UNBIASED - May 7, 2026: What to Know About Hantavirus and the Andes Strain, Epstein's Purported Suicide Note, DOJ Investigating Suspicious Oil Trades, FDA's Vape "Approval," and More.

Episode Date: May 7, 2026

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: Department of Education Investigates Smith College Over Policy Admitting Transgender Women (0:11) FDA "Approves" Flavored Vapes; Here's What It Means (4:05) HHS Secretary RFK Jr. Addresses "Overprescribing" of Medications in New Plan (7:43) Grand Jury Indicts White House Correspondents Dinner Shooting Suspect (10:12) Judge Unseals Purported Epstein Suicide Note (~16:14) What to Know About Hantavirus and the Andes Strain (~22:12) DOJ Investigation Suspicious Oil Trades Quick Hitters (~37:55) Rumor Has It: Was $300K of Taxpayer Dollars Really Used to Settle Sexual Harassment Claims Against Lawmakers? (~39:34) Critical Thinking Segment (~42:48) ⁠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

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGEMGEMP operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, May 7th. Let's talk about some news. Starting with this story about Smith College. So the Department of Education has launched an investigation into Smith College.

Smith College is an all-women's college. And the investigation is over the school's policy of admitting transgender women. Now, this investigation reportedly started after the conservative group defending education filed a complaint with the Department of Education, arguing that Smith's policy undermines sex-based protections for women by allowing students who are biologically male to attend the school. Now, just for some context, Smith College is a private liberal art school in Massachusetts for the last 10 years or so since 2015. it has had this policy of admitting students who identify as women regardless of their biological sex. Smith changed its admissions policy after there was a transgender applicant who was denied admission because some of the federal documents belonging to this individual listed her sex as male. So after that controversy, the school moved towards this policy that focused more on gender identity rather than biological sex.

However, this new investigation is looking into whether that policy violates federal sex discrimination laws. So at the center of this investigation is a pretty specific legal question, if you will, and that is can a college that was created to educate women still qualify as a women's college under federal law if it also admits transgender women? And in order to understand why it's even being questioned, we have to understand Title IX, right? Title IX is the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding. But Title IX has this exception for private single-sex undergraduate colleges. And that exception, of course, is what allows women's colleges to operate as women's colleges and still receive federal funding. But what's happening now is the Trump administration is basically, questioning whether Smith's policy of admitting transgender women fits within Title IX's

Women's College exception, because the Department of Education is arguing that this exception is based on biological sex, not gender identity, and Smith's policy focuses more on gender identity, not biological sex. But really, there are two overlapping issues here. So the first is the administration's broader argument that Smith shouldn't be able to rely on the women's college exception if it admits transgender women. But then there's the second issue. Even if the admissions question is legally a little bit gray, a little bit complicated because Smith is a private undergraduate college, the school can still be subject to Title IX in other areas once students are admitted on campus. So the administration might also look at Smith's policies around

dorm rooms, bathrooms, locker rooms, sports, scholarships, all of those other areas to see whether those policies violate Title IX in addition to the admissions policy. So in other words, the investigation might start with admissions, right? That might be the focus right now. But the enforcement question could also come down to how Smith's policies play out once students are actually admitted. But that's a little bit about what's going on there. Of course, if there is a violation found, then the administration could attempt to pull funding. It would most likely result in a lawsuit like we've been seeing at other universities, but that's the general gist of that investigation. Now we'll switch gears a little bit to some health-related news to health stories for you. First,

we're going to talk about the FDA's vape authorization, what that actually means. And then we'll talk briefly about RFK's new medication plan to limit what what he refers to as overmedicating. So the reason I want to talk about the vape authorization is because there's an important distinction to be made here. And this is the fact that this is being described in some headlines as the FDA, quote unquote, approving flavored vapes, right? But technically what the FDA did was authorize the marketing of these products. So this doesn't mean the FDA is saying these products are safe, okay, doesn't mean they're promoting these products. They were approved for marketing purposes. In fact, the FDA specifically says that authorized e-cigarettes are not

