand and mostly stay out of it by saying that these kinds of decisions are up to the states and that it's not really for the courts to get involved in. Now, this doesn't mean that the Supreme Court doesn't say anything at all, right? It means that the Supreme Court would draw a legal boundary and then kind of step back. So in little, the court might say that laws separating sports teams based on biological sex should be reviewed under a more deferential standard, meaning courts should generally defer to

state legislatures on athletic policy. And in West Virginia, the court might say that Title IX doesn't require schools to allow transgender girls to compete on girls' sports teams. Again, a ruling like that would leave the decision to the states. Each state could do whatever they Some states can impose bans. Other states could not. It would be up to the states. Now, option four is that the court sets a clear national rule, not just about sports, but about how laws affecting transgender people are reviewed under the Constitution. And this is the outcome that a lot of people are watching for. So in Little, the court could use this case to answer a much bigger question. When a law treats transgender people differently, how closely should courts review it?

And the court could hold that transgender status is entitled to heightened review, meaning states need strong evidence to justify, you know, these kinds of rules, or the court could go the other way and say transgender status only receives minimal review, meaning courts generally defer to lawmakers unless a law is clearly irrational. A decision like that would have impacts far beyond sports. It would basically shape how courts evaluate laws affecting transgender people in all kinds of contexts going forward. Then in West Virginia, the court could pair that ruling in little with a clear answer

on Title IX as well, either saying that excluding transgender girls from girls' teams violates federal civil rights law or that it does not. Now, this, of course, would give the country a clear rule, but it would also be the court's most far-reaching option, which is why a lot of legal experts, including myself, think that it is a much less likely avenue for the court to take than options one, two, or three. And then finally, the fifth option is that the courts just kind of split the difference, and we get mixed ruling. So maybe little is dismissed and West Virginia is resolved narrowly under Title IX.

Or maybe Idaho's law is upheld and West Virginia is resolved narrowly. And that's pretty much the extent of it. This feels like something the court would do because it allows them to avoid a broad ruling while also, you know, still clarifying certain aspects of Title IX and leaving a lot of the policymaking to the states. So there are certainly a handful of ways the court could go with these cases. expect to get the court's decision closer to the summer. The court typically saves its more controversial decisions for last. So we're talking like late June, early July. That's not to say that,

you know, it won't be, these decisions won't be released sooner. It's just to say, most likely they'll wait until the end of the term. And of course, once the court does release its decisions, I will be here to fill you in. In some other news, the State Department announced that effect of January 21st, all visa issuances, to visa applicants from 75 different countries will be paused. Those countries include but are not limited to, Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Egypt, Fiji, Morocco, St. Lucia, Somalia, and Yemen. The department's press release reads, quote, President Trump has made clear that immigrants must be financially self-sufficient and not be a financial

burden to Americans. The Department of State is undergoing a full review of all policies, regulations, and guidance to ensure that immigrants from these high-risk countries do not utilize welfare in the United States or become a public charge. And quote, on X, the department wrote, quote, the State Department will pause immigrant visa processing from 75 countries whose migrants take welfare from the American people at unacceptable rates. The freeze will remain active until the U.S. can ensure that new migrants will not extract wealth from the American people. The pause impacts dozens of countries whose immigrants often become public charges on the United States upon arrival. We are working to ensure the generosity of the American people will no longer

be abused. The Trump administration will always put America first. And quote. So here are a couple of things to note. Number one, visa applicants who are nationals of the affections. countries, those 75 countries, can still submit visa applications and attend interviews, and the department will actually continue to schedule applicants for appointments. But while this pause is in place, no immigrant visas will be issued. Number two, those that are exempt from the pause include dual nationals applying with a valid passport of a country that is not one of the 75 countries listed. than the notice. So as an example, if you are a national of Fiji, but you also have citizenship

in Australia and you apply with a valid Australian passport, you are exempt despite Fiji being on the list of 75 countries. Three, the pause does not apply to current valid visas. If you are a national of one of these 75 countries and you have a current valid visa, it will remain valid. Valid visas are not currently being revoked. And then four, and finally, the pause applies specifically to immigrant visa applicants. It doesn't apply to tourist visas or student visas. Tourists and student visas are non-immigrant visas. They are temporary visas. So again, just to be clear, this suspension specifically applies to U.S. immigrant visas for foreigners that are wanting to live in the United States. Okay, let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about some

