UNBIASED - November 3, 2025: SNAP Benefits To Be Partially Funded, Why 2026 Insurance Premiums Are Increasing, New Press Restrictions in West Wing, Possible Military Action in Nigeria, and More.

Episode Date: November 3, 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: White House Sets New Press Restrictions for "Upper Press" Area (0:12) Trump Administration Agrees to Partially Fund SNAP Benefits After Court Rulings (8:31) Trump Administration Officials Move to Military Bases Amid Security Concerns (17:27) Open Enrollment Begins Offering Sneak Peek at 2026 Increased Insurance Premiums; Here's What to Know (20:28) Trump Threatens Military Action Against Nigeria (31:30) Quick Hitters: Mysterious Area 51 Crash, November 4th Elections Happening Tomorrow, Supreme Court to Hear Tariff Challenge, Government Shutdown Set to Be Longest in History, Air Traffic Control Has Worst Weekend of Shutdown So Far (38:13) Critical Thinking Segment (42:14) 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

Boarding for flight 246 to Toronto is delayed 50 minutes. Ugh, what? Sounds like Ojo time. Play Ojo? Great idea. Feel the fun with all the latest slots in live casino games and with no wagering requirements. What you win is yours to keep groovy. Hey, I won! Boarding will begin when passenger fisher is done celebrating.

19 plus Ontario only. Please play responsibly. Concerned by your gambling or that if someone close, you call 1866-3-3-1-2-60 or visit comixonterio.ca. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, November 3rd. Let's talk about some news. Over the weekend, the White House announced new restrictions limiting reporters' access to the upper press area of the West Wing.

So here's what you need to know. On Friday, the National Security Council released a memo that prohibits press pass holders from accessing what's called room 140 in the West Wing without an appointment. The memo was sent from the National Security Council to the White House Communications Director as well as the press secretary, and it mainly cited recent structural changes to the NSC as its rationale, though we don't know what those structural changes are. The memo reads in part, quote, as a result of recent structural changes, to the National Security Council, the White House is now responsible for directing all communications,

including on all national security matters. In this capacity, members of the White House communication staff are routinely engaging with sensitive material. And quote, the memo then goes on to explain, quote, in order to protect such material and maintain coordination between National Security Council staff and White House communication staff, members of the press are no longer permitted to access room 140 without prior approval in the form of an appointment with an authorized White House staff member. End quote. The memo notes that members of the press may continue to freely engage with White House press

aides in the lower press area outside of the briefing room. And in order to meet with White House communication staff in the upper press area, press have to request an appointment by email. To lay out this specific area of the West Wing for you, the upper press area is the area where the press secretary's office is, as well as the work areas of her immediate team. So geographically, it sits pretty close to the Oval Office. It's right down the hall. I've actually been there myself.

It's a lot smaller than you would imagine. When I went, all of my friends and family were asking me, you know, what was the White House like? Tell us all about it. And I was explaining to them that it's incredibly beautiful. and you can feel the history when you're in it, but that it's a lot smaller than you would think. It really does feel like a house with tight hallways, little stairways, small offices and rooms. It was definitely smaller and tighter than I thought it would be.

And by the same token, the upper press area is also pretty small. So it houses, like I said, the press secretary's office, but then also about six to eight workstations that are almost like cubicles for the press secretary's immediate staff now the press secretary's office is in the same upper press area but it is its own room with its own door whereas the cubicles of the immediate staff are kind of just out in the open in this upper press area so that's the area that's considered room 140 or the upper press area and because of its close proximity to the oval office it is a pretty high traffic area for communications. In reality, it's less of a public room. It's more of a semi-private workspace for top communication aids. And then the lower communication aids are closer to the briefing room,

which is down the hall from this upper press area. And it's never really been, like the upper press area has never been an open public space where reporters can just walk in and talk to someone. When I went there, even though I had a badge, I couldn't just walk into the room. I had to be escorted by other top communication aids to gain access to the room. And once I was in there, I was the only person in there other than, you know, the press secretary and the immediate staff that work there. But prior to this new memo, credential journalists could access the area on relatively short notice. They didn't necessarily need to schedule a visit in advance by email. now they do. The White House communications director responded to a post on X providing a little bit more

context. He wrote, quote, some reporters have been caught secretly recording video and audio of our offices along with pictures of sensitive information without permission. Some reporters have wandered into restricted areas. Our offices are feet away from the Oval Office. Some reporters have been caught eavesdropping on private closed door meetings. Cabinet secretaries routinely come into our office for private meetings only to be ambushed by reporters waiting outside the doors. Press still has access to the lower press area where the press team sits and can answer all inquiries. Reporters can make appointments to see us in our offices.