necessarily safe and that all tobacco products are harmful and potentially addictive. At the same time, the FDA says that these e-cigarettes are a better alternative to traditional cigarettes. But the significance here is that the FDA has historically been very hesitant to authorize flavored vapes specifically because flavors, flavors like fruits and, you know, candy flavor and mint flavors, et cetera, are especially appealing to minors. Okay. Now, the FDA is defending their decision by saying that these particular products went through scientific review and that the company that's making them is using age verification technology and there's marketing controls in place to limit access by minors, but that's the significance. Historically,

the FDA has been reluctant to approve flavors because they are especially appealing to minors. Now, this authorization comes after reports that President Trump had been pressuring FDA commissioner Marty McCarrie to move more quickly on these flavored nicotine products. According to multiple reports citing people familiar with the matter, Trump spoke. with McCari over the weekend about what he was kind of seeing as delays in approving these flavored vapes and other flavored nicotine products. And those reports also said that Trump had been calling around to some of his advisors for guidance on on what to do with McCari and on the political importance and like strategy,

if you will, behind flavored vaping, particularly that political importance among young voters. Some advisors reportedly told the president that McCari had been blocking Trump's agenda when it comes to these things and describe the commissioner as a problem for the administration. Keep in mind, back in April, the Wall Street Journal had reported on a February memo from McCarrey's office that prevented the FDA from authorizing several glass vape flavors, which is what was just authorized, right, even though FDA scientific reviewers had reportedly supported them. And that memo reportedly said that the FDA needed more time to evaluate the flavors. So just so we're all on the same page with this, the FDA didn't technically approve these flavors or flavored vapes in the way that people might think of a drug approval or, you know, approval in the medical sense.

Instead, what the FDA did here is issue marketing authorization, which means these specific products can legally be marketed in the United States under FDA rules. But again, doesn't mean the FDA is saying they're safe. It doesn't make them legal for minors. Okay. Now onto RFK's medication plan. So HHS Secretary RFK Jr. announced this week this new plan that's aimed at limiting what he calls the overprescribing of psychiatric medications. According to HHS, the goal of this plan is to promote more appropriate psychiatric prescribing,

encourage informed consent, and support what's called deprescribing when clinically appropriate. Now, deprescribing basically means a doctor or a medical provider reviews whether a medication, is still benefiting a patient, and if it's appropriate, will help that patient taper off the medication or switch to another treatment. So Kennedy's argument here is essentially that too many people are put on psychiatric medications without fully understanding the risks or how long they might be on them or how to safely come off of them. HHS says that this new effort will evaluate prescription patterns. They're going to look at the benefits and potential harms of psychiatric medications and have providers promote non-medication options when appropriate.

Things like therapy, family support, nutrition, physical activity, other evidence-based interventions is what HHS is calling them. HHS says that it will carry this out through a multi-pronged approach. It has already issued this dear colleague letter to providers, basically encouraging them to prioritize informed consent and share decision-making when they're prescribing medicating. and then also regularly, they're asking providers to regularly review the risks and benefits of psychiatric medications with patients. Later this month, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration will issue a report on prescribing trends, and then throughout the summer, it'll host educational webinars for prescribers and other health professionals. In July,

HHS will also convene a panel that will help develop a formal HHS class. clinical guidance on the appropriate use of psychiatric medications and tapering and discontinuation. And the NIH and FDA are also expediting research into new treatments for mental health conditions. According to the HHS, the action plan is a, quote, unified and comprehensive approach to return to gold standard science and ensure that children and adults struggling with mental health challenges are equipped with the right information to make informed treatment decisions and get the support they need. End quote. Okay. Now let's do an update on the White House Correspondents dinner suspect Cole Thomas Allen. When we talked about this on Monday, he had been charged with three

crimes, right? Attempting to assassinate the president transporting, I don't know why that word is so hard for me to say. Transporting a firearm and ammunition across state lines with the intent to commit a felony and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. And one of the things that I pointed out was that the original affidavit that was filed with the criminal complaint seemed to imply that Alan fired the shot that hit the Secret Service officer. But the affidavit did not explicitly say that. It just said that Secret Service personnel heard a gunshot as Alan ran through that security checkpoint and that one of the officers had been shot in the chest. Well, now on Tuesday, Alan was indicted on four charges. And that indictment now includes a new count, which is assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon.