updates to the ice shooting in Minneapolis. And we will also talk about the Clintons, refusing to testify in the Epstein probe and more. Welcome back. Now for some more updates to the ice shooting in Minneapolis. Just as a quick heads up, for those of you that might not be caught up on all of my recent episodes, last Thursday, so one week ago, I initially covered this story and told you everything that was known at the time about the shooting. Then on Monday, I gave you some updates and I talked through the rights of U.S. citizens when it comes to ice encounters. Today, I'm going to give you a few more updates and just talk about some things that have developed since Monday's episode. So if you're not fully caught up on this story, I would recommend

starting with last Thursday's episode and then working your way up to today's episode. Today we'll talk about absolute immunity versus qualified immunity. And what we've learned about Renee Goods connection to ICE and what the DHS has said about the agent that it claims suffered internal bleeding. So following the shooting, Vice President Vance held a press conference where he said a few things, but one of those things was, quote, the precedent here is very simple. You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action. That is a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job. And quote. That quote has triggered a lot of questions for good reason. A lot of you have

written into me asking what absolute immunity is and whether this agent is actually entitled to it. So first, absolute immunity gives certain federal officials complete protection from civil lawsuits for damages that arise when they are acting within the scope of their official duties. if an official has absolute immunity for a specific function, you cannot sue them for money damages over that conduct. Now, the thing about absolute immunity is that it only applies to specific roles and actions. So the president has absolute immunity for official acts taken while in office. Judges have absolute immunity for actions taken in their role as a judge. Prosecutors have absolute immunity for certain actions that are done.

directly tied to prosecuting a case, like deciding whether to bring charges or presenting a case in court. And then legislators have or lawmakers have absolute immunity for legislative acts, like voting, debating legislation, their work on committees, et cetera. But notice how that list did not include federal law enforcement officers. That's because federal law enforcement officers, such as ICE agents, are not protected by absolute immunity. What they are, protected by is something called qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is another form of immunity, but it does not stretch as far as absolute immunity. So qualified immunity protects most federal officials from civil lawsuits unless they violated a clearly established law or constitutional

right that the officer reasonably would have known. So in other words, in order to circumvent qualified immunity and sue a federal officer like an ICE agent for conduct committed within the scope of their official duties, the plaintiff, the person suing, has to establish that the law was sufficiently clear at the time of the incident and that the officer violated that law. So to be clear, ICE agents are not protected by absolute immunity like Vance said. They are protected by qualified immunity. It's important to understand, though, that these immunities only apply to civil lawsuits for money damages, not to criminal prosecutions. Federal officials can still face criminal charges in theory because immunity in civil court doesn't automatically shield them from

criminal law. However, in order for someone to face criminal charges, a prosecuting body with proper jurisdiction has to bring criminal charges. For federal crimes, the prosecuting body that would have the jurisdiction to bring criminal charges against this ICE agent would be the DOJ. And so far, the DOJ has said that it sees no basis to open its own criminal civil rights investigation into goods killing. Now, that doesn't mean criminal liability is impossible. It just means as of right now, the DOJ is not moving forward on a federal criminal case tied to civil rights. violations specifically. Another federal criminal law could theoretically apply here, but whether or not those charges are filed is up to the DOJ. And many of you might be wondering, well, you know,

couldn't Minnesota bring state criminal charges against the agent? And it could. But if a state charges a federal official, that federal official could try to move the case to federal court by arguing that federal law governs their actions and that they were acting within their official federal duties. And the case would most likely get moved to federal court because in assessing whether a case like this gets moved, the judge asks questions like, you know, was the defendant acting as a federal officer? Was the officer's conduct tied to official federal duties? Is the defendant claiming a plausible federal offense? If the answer to those questions is, you know,

yes, the case goes to federal court. Hypothetically, if, again, this all is based on the hypothetical that Minnesota files state criminal charges. If Minnesota were to file state criminal charges and the ICE agent filed a motion to move the case to federal court, it would likely get moved to federal court. And if it got moved to federal court, the charges would most likely be dropped, given the DOJ's current stance on prosecution. So the answer is yes, Minnesota could bring state charges against the agent, but it likely wouldn't result in prosecution at the end of the day. Now, the other legal controversy is this. Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, or BCA, has said that they have been blocked from investigating the case and that the FBI has taken over

the investigation. This led to a lot of questions about which agency should be conducting the investigation. And per federal law, the FBI has the right to investigate and, and, per federal law, the FBI has the right to investigate any potential federal law violations nationwide. However, the state law enforcement agency also has the right to investigate potential state law violations. Because of this and because typically the more manpower the better when it comes to criminal investigations, we often see the FBI working with state and local law enforcement agencies. In this case, though, the FBI has taken sole leadership over the case. And it does have the lawful authority to do that because here's the thing. So the FBI can't demand the BCA to stop investigating. What the FBI can do is control