End quote. In response to this new memo, the White House Correspondents Association, which represents hundreds of credentialed reporters, said that it, quote, unequivocally opposes any effort to limit journalists from areas within the communications operations of the White House that have long been open for news gathering, end quote. The association also noted that the new restrictions could impact reporters' ability to question officials, ensure transparency, and hold the government accountable. So have we seen anything like this in the past? Yes. In 1993, President Clinton restricted access to this exact upper press area for several months. However, that policy was later rescinded

following some pretty significant backlash. And I actually found an article from 1995, which writes about very ironic parallels between the Clinton administration's actions and then some of the actions we're seeing from the current administration. So that article reads in part, quote, the White House press corps is extremely unhappy that the Clinton administration is barring them from areas where reporters have roamed freely in past presidencies. This denial of access, coupled with the live televising of daily news briefings, continues the Clinton team's practice of delivering its unfiltered messages directly into American living rooms. Reporters are outraged at the new restrictions. One week after inauguration, any honeymoon between the new administration and the presidential press corps has been supplanted by acrimony and distrust.

George Stephanopoulos, President Clinton's Director of Communications, said the ban was imposed because he is more involved in. policy matters than previous press secretaries, and he doesn't want journalists, quote-unquote, loitering around. For instance, Stephanopoulos conducts the daily news briefing, not press secretary D.D. Myers. During the presidential campaign, Clinton made effective use of what has been called new news media. He chatted with TV talk show host, ranging from CNN's Larry King to the Nashville network's Ralph Emery to Tabitha Soren of MTV. He played the saxophone on our Sineo Hall's late-night show and answered questions from Phil Donahue's studio audience. White House reporters believe the president intends to continue this telecommunications and run,

end quote. So I just thought it was pretty ironic the parallels when, you know, that 1995 article was talking about the press restrictions in the upper press area as well as the new media avenue that President Clinton was taking. Obviously, that's something we've seen with President and Trump as well. Now, do they look very different? Yes, because the times have changed. So what was new media then? Isn't exactly the same thing as new media now, but just pretty interesting, interesting parallels between the two. Now, as we saw in that 1995 article that I just read you, Clinton's rationale was a bit different than Trump's current rationale for resting the press, right? Clinton's rationale, per the communications director at the time, was that the communications

director was more involved in policy than before and didn't want journalists quote unquote loitering. Trump's rationale is more explicitly tied to access to sensitive material and recent structural changes to the NSC. But regardless of rationale, both policies carry the same effect, which was and is to prohibit the press from accessing the upper press area. Okay, let's talk about SNAP benefits. As we know, SNAP funding expired over the weekend. And if you want to know more details as to why the funding expired, go ahead and tune into last Monday's episode. I went into a ton of detail there. But in the lead-up to the expiration of funding, various states had sued the administration. And they argued that the federal government needed

to tap into what's called the contingency fund to help pay SNAP benefits for the month of November. And on Friday, two federal judges blocked the administration from suspending SNAP benefits and ordered the administration to use those contingency funds. If you remember from Monday's episode, the administration had previously said that it would not use the contingency fund for SNAP funding because it was not allowed to tap into that fund under the law. More specifically, the USDA had said that it can't legally tap into the contingency fund for regular SNAP benefits because the contingency fund is specifically for.

either unpredictable disasters or for when appropriated monthly benefits, you know, have the monthly benefits have been appropriated, but there aren't sufficient funds to cover those monthly benefits. And per the USDA, neither of those situations are present here. So they said under the law, we cannot tap into the contingency fund. And in order for us to do so, Congress would have to appropriate some money for benefits, you know, that way we would have the authority to tap into the contingency fund and use it almost as supplemental funding. But on Friday, the two federal judges said the administration has to continue to pay for SNAP. However, there wasn't really much clarity other than that at the time. So in response to those two court rulings, Trump posted, quote,