So this new assault charge and the fact that he was officially indicted on the crime of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence seem to suggest that there is evidence tying Allen to that shot that hit the Secret Service officer. because in order for a grand jury to indict Allen on that charge, prosecutors would have had to have presented evidence that support probable cause that Allen committed those specific crimes. Now, you might be wondering if the DOJ already filed charges, which we talked about on Monday, why is the grand jury indicting him now? Well, in federal cases, prosecutors will initially charge someone through what's called a criminal complaint. This is typically what happens early on in a case, especially with. someone's just been arrested and the government's trying to move quickly with the situation. But after that, prosecutors have to present the evidence or present the case to a grand jury to get an official indictment. That grand jury is ultimately in charge of reviewing the evidence that exists and deciding whether there's probable cause to then formally charge the person by returning an indictment.

So the earlier DOJ charges were the initial step. And then this indictment is the formal charging document that allows the case to move forward. So the indictment brings Allen's total number of federal charges to four, attempted assassination of the president, assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon, transporting a firearm and ammunition across state lines with the intent to commit a felony, and then discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. As of this afternoon, Alan has not yet entered a plea that should come within the next few days. once he's arraigned on that indictment. All right, let's take our first break here. When we come back, we will talk about Epstein's purported suicide notes, as well as the hauntavirus and more.

You're not going to be a dictator, are you? I said, no, no, no, other than day one. How did Donald Trump turn the presidency into a king? Well, it didn't start with him. It was the goal of a decades-long master plan. When the president does it, it is not illegal. I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. Where they won't act, I will.

I'm David Sorota from The Lever. On our new season of the award-winning Master Plan podcast, we uncover the stealth plot to create an all-powerful president, or as some call it, a unitary executive, the unitary executive. Our journalists reveal the hidden scheme to eliminate checks and balances,

crush democracy, and turn government by the people into government by one man. I have the right to do whatever I want as president. Check out Master Plan season two, The Kingmakers. Visit masterplanpodcast.com or search master plan in your podcast app to start listening right now. Welcome back. So yesterday, a federal judge unsealed an apparent suicide note from Jeffrey Epstein.

Now, to be very clear, this is an unverified, undated, unsigned note. Okay. It has not been authenticated as being written by Epstein. But to really understand why this note is becoming public now and kind of what it's order. origins are, we have to talk about Epstein's former cellmate. Nicholas Tartaglione. So Tartaglione was a former police officer in New York who was convicted of quadruple murder. He was awaiting trial on those murder charges when he shared the cell with Epstein in 2019. Remember, Epstein died in August 2019, but just weeks before that, Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell, which was another apparent suicide attempt. Tartaglione says he found this note, which was written on a piece of yellow paper tucked into a book after Epstein had been taken out of the cell.

Tartaglione said, quote, I opened the book to read and there it was. End quote. Now, after that July 2019 incident, Epstein had red marks on his neck and jail officials questioned him about them. He initially said that Tartaglione had attacked him and that he was not suicidal. He had no interest in killing himself. But then just days after that, Epstein told a prison psychologist that Tartaglione had not threatened to hurt him in any way and that he had no recollection of the incident. Tartaglione has repeatedly denied attacking Epstein and he's told jail officials that he and Epstein never really had any issues. More recently, he told Jessica Reed Krause, who's the woman behind House and Habit, that Epstein tried to kill himself, that first unsuccessful attempt,

when the two of them were in the cell together. And when he woke up, when Tartaglio woke up, he actually brought Epstein back with CPR. That is what Tartaglione has said. So Tartaglion allegedly finds this note, tucked into a book in the cell, and gives it to his lawyers because he says he thought that that note could have been helpful

if Epstein continued to claim that he had tried to hurt him. It appears that initially Tartaglione's lawyers had a picture of this alleged note on a phone. But it wasn't until 2021 that the original copy was turned over to the court, which of course would have been two years or so after Epstein died. And once the court got the copy of the note, it put the note and the documents related to that note under court seal. Then last Thursday, the New York Times went ahead and petitioned the court to unseal it.

because publications can basically petition a court to release documents if the documents serve the interests of the public. So that's what the times did here. But before unsealing, the judge asked the parties to submit their views on the matter. And neither the prosecution nor Tartaglioans' lawyers had any issue with it. So then on Wednesday, the note was unsealed. And we saw this alleged suicide note for the first time. It says, quote, they investigated me for month, found nothing. And then there's a line that That's not legible, but seems to say something about his original charges from years prior. And then the note continues and says, quote, it is a treat to be able to choose one's time to say goodbye.