access to things like federal property, federal personnel, and federal evidence. So the FBI legally controls federal agents, federal investigative files, federal weapons, federal body cameras, federal vehicles, federal forensic testing, as well as internal federal use of force reviews. So the FBI is under no obligation to share that material with state investigators. And what that means is by controlling all of those things and effectively leaving the BCA without access, the BCA can't realistically conduct its own independent investigation. It could try to investigate. It would just be very difficult because there's no access to the federal agent.

There's no access to the federal weapon. there's no access to the forensic results. There's no access to the internal reports. And that's why the BCA stepped back. It's not that the BCA was ordered to step back. It's because it can't conduct a full investigation without cooperation from the FBI. And this lack of cooperation, by the way,

has so far resulted in the resignation of six DOJ prosecutors. Something else I want you to keep in mind is that the DOJ plays a different role than the FBI. The FBI conducts investigations and gets, others evidence. The DOJ decides whether the evidence is sufficient to bring federal charges and it oversees civil rights enforcement. So even though the FBI is continuing to investigate this case as of now, the DOJ as of now says that it sees no basis to open a civil rights investigation at this time. And that decision falls within the DOJ's prosecutorial discretion. There is no court or private

party that can force the DOJ to bring charges or force the DOJ to open a civil rights prosecution. It is up to the DOJ and only the DOJ. Another update for you. Some new information is shedding light on Renee Goods participation in ICE monitoring efforts. So for the sake of transparency, I have not personally reviewed these documents because they have not yet been released to the public. But per a new CNN report, the documents, including, the documents and question were reportedly distributed at a December school board meeting. Now, Good is a member of this school board. It is the school board of her son's school. The documents that were circulated

reportedly encourage parents to track ICE behavior and direct the parents to outside training. From what we know, again, based on CNN's report, one of those. One of those, documents appears to be a message to parents dated December 16th that starts with, quote, thank you to families who have been on ice watch helping to protect their neighbors, end quote. The message then links to a separate training document with guides on getting whistles to alert neighbors to ice raids, as well as contact information for a school parent offering quote unquote non-cooperation training. Another guide linked to in the training document reportedly stressed nonviolent responses to ice agents

while also encouraging a refusal to comply with demands, requests, and orders. It suggests, quote unquote, creative tactics, noting that, quote, crowds, props, traffic, and noise can make detentions difficult. Sometimes ice vehicles can't move. Whoops. And quote. Now again, I have not personally reviewed these documents. I'm just sharing with you what this new CNN exclusive report found. From what's been reported, there were no descriptions of violent disobedience tactics. However, the DHS has made clear that this school association is at the center of the DHS review into the incident, which is why I feel the need to include it as an update. And then finally, just to quickly address the claim of internal bleeding, the DHS has said that the ice is. agent who shot good suffered internal bleeding in his torso when he was hit by her vehicle. The DHS has not provided proof of this claim. We do know that the agent was treated at the hospital

following the incident. We know that he was released later that day, but that is all the public knows for sure at this point. Okay, moving on to the next story, Bill and Hillary Clinton refused to testify before Congress in the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and the committee chairman is now proceeding with contempt charges against them. So the committee subpoenaed both Clintons in August of last year for scheduled in-person depositions this past Monday and Tuesday. Neither of them showed up to those in-person depositions. In a new letter, though, to committee chairman James Comer, the Clintons are explaining themselves.

So they write in part, quote, Chairman Comer this past year has seen our government engage in unprecedented acts, including against our own citizens. Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles, and its people, no matter the consequences. For us, now is that time. End quote.

The letter then continues, quote, a legal analysis prepared by two law firms and provided to you yesterday makes clear that your subpoenas are inviolate when they are used against us, we're silent when the sitting president took the same position as a former president barely more than three years ago. We have tried to give you the little information we have. We've done so because Mr. Epstein's crimes were horrific. If the government didn't do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes, for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work. There is no plausible explanation for what you are doing other than partisan politics. You accepted the least

from those who know the most, but demand the most from those who know the least. To say you can't complete your work without speaking to us is simply bizarre, end quote. What's interesting, though, is that the Clintons also wrote towards the end of their letter, they said, quote, we are prepared to make our case to your 45 committee members, and if need be, more, end quote. So I'm not entirely sure what they meant by that, considering they didn't show up for their deposition. I don't know if that means they're not willing to testify about Epstein, but they're willing to make their case as to why the subpoenas are invalid, or perhaps maybe it means they are willing to testify at a later date. I don't know. I'm not really sure what to make of that line,