our government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority to pay SNAP with certain monies we have available and now two courts have issued conflicting opinions on what we can and cannot do. I do not want Americans to go hungry just because the radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and reopen the government. Therefore, I have instructed our lawyers to ask the court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible. It is already delayed enough due to the Democrats keeping the government closed through the monthly payment date. And even if we get immediate guidance, it will unfortunately be delayed while states get the money out. If we are given the appropriate legal direction by the court, it will be my honor to provide the funding just like I did with

military and law enforcement pay. End quote. So in response to that request, one of the judges went ahead and clarified his initial oral ruling with a follow-up written order. And that written order instructed the administration to either tap into additional funds outside of the contingency fund to fully fund November snap payments, or if the administration doesn't want to use its discretion to fully fund November benefits by tapping into other sources, then it has to, quote, expeditiously resolve the burdens it described in its papers, end quote, and issue partial payments using the contingency fund no later than Wednesday, November 5th. The order says, quote, the government will report to the court on or before noon on Monday,

November 3rd, what it will do to comply with this court's order. And quote, now, as we talked about last Monday, the SNAP contingency fund does not have enough money in it to pay the full benefits for the month of November. member. The fund has about 5.25 billion in it. The government usually pays out about $8 billion every month. So that's why the court's order said the administration could either fund or not fund but find other sources of funds and pay the full $8 billion that it would typically spend or if it opts to only exhaust what's in the contingency fund and therefore only pay partial benefits, those partial benefits need to be paid by Wednesday.

But either way, the administration was instructed to notify the court by noon today what it planned to do. The second judge also similarly ordered the administration to explain its plan by Monday. Now, importantly, the court's written order also went as far as to outline potential other sources of funds for the administration to tap into. So the order cited contingency funds from fiscal year 2024 and 2025, as well as Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935. And the judge noted that as of October 8th, more than $23 billion was available under Section 2 of that Agricultural Act, and that the USDA is authorized under federal law to use a portion of appropriated funds, including those Section 32. funds interchangeably for certain expenses. So the court was basically giving it the option of tapping into those funds as well to cover, you know, the shortfall when it came to the SNAP benefits. As we talked about, the administration's answer was due today. And this afternoon, the administration

said it would partially fund SNAP benefits by using what is left in the contingency fund, but that it would not go further than that and tap into the Section 32 money. So in the filing, deputy undersecretary of the Food Nutrition and Consumer Services at the USDA said in part, quote, per orders issued by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, FNS intends to deplete SNAP contingency funds completely and provide reduced SNAP benefits for November 2025. For November, FNS will obligate $450 million from the contingency fund for state agency's administrative expenses, and in addition, $150 million for the Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico and American Samoa.

The above will leave a total of $4.65 billion in the contingency fund for November SNAP benefits that will all be obligated to cover 50% of eligible household's current allotments. This means that no funds will remain for new SNAP applicants certified in November, disaster assistance or as a cushion against the potential catastrophic consequences of shutting down SNAP entirely. In addition to routing the remaining SNAP contingency funds to partial November 2025 SNAP payments, the USDA has carefully considered tapping Section 32 funds that pursuant to statute were transferred to FNS to be used for child nutrition programs. The USDA would need at least $4 billion from those child nutrition funds to provide full SNAP benefits instead of reduced

benefits for the month of November. Ultimately, the USDA has determined that Section 32 Child Nutrition Program funds must remain available to protect full operation of child nutrition programs through the fiscal year instead of being used for SNAP benefits. Section 32 Child Nutrition Program funds are not a contingency fund for SNAP, using billions of dollars from child nutrition for SNAP would leave an unprecedented gap in child nutrition funding that Congress has never had to fill

with annual appropriations and the USDA cannot predict what Congress will do under these circumstances. End quote. So basically the USDA will exhaust the $4.65 billion available in the SNAP contingency fund

but will not tap into additional sources of funding. What this means is that roughly half of SNAP benefits will be dispersed for the month of November. So families and individuals can count on receiving half of what they would typically receive for a month. From here, we'll have to see what the courts say about the administration's decision and whether states, some states or all states will see, contribute the remainder of the funds to make up for the shortfall. But as we discussed last Monday, the federal government is not