What you want me to do, bust out crying, no fun, not worth it. End quote. Sorry to break here. But for those of you listening on YouTube, I can see in the reflection that my light behind me is flickering. I don't know what I'm supposed to do about it right now. So we're just going to have to. deal with it, I suppose, for now. Okay. So again, the note has not been authenticated or verified.

However, the Times did note that there were two phrases used in this note that were phrases Epstein had used in his emails, bust out crying being one of them, and no fun being the other. And so I went ahead and I looked into which emails used this phrase bust out crying because I think that phrase is a little less used in everyday life than no fun, right? So the emails that I found, and I did the search on the DOJ's website, as we know, the DOJ released all of these documents and emails that relate to Epstein's case. So that's what I looked through. There's one set of emails between Epstein and someone named Terry Kafka. Epstein writes on New Year's Eve 2016, What You Want Me to do, bust out crying.

Kafka then writes, J.E., all the best for a good new year, safe travels, and continued success in Mexico, rented a nice place, be well. And then the conversation kind of carries on. And Kafka eventually says the last time I saw you cry was when Steve Jankewitz bit you on your neck, man dat hurt. So not a lot of context there. But that is one of the emails he used that phrase, what you want me to do, bust out crying. Then in an email thread between Epstein and his brother, his brother writes, haven't seen your

name in the media for a while. You still alive? And Epstein responds, just give it time. But coming out October 10th, trying to decide whether or not to have a book signing party. His brother then writes. On another note, cousin Steve became a grandfather last week. His son had a kid. And Epstein responds, what you want to do?

Bust out crying? And then in another thread between Epstein and his brother, his brother asks if he's still in touch with someone named Eva and mentions that there was this doctor that he'd like to put Eva in touch with. And Epstein responds, I am in touch. What would you like me to say, do? Bust out crying. So that's the deal with the note.

Again, not authenticated, not sign. dated wasn't turned over until years after Epstein died. But at the same time, some of the phrasing does match Epstein's emails. So who knows if it's authentic or not has not been authenticated as of today. Now let's talk about the hauntavirus outbreak because quite a few of you have messaged me asking if this is going to be the next COVID. You just want to understand what's going on. So first and foremost, right off the bat, just want to be clear that health officials have specifically said this is not like COVID and that the risk to the general public is low. But we will talk about that more in a few minutes because this specific strain that

we're seeing, which is assumed to be the Andes strain, is a rare strain of hauntavirus and kind of acts a little bit differently. First, though, let's talk about the ship. So M.V. Hondias is the name of the ship. It's a Dutch flagged expedition cruise. And it is currently sailing in the Atlantic. Its itinerary was across the Atlantic. Now, we're When I say this is an expedition cruise, what I mean is that it's the kind that takes passengers to more remote places like Antarctica and remote islands in the Atlantic Ocean. The thing about these kind of cruises is they can last a long time, usually like a month, sometimes longer. And they're actually quite small in size compared to the cruises that we typically think of. So this is not the Carnival cruise ship that's heading from Miami to Cozumel.

This is a very different kind of cruise. It's smaller, it's more luxury, it's much smaller ship compared to the cruise ships that we typically see at the ports here in the United States. This particular cruise set off from Argentina. It started its voyage on April 1st. From Argentina, it headed to South Georgia Island. Also, I just want to say about that date. So April 1st is what most reports are saying. There are some reports saying March 20th is the voyage date, but most reports say April 1st, so that's the one we're sticking.

with. So anyway, leaves Argentina, heads to South Georgia Island, which is in the middle of the Atlantic north of Antarctica. And on April 6th, so just five days after the ship left port, a 70-year-old Dutch passenger started feeling sick. On April 11th, he died. Now, when this first passenger died, it wasn't immediately identified as hauntavirus. In fact, almost a month passed between the first passenger getting sick and health officials confirming hauntavirus. But after that first man died, the ship kept sailing for about two more weeks. And his wife was on board, too. So his wife is on board.