but figured I would mention it. Now, of course, Republican lawmakers argue that in-person testimony is necessary for fully evaluating Bill Clinton's relationship specifically with Epstein. I'm sure we've all seen the pictures of them together. They definitely had some sort of relationship. We just don't know the extent of that relationship. However, both Clintons continue to deny wrongdoing. It's also worth noting there's no public evidence directly tying Hillary to Epstein, just Bill. And it's worth noting no witnesses or Epstein victims have accused Bill Clinton of misconduct. So in response to Clinton's, the Clinton's refusal to comply with the subpoenas. Republicans on the committee did announce that they would move forward with contempt of Congress proceedings against both Bill and Hillary.

Comer says he will begin contempt proceedings next week. So how this works is this. If Congress subpoenas, you have to show up. You have to comply with the investigation. If you don't comply, if you don't show up, the committee that is conducting the investigation, in this case the Oversight Committee, will vote to hold you in contempt of Congress. If the full House chamber then votes to approve it, Congress will refer the matter to the DOJ and the DOJ will decide whether to prosecute. If the DOJ prosecutes and wins, criminal contempt of Congress carries a penalty of a fine up to $100,000. and up to one year in prison. The most recent people we saw prosecuted and convicted were Steve Bannon in 2022 and Peter Navarro in 23. Both were found guilty and sentenced to jail. And that was because they refused to comply with a January 6th committee subpoena. Attorney General Garland was also found

in contempt. That was in 2024. But the DOJ did not prosecute him. So we'll have to see what happens. Basically, the next update here is going to be, you know, what is, what is, what is the committee and what does the House decide to do with this? If the committee votes to to hold them both in contempt, it'll go to the full house. We'll have to see what the full house does. And then it'll go to the DOJ. So there's still a few steps to take here. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll finish the episode with one more story. And then we'll do quick hitters, rumor has it, and critical thinking. Welcome back. Let's talk about what we know about this new health plan announced by President Trump today. First and foremost, it is important to keep in

mind that nothing can really take shape without Congress. So as part of the president's announcement today, he did call on Congress to enact what he is calling the Great Healthcare Plan. According to the White House, the Great Healthcare Plan is a comprehensive plan to lower drug prices, lower insurance premiums, hold big insurance companies accountable, and minimize, sorry, not minimize, maximize price transparency. So essentially each of those four pillars make up this great health care plan framework. And that's what President Trump announced today. So we'll take each of those pillars one at a time. When it comes to lowering drug prices, the administration wants to make it so Americans pay no more for certain prescription drugs than people in other

developed countries pay for the same drugs. Basically, other countries, negotiate prices directly with pharmaceutical companies, which keeps prices lower. The great health care plan would lock in a rule saying that drug companies have to offer the United States their lowest international price for certain medications. And this is what the administration has called most favored nation pricing. I'm sure you've heard that phrase before. But here's the thing. The plan specifically says it calls for codifying most favored nation deals. And to codify means to put into law. So the president is basically saying, hey, Congress, we need you to change the law governing drug pricing and explicitly authorize international reference pricing and decide which

drugs are covered in how these prices are calculated. Because the president can encourage drug companies to lower prices and we have seen him do that. The president can also negotiate voluntary deals through executive orders, but locking in a rule that forces drug companies to match international prices would require Congress to step in and change the law. The second prong of lowering drug prices, so we're still on that first pillar, calls on the FDA, not Congress. So the second prong is making more pharmaceutical drugs available over the counter. Whether a drug is prescription only or over the counter is primarily controlled by the FDA. So the president is essentially calling on the FDA to use its existing authority to approve more over-the-counter drugs

that have been deemed to be safe. Then the second pillar of this plan is lowering insurance premiums. And to do this, the administration wants to stop sending certain federal subsidy payments directly to insurance companies and instead send that money directly to eligible Americans so that Americans can choose their own insurance. The argument there is that insurance companies receive billions, you know, in taxpayer subsidies that don't necessarily lower premiums, but by giving the money directly to the people, consumers would have more control and insurers would have to compete for their business. Also, part of lowering insurance premiums is funding, is a proposal, I should say, to fund a cost-sharing reduction program for health care plans. So in health insurance,