willing to reimburse states for the funds that they contribute. So it'll be up to the states what they do. per the court's ruling, the administration has until Wednesday to disperse what's left in the contingency fund. So assuming the administration complies with that, recipients should expect to receive at least some of their usual benefits by the end of this week. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the increasing insurance premiums, administration officials moving to military bases, and more. It's usually right around this time of year when I start realizing I need to take budgeting just a little more seriously. I don't know if it's the fact that I have Christmas gifts to buy soon, or it's the travel expenses for the holidays, or the

upcoming tax bill that I know I have to face in just a few short months. But right around October, November, I really start taking the finances game seriously. And my absolute favorite personal finance app is Rocket Money. And I'll tell you why. I appreciate anything that saves me time and makes my life easier. We are all very busy people, okay? So Rocket Money is a person finance app that helps you find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps you lower your bills so you can grow your savings. And the reason I love it so much is because it helps with so many things. Yes, it helps you cancel unwanted subscriptions and see upcoming bills, but it also analyzes your accounts to find the best time to put money aside

each month. It detects if you're close to going over budget. It'll even try to negotiate lower bills for you. Rocket money has saved users over $2.5 billion, including over $8,000,000, including over $880 million in canceled subscriptions alone. There are 10 million members save up to $740 a year when they use all of the app's premium features. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster with RocketMoney. Go to RocketMoney.com slash unbiased today. That's rocketmoney.com slash unbiased. Welcome back. In recent weeks, several Trump-appointed officials, including Cristino, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, Stephen Miller, and others have opted to vacate their homes and move into military housing, citing security concerns and fears of growing

political violence. Now, despite the news just kind of now making headlines, Noam Rubio and Hegeseth have reportedly lived on military bases for some time now, though Stephen Miller has just recently opted to sell his house and relocate to a nearby military base. Due to the the, you know, personal nature of the situation. We don't really have much information available regarding where the houses are or when these officials moved in or when they're planning on moving in. But Stephen Miller's wife did tell outlets that their household has had recent encounters with protesters that, quote, crossed the line, end quote, with one unfamiliar woman allegedly confronting Stephen Miller's wife on the family's doorstep saying, I'm watching

you. The assassination attempts against Donald Trump, as well as the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, have also fueled these fears within, you know, political figures that they might be more vulnerable to future attacks as well. Now, military bases provide enhanced security, right? There's ID checkpoints, 24-hour monitoring, both digital and personnel, more emergency response protocols and limited, if any, at all, public access. And according to, you know, reporting by the Atlantic, relocating to a military base may actually be cheaper for the federal government since the security infrastructure is built in and doesn't require adjustments to the layout and norms of a residential neighborhood. We don't know at this point whether the relocations

are temporary or permanent, but because they were born out of security concerns, it can be assumed that these officials will stay in military housing while the concerns still pose a threat. as far as whether this is something that's been done in the past, it has, though it's not necessarily common. Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense under Presidents George W. Bush and Obama, as well as Jim Mattis, Secretary of Defense under Trump during his first administration, lived in Navy housing near the State Department, and Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State under Trump during his first administration, lived during his tenure at Meyer Henderson Hall, which is the joint base that's operated by the Army, Navy, and Marines.

As for legal restrictions, there is no regulation that prohibits political appointees from occupying military housing. And according to the Department of Defense's manual for housing management, quote, the installation commander is chiefly responsible for the housing program with broad authority to decide the best use of resources to provide access to housing for military personnel, end quote. So that decision is presumably up to that individual. Okay, next story. We're going to talk about some increases to insurance premiums. With open enrollment having started on November 1st, people across roughly 30 states are getting a look

at what 26 insurance premiums could look like if Congress doesn't act before the end of the year. And I want to talk about why some people are seeing premiums. premium increases now that open enrollment has started. I also want to talk about who will be affected by the premium increases as well as who won't be affected and then what the future might hold, what we can expect going forward and in the next few months. First and foremost, though, what is the ACA? The ACA, also known as Obamacare, stands for the Affordable Care Act.

It was enacted in 2010 under President Obama and it's considered to be one of the biggest overhaul, well, the biggest overhaul, not one of. it is considered to be the biggest overhaul of the health care system in the United States since Medicare and Medicaid were created back in 1965. And the goal was simple in theory. The goal was to make health insurance more affordable and accessible for more Americans while improving the quality of care and reducing long-term costs. But the ACA has both critics and supporters.