Her husband's dead body's on board. It wasn't until April 24th that this man's body was taken off the ship at St. Helena, which is another island in the Atlantic. And by then, the man's 69-year-old wife had also started feeling symptoms. So she ends up getting off the ship with his body. and she flies to South Africa. She actually collapsed while she was at the airport and she died the following day. It's also worth mentioning that while the ship was at St. Helena,

29 additional passengers got off the ship and went home. Now, these passengers returned to the various countries they came from, like Australia, Taiwan, the United States, England, Switzerland, and others. The Swiss man tested positive on Wednesday. He had gone to a hospital in Zurich. And initially his test came back negative, but, a more recent test this week came back positive and he is currently still in the hospital. There are at least three individuals who got off the ship on, you know, that day that they were

in St. Helena that have returned to the United States, one from Arizona, two from Georgia. The Arizona Department of Health Services and Georgia Department of Public Health both said they are monitoring their residents who came home after disembarking the ship. But as of now, none of them have shown any signs of illness. So let's hope and pray that it stays that way. But going back to the ship, once the ship left St. Helena, you know, with 29 less passengers on board, well, I guess 31, if you count the couple that also got off, the ship then headed towards its next stop, which was Ascension Island. And as it's heading to Ascension Island, another passenger. A British man starts feeling sick. The following day, on April 27th, he was taken off the ship, evacuated from Ascension Island and flown to South Africa, where he remains in intensive care. Four days after that, on May 1st, as the ship was heading to Cape Verde, a German woman on board dies after getting sick. Meanwhile, South African doctors had begun running tests on the British

passenger, the one that's in intensive care. And they ran a whole bunch of tests. Everything came back negative. But eventually, they tested him for a hauntavirus. And on May 2nd, the test came back positive. So that was about 21 days after the first passenger died. And that was the first time that doctors and health officials realized they were potentially dealing with a haunt of virus outbreak. So that positive test result is what then prompted South African health officials to test the Dutch woman's body, the woman who had died the day before. Her test came back positive on May 4th. At that point, it became pretty clear what this was. And so the ship was just kind of waiting in limbo off the coast of Cape Verde because Cape Verde wasn't about to let the

passengers get off the ship and risk spreading the virus to its own residence, right? So the ship and those on board are stranded off the coast. The next day, though, on May 5th, three people get evacuated off the ship because they had started feeling symptoms. So those people were sent by airplane from Cape Verde to the Netherlands. But I mean, you know, the people in charge still had to figure out where the ship was going to go. It couldn't just sit off the coast of Cape Verde forever. So finally, Spanish officials said, okay, we'll help you out. But you are going to go to an island called Teneree, which is actually closer to western Sahara and Morocco than it is Spain. It's off the coast of Africa, but it's part of the Canary Islands. So it's the largest island, I think, in the Canary Islands. But once you get there, they said, non-Spanish citizens will be sent back to their home countries immediately. Spanish citizens will be quarantined in a military hospital in Madrid for 45 days. And that's pretty much in line with what the CDC says about the Andes virus. incubation period because the, well, there was one study. It was a 2006 study. Keep in mind,

the Andes virus is pretty rare. So it's not super well studied. But there's a 2006 study on emerging infectious diseases, which actually looked at a 1996 outbreak of the Andes virus in Argentina, which is where this outbreak appears to have come from. And the incubation period was anywhere from four to 39 days from exposure. The median was 18 days. So it, you know, from when you're exposed until you actually feel symptoms, it could be anywhere from four to basically 40 days. So the ship is currently on its way to the Spanish island where the remaining passengers will be evacuated. Now, the latest update, and this is what what has people even more worried, is that the flight attendant who was working that KLM flight that flew the woman from St. Helena to South. Africa has been hospitalized with mild symptoms. And naturally it has people worried because it's

starting to spread off the ship as well if this is a confirmed case. It is not a confirmed case at this point. The flight attendant's been hospitalized with mild symptoms. Like I said, it's not a confirmed case of hauntavirus. But if it is, obviously, if it's spreading off the ship, you know, it has a lot of people wondering how close in proximity you really need to be to someone who's sick to catch it. So when we come back from our second and final break, we'll cover what you need to know about hauntavirus and the Andes strain specifically.

Welcome back. Before the break, we covered pretty much everything that's happened on the ship. Now what I want to do is talk about hauntavirus and what it is and the Andy strain specifically. Hauntavirus is the sickness that's usually spread through contact with infected rodents.