cost sharing is what you pay when you use care, right? Think things like deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance. A cost sharing reduction lowers those out-of-pocket costs for people with certain Obamacare plans. And these are mainly lower income enrollees. So right now, the federal government helps reduce out-of-pocket costs for certain Obamacare enrollees. But the administration is arguing that the way that it's been funded has been a bit messy. And in sure, insurers often raise premiums to compensate, which then drives up costs overall. So the new plan wants to explicitly fund the cost-sharing reduction program again, pay insurers directly for lowering out-of-pocket costs, and prevent insurers from raising premiums to make up the

difference. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this would save taxpayers about $36 billion and lower premiums for the most common Obamacare plans by over 10%. The third pillar of the plan is holding insurance companies more accountable. The plan, quote, ends the days of insurance companies using complexity to make it difficult for Americans to hold them to account by creating the plain English insurance standard and requiring insurance companies to prominently post the profits they take out of the premiums as well as information on the frequency with which they deny care. End quote.

So not only is the goal here to make it easier for people to compare and understand plans, but also to understand how the insurance companies are using their money. And again, this is something that would require an act of Congress. Not only because insurance disclosure requirements are already set by law, but creating a new nationwide standard that dictates how these insurance companies have to explain coverage goes beyond existing regulatory authority. So agencies like, you know, the HHS can clarify the existing disclosures and what the existing disclosures mean, but they can't invent a new legal standard without Congress.

And the same thing with publishing profits and publishing claim denial rates and wait times. Yes, insurance companies already have to report some data to regulators, but current law doesn't require them to publicly post these other things. So Congress would have to step in and require that. And then finally, the fourth pillar is maximizing price transparency in health care. So the plan would require any health care provider or insurer who accepts Medicare or Medicaid to post pricing and fees in their place of business and make sure that insurance companies are complying with price transparency requirements. Now, here's the thing with that. Some price transparency rules already exist and the administration can enforce or strengthen those through, you know,

existing authority. But if the plan is trying to require all providers and insurers that take Medicare and Medicaid, not just hospitals, to post prices in specific ways and lock those rules in permanently, that would also likely require Congress. So again, that's why the president was clear about calling on Congress to act because while he can announce this new framework, you know, in order for the framework to be fully implemented or even halfway implemented, Congress needs to pass some new laws. Just as a quick final note, the framework did not include anything about the extension of subsidies, which I know people are kind of waiting on Congress to act on, but this new framework did not mention that. Now for a few quick hitters, President Trump signed a bill on Wednesday

that overturned Obama era limits on higher fat milk options. So the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act allows schools participating in the National School Lunch Program to now serve whole milk and 2% milk, along with these skim and low fat milks that were required since 2012. The law also allows schools to serve non-dairy milk that meets the nutritional standards of milk and requires schools to offer a non-dairy milk alternative if kids provide a note from their parents saying they have a dietary restriction. Previously, only doctor's notes were allowed, but now notes from parents are sufficient,

per this new law. The Secret Service placed an agent on administrative leave after an undercover reporter recorded him on video discussing sensitive parts of his duties. So the videos show the agent telling a woman who he was on a date with about protective formations, shift schedules, travel plans, and real-time locations. The agent also detailed how the vice president is physically surrounded. The agent described multiple daily shift changes, advanced security procedures, future travel plans, and shared some pictures from Air Force 2 while on board with the vice president.

The ACLU of Minnesota filed a class action lawsuit against the federal government, including ICE and CBP. Challenging with ACLU calls, quote, suspicionless stops, warrantless arrests, and racial profiling. of Minnesotans. The lawsuit argues that thousands of federal agents deployed in Minnesota have been stopping and detaining people without warrants or probable cause, including some U.S. citizens, and targeting Somali and Latino residents without justification. The ACLU says that this conduct violates constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and unequal treatment under the law. Mortgage rates have fallen to the lowest level in more than three years. The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage averaged 6.06% as of today, according to Freddie Mac's weekly report. Last January,

the 30-year rate averaged 7.04%. The HHS announced it was canceling nearly $2 billion in federal grants that support mental health and substance use programs across the country, but then within 24 hours, HHS officials said the grant terminations are being reversed and restored. The grants, which are managed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, reportedly affected about 2,000 programs nationwide. Lawmakers from both parties and provider groups were quick to criticize the termination of grants, which may have played a role in the grants being reinstated. And President Trump said in a true social post today that he would invoke the Insurrection Act