So we'll get there in a minute and talk about the arguments on both sides. But to carry out that stated goal, the law did a few. pretty major things. For one, it created online marketplaces like health care.gov where people can compare and buy private insurance plans, sometimes with federal subsidies that lower monthly premiums based on income. It also expanded Medicaid in many states to cover more low income adults. It required large employers to offer coverage. And it allowed young adults to stay on their parents' plans until the age of 26. It also required everyone to have insurance or otherwise have to pay a penalty. This was known as the individual mandate, though this penalty was eliminated in 2019 under Trump's

first administration. And importantly, the ACA also banned insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher rates for preexisting conditions. Now, supporters argue the ACA has made a huge difference, with the uninsured rate in the United States having dropped to record lows from roughly 16% of Americans in 2010 to around 8% today, and millions of Americans are able to obtain coverage through the Medicaid expansion, and more lower income Americans became eligible for subsidies that have made private plans cheaper. Critics, though, argue that it led to higher premiums and fewer plan choices for middle-class families. who don't qualify for subsidies.

Insurance premiums actually went up for these individuals and families because the ACA changed the rules for how insurance companies could set prices. So before the law, insurers could deny coverage or charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions. And they could also offer very limited or, quote unquote, bare bones plans with lower monthly costs, but fewer protections. But the ACA banned those practices. Every plan now has to cover a standard set of essential health benefits, things like maternity care, mental health treatment, prescription drugs, and also insurers can't vary prices based on someone's health history.

Now, these changes meant that the risk pool included sicker, higher cost people who previously could not get affordable coverage. And to offset that, insurers raised premiums for everyone else, especially those buying plans without. government help without subsidies. So for lower income Americans, federal subsidies absorbed most of the cost increases. But for middle class families who earned just above the subsidy threshold, those premium increases hit directly out of pocket. And in some areas, fewer insurance companies chose to participate in marketplaces, which only then reduced competition, right, and ended up further driving up prices. So the ACA has been pretty controversial since it's enactment. It has supporters, it also has critics. But we're here to talk about why we're seeing premium increases

now. Why today? So in the wake of the pandemic, when a lot of people lost their jobs and therefore lost their health insurance, Congress passed temporary changes to the ACA to avoid a spike in the uninsured rate and keep insurance relatively affordable. This was called the American Rescue Plan of 2021. These changes expanded the ACA's premium tax credits, which are the federal subsidies we just talked about that lower the cost of insurance premiums on the marketplace for certain individuals at a certain income level. Before the pandemic, these tax credits were available only to people earning between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level, roughly up to $55,000 a year for an individual or $115,000 for a family of four. Anyone above that 400% cutoff got no help at all.

So what the American Rescue Plan did is it temporarily removed that upper limit. So instead of a hard income cap, the American Rescue Plan said that no one would pay more than 8.5% of their household income for a benchmark health plan. And as a result of that change many middle income families who previously earned too much to qualify for a subsidy were now eligible for assistance. And people who were already receiving subsidies saw their costs drop significantly. Now, that expansion was originally set to last two years, but it really helped. So in 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which extended those enhanced premium tax credits through the end of 2025. Because

Congress has so far failed to renew those tax credits before the end of the 2025 plan year, and now that open enrollment has started for the 26 plan year, people are starting to see the premium increases now. They're not starting to pay them yet. They're just starting to see them now when they're looking at these plans on the marketplace for the 2026 plan year. And when I say increases, by the way, I'm saying that insurance premiums are basically going back to what they were pre-pandemic and then some. And this is, of course, because of the potential sunset of the expanded subsidies, but also because of the usual rising healthcare costs, rising prescription drug costs, higher provider reimbursements. So healthcare costs rise every year. But because we're

seeing that coupled with the expiration of the tax credits, insurance premiums are going up much higher than we're used to and at once. According to a KFF analysis that was released last week, premiums for ACA coverage will go up 26% on average in 2026. So now, who will feel the premium increases the most? That'll be middle income Americans who do not qualify for subsidies. These are families earning above about 400% of the federal poverty level, which is about $62,000 a year for an individual and $128,000 a year for a family of four. During the pandemic, those families could all of the sudden qualify for temporary help if their insurance premiums took up more than 8.5% of their income. But if Congress lets those expanded tax credits expire, that extra help goes away