So their urine, droppings, saliva, things like that. the most common way to get hauntavirus from rodents is by breathing in these things. But you can also get it if you eat food that's been contaminated with it or you touch something and then you touch your mouth or your nose or your eyes. Haunted virus, it doesn't usually spread person to person, but there is one exception. And that is the Andes virus. The Andes virus is a type of hauntavirus found in South America, specifically Chile and Argentina. So what Argentine health officials are thinking as of now is that most likely the man and his wife, the first two passengers that died, picked it up from rodents while visiting a landfill during a bird watching tour just days before they left on their trip.

Now, symptom-wise, okay, hauntavirus can start out looking very nonspecific. Early symptoms are things like fever, fatigue, muscle aches, headaches, dizziness, chills, nausea, vomiting. It can look a lot like the flu in its early days. But then some people can start to develop respiratory symptoms if the virus starts to affect the lungs, coughing, shortness of breath, chest tightness, etc. In the more severe cases, hauntavirus, of course, progresses and it can kill you. With that said, though, hauntavirus is rare. between 1993 and 2020.

So a 30-year span, there were only 890 cases. And as far as your questions about whether this is the next COVID, a couple of World Health Organization officials have come out and said, this is not COVID, this is different. So one of the officials told Reuters, this is very, very different from COVID or the flu. Andy's virus is more contagious than other haunted viruses, but it's not considered highly contagious in the way that COVID, the flu,

other respiratory viruses are. An epidemic expert at the World Health Organization said Thursday that, that's today, I suppose, that hauntavirus outbreak is not the next COVID. She said in part, quote, the risk to the general public is low. And I think we need to contextualize this for everyone saying, oh, my gosh, is this the next one? I really just want to assure people, this is something that's quite different. This is not the next COVID. But it is a serious infectious disease.

it's an infectious disease that if people get infected and infections are uncommon, they can die. End quote. Another who expert says to expect to see some more cases of hauntavirus reported in the next few weeks given that the incubation period for the Andes virus is up to six weeks. And he added, quote, while this is a serious incident, who assesses the public risk as low? End quote. So it doesn't seem like you or I have anything to worry about as of now, but that is what's going on. I hope that answers a lot of your questions. Okay, final story. This is a quick one,

actually, but not quite quick enough to be a quick hitter, yet still a story. I think we should touch on nonetheless. This is one that kind of broke towards the end of my episode prep today. The DOJ and Commodity Futures Trading Commission are investigating a series of trades in the oil market that made traders a total of more than $2.6 billion, billion with a B. Okay. So on March 23rd, 15 minutes before Trump announced that he would delay the threatened attacks on Iran's power grid, traders bet more than $500 million that oil prices would drop. On April 7th, hours before the temporary ceasefire was announced by Trump, traders bet $960 million that oil prices would drop. On April 17th, just 20 minutes before Iran's foreign minister posted on social media saying the

trade of Hormuz was open, traders bet $760. $60 million that oil prices would drop. And then on April 21st, 15 minutes before Trump announced he would extend the ceasefire. Traders placed a series of bets worth $430 million that oil prices would drop. These trades happened on the London Stock Exchange, by the way. And the story is reminiscent of the story from January, where a polymarket user bet more than $33,000 on the United States invading Venezuela and Maduro being forced out of leadership. by January 31st. The odds at the time were only 6%. So he puts more than $33,000 on that bet. He ends up making about $400,000. Turns out, after an investigation, the user was actually a U.S.

soldier who was part of the raid on Maduro, and he is now facing criminal charges. So we could see a similar outcome here, but so far neither the DOJ nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have commented on that investigation. And now for some quick hitters. The Supreme Court agreed to immediately finalize its decision, striking down Louisiana's congressional map, allowing the state to move forward withdrawing a new map before the 26 midterm elections. Justice Jackson dissented from this move to immediately finalize. She argued fast-tracking it could appear politically motivated. Justice Alito, though, defended the move as necessary, and he rejected the idea that the court was taking sides. Ted Turner, the founder of CNN, died Wednesday at the age of 87.