if Minnesota state officials did not stop, quote unquote, insurrectionists from attacking ICE agents. So as a reminder, the Insurrection Act says that the president can deploy U.S. troops during certain circumstances. Number one, if a state legislature or state governor requests the help of the federal government to address insurrection happening in the state. Number two, to address state level insurrections that are impractical to address through state law enforcement. Or number three, to address threats to constitutional rights that occur in the presence of insurrection, violence, civil unrest. And the most relevant portion of the law for this particular situation would be the part that says the president can deploy troops to suppress any insurrection, domestic violence,

unlawful combination, or conspiracy in a state that opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. Typically, okay, the federal government is not allowed to use the military for domestic law enforcement, but the Insurrection Act is the exception. Now, invoking the Insurrection Act is something Trump has said that he would do multiple times since taking office. He has yet to do it. So if he were to invoke the act, he would almost certainly face legal challenges from the state

of Minnesota. Okay, now it's time for rumor has it. This is my weekly segment where I address rumors submitted by all of you. And I do my best to either confirm them, dispel them, or add context. First one, rumor has it that President Trump referred to. himself as the acting president of Venezuela. Let's add some context. Over the weekend, President Trump shared an image on social media that appeared to show a Wikipedia page listing him as the acting president of Venezuela. The key word there is appeared because the image that he shared was fake.

It was a made-up screenshot of a Wikipedia page that looked real, but wasn't real. So just to be clear, Trump's actual Wikipedia page never listed him as the acting president of Venezuela. but yes, he did share the image of the fake Wikipedia page to social media. Rumor has that the Vice President Vance said ICE will start going door to door. This is true. In a January 7th Fox News interview, Jesse Waters asked Vance, quote, are we getting these illegals out fast enough? And Vice President Vance responded, quote, we always want to get them out faster.

A lot of the ICE agents that we have hired in the past six months, they're not even done with training. So all of the big investments that we've made in border security, what we've done, done has actually gotten two and a half million illegal aliens out without any of the really big marquee things that we've been working on. That was just simple willpower and the president of the United States coming in and saying this is done. I think we're going to see those deportation numbers ramp up as we get more and more people online working for ice going door to door and making sure that if you're an illegal alien, you've got to get out of this country and if you want to come back,

apply through the proper channels. End quote. Now it's unclear exactly what Vance meant by that. But remember what we talked about last episode. If an ICE agent were to come to your door and wants to come inside, you do not have to let them in unless they have a judicial warrant or an arrest warrant. If law enforcement, this goes for ICE agents, this goes for police officers, whatever. If they have an arrest warrant, they are legally allowed to enter the home of the person on the warrant if they believe the person is inside. If law enforcement has a judicial warrant, they are allowed to enter your home. But an administrative warrant of removal or deportation, also known as a form I-205, does not allow officers to enter a home without your consent. So just keep that in mind.

Last one. Rumor has it that the FBI searched the home of a Washington Post reporter. This is true. FBI agents searched the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson as part of an investigation into a Maryland government contractor that's been accused of taking home classified. intelligence reports. The search warrant for Natinson's home was linked to the criminal case of Aurelio Perez-Lugones. Perez Lugones was once a government contractor with a top-secret clearance who is now suspected of moving classified material to his car and home. We know that the FBI seized a cell phone and a Garmin watch from Natinson's home, but we don't exactly know

what her connection is to the defendant. The FBI did tell her she is not the target of the investigation. And finally, let's finish with critical thinking. For today's segment, we are going to revisit absolute and qualified immunity. And today, I just have some questions for everyone, regardless of where you stand on the issue. Sometimes in this segment, I like to separate it between, you know, I'll ask supporters of something, certain questions, I'll ask opponents, other questions. But today, this is just a, this is just three general questions to get everyone thinking. So the first question is this. What risks might exist if federal law enforcement officers did have absolute immunity? Okay. So we talked about how federal law enforcement officers have qualified immunity, not absolute, but what risks might exist if those federal law enforcement officers did have absolute immunity? And then on the flip side, what risks might exist if they had no immunity at all? The next question is, given that criminal charges require a prosecutor to act, what are the benefits of that discretion and what are the potential downsides?

And then finally, last question, how do you feel about requiring more transparency around why prosecutors decline to bring charges? is. Do you think more transparency would build trust or could it possibly interfere with the justice system? That's what I have for you today. Remember, there is no episode on Monday because of the holiday. It is also the national championship game for college football, so go canes. But make sure that you are subscribed to my substack so you can stay informed because I will still be posting there. Thank you so much for being here as always. And I will talk to to you again next week.