According to a news release from Turner Enterprises, he passed away peacefully surrounded by family. A federal judge ruled that the DOJ can keep more than 600 boxes of 2020 election ballots seized from Fulton County, Georgia. The judge rejected the county's request to have the materials returned. The judge acknowledged flaws and the DOJ's basis for the search warrants, but ultimately determined Fulton County had not met the legal standard to prove that its rights were violated or that it would be irreparably harmed. Justice Thomas became the second longest serving justice on the Supreme Court bench in history today. He has served 34 years and 197 days. The only justice with a longer tenure is William O. Douglas, who served 36 years and 209 days. Thomas would overtake Douglas in 28 if

Thomas stays on the court. And for some news just now making headlines, despite taking place a couple of weeks ago now, CBP arrested 28 individuals aboard five different cruise ships at the San Diego Port for being involved in either the receipt, possession, transportation, distribution, or viewing of child sexual exploitation material or child pornography. A CBP spokesperson said all 28 individuals have had their visas canceled and are being removed from the country. Rumor has it. So rumor has it. It's been a minute since we've done this because I've been out on leave. But rumor has it just as a refresher is my segment where you all submit rumors. And I do my best to either confirm them, deny them, or add context. And I always take submissions from all of you. Some weeks there's one, you know, rumor that you all want to know about. Other times there's five. So really just depends on the episode. Today we have one. Rumor has it that more than 300,000. in taxpayer money was used to settle sexual harassment claims involving lawmakers.

This is true. So let's break this down. Republican Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina, she's been pushing for more transparency around what has often been criticized as Congress's sexual harassment slush fund is the one who got these records released. And according to the records, between 2007 and 2017, more than $338,000 in tax. taxpayer funds was used to settle sexual harassment-related claims tied to congressional offices. These settlements involved claims connected to several former lawmakers, including Blake Farenthold, Eric Mossa, John Coyneers, and Patrick Meehan, all of whom had previously faced public allegations of misconduct.

The records also reportedly revealed payouts connected to the offices of former Representative Rodney Alexander and former Representative Carolyn McCarthy, which had not been previously disclosed to the public. Now, a couple of important pieces of context here. Number one, this doesn't mean every settlement was personally paid because a member of Congress was found guilty of sexual harassment, right? These settlements came through a broader workplace complaint system that covered Capitol Hill employees and included all kinds of harassment like discrimination, retaliation, and pay disputes. this specifically we are talking about sexual harassment, but it's this workplace complaint system that covered lawmakers. But the concern and then the reason this keeps coming up is that for years,

these cases were handled pretty quietly often with taxpayer dollars and the public wasn't always made aware of which offices or lawmakers were involved. Now, the second thing here, Congress changed the rules in 2018 during the height of the Me Too movement. So since 2018, taxpayer dollars are no longer supposed to be used to pay sexual harassment settlements involving lawmakers. Lawmakers can now be required to personally reimburse the Treasury for certain misconduct related settlements, which of course would mean the taxpayers aren't left covering the costs, assuming, you know, the lawmaker reimburses. But yes, this is true. Newly released document show more than $300,000 in taxpayer money was used to settle sexual harassment related claims involving congressional offices before the 2018 reforms.

And now for some critical thinking. Critical thinking segment is a segment I do at the end of every episode or at least try to do at the end of every episode to get you thinking a little deeper about certain issues. It's not meant to be too complex. It's just meant to challenge you a little bit, get you thinking twice about your opinions, ask yourself why you feel the way you do about certain things. It's really just a fun exercise. So for today's segment, I want to revisit the story about Smith College and the investigation launched by the education department. My first question for you is this. What is the purpose in your eyes of a women's college? Is it to serve people who identify as women or people who are biologically female or both? When you think of a woman's college,

who is it meant to serve? The next question is, who should get to define the word women in the context of a women's college? Should that definition come from the college itself? the federal government, the courts, federal law, something else, and why? Why does the defining entity, whatever you choose, why does it get that power? And then finally, as we talked about earlier, Title IX treats admissions differently than other parts of campus life, right? Private, single sex undergraduate colleges are exempt from Title IX's admissions requirements, but that doesn't mean they're exempt from Title IX altogether.

So my question is, is there a meaningful legal or practical difference between who a women's college admits and how that college structures campus life after students are enrolled? Why or why not? That is what I have for you. Thank you so much for being here. Have a fantastic weekend. And I will talk to you on Monday.