and these families go back to paying full price. Also, adults who buy their own plans without employer coverage will feel the higher costs since their premiums are not cushioned by federal assistance. People in rural areas or states with fewer insurers might also feel the increases because of limited competition. And then also keep in mind, too, that if insurance becomes too expensive, the ones that are going to drop insurance altogether are the healthy and individuals, right? Those are the people that don't need insurance. That'll leave a sicker

insurance pool and then drive costs up even more for those who stay. Now, on the other side of this, those who qualify for subsidies and have always qualified for subsidies, generally those earning between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level, they'll keep their subsidies. The subsidies might be smaller than they are under the current enhanced formula, but these people will continue to get their subsidies even if Congress does not act before the end of the year. If you get coverage through your job or through Medicaid, this change won't affect you at all. If you make well above 400% of the poverty level, let's say you make more than $200,000 or $300,000 a year, you won't see any change either because you didn't qualify for subsidies even under the enhanced formula. So again,

the expiration at the end of this year primarily affects middle income. households who benefited from the temporary subsidy expansion post-pandemic. Now, if Congress ends up extending the premium tax credits before the end of the year, the marketplace systems will automatically recalculate everyone's subsidies under the new law starting January 1st. So even if you enroll now during open enrollment, you won't be locked in to the higher premiums that you see today unless Congress doesn't extend the tax credits before the end of the year. Then that's the price you're going to pay. But let's say you enroll now and Congress does end up extending the tax credits before the end of the year. You will see your

monthly premiums get adjusted downward at the start of the new year. And even if Congress passes the extension after plans start in 2026, the subsidies are reconciled through your federal tax return, meaning the IRS would refund any extra amount that you overpaid in premiums for the months that you should have been receiving the larger credit. Now, the longer that Congress waits, the more confusing it can be not only for enrollees and insurers, but also marketplaces, but ultimately those who qualify will still receive the right subsidy amount for the year, even if adjustments happen later. So just keep that in mind. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Trump's military threat for Nigeria, and we'll finish with quick hitters

and critical thinking. You know, it's better than the one big thing? Two big things. Exactly. The new iPhone 17 Pro on TELUS's five-year rate plan price lock. Yep, it's the most powerful iPhone ever, plus more peace of mind with your bill over five years. This is big. Get the new iPhone 17 Pro at tellus.com slash iPhone 17 Pro on select plans.

Conditions and exclusions apply. Welcome back. Over the weekend, President Trump instructed the Pentagon to prepare for possible military action in Nigeria and threatened to cut off military and humanitarian aid to the country. Here is how this situation unfolded, and then we'll talk about what is going on in Nigeria that prompted all of this. So Trump first wrote in a truth social post, quote, Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter.

I am here by making Nigeria. a country of particular concern, but that is the least of it. When Christians or any such group is slaughtered like is happening in Nigeria, something must be done. The United States cannot stand by while such atrocities are happening in Nigeria and numerous other countries. We stand ready, willing, and able to save our great Christian population around the world. End quote.

The president of Nigeria then responded with his own post on X. He wrote in part, quote, Nigeria stands firmly. as a democracy governed by constitutional guarantees of religious liberty. Since 2023, our administration has maintained an open and active engagement with Christian and Muslim leaders alike and continues to address security challenges with which affect citizens across faiths and religions. The characterization of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality, nor does it take into consideration the consistent and sincere efforts of the government to safeguard freedom of religion and beliefs for

all Nigerians. Religious freedom and tolerance have been a core tenant of our collective identity and shall always remain so. Nigeria opposes religious persecution and does not encourage it. Our administration is committed to working with the United States government and the international community to deepen understanding and cooperation on protection of communities of all faiths. And quote, Trump then seemingly responded, posting, quote, if the Nigerian government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the USA will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria and may very well go into that now disgraced country guns of blazing to completely wipe out the Islamic terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.

I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our cherished Christians. warning the Nigerian government better move fast. End quote. So Nigeria is a country on the coast of West Africa. It has a population of about 240 million, and it has a religious makeup of roughly half and half Christians and Muslims. Christians are predominantly in the south.

Muslims are predominantly in the north. For years, Nigeria has faced attacks by jihadist groups like Boko Haram in the Islamic State, West Africa province. These attacks have killed tens of thousands of people and have displaced millions of people. However, some human rights groups emphasize that it is overly simplistic to just frame this as purely Muslims versus Christians and that the jihadist groups that are committing these attacks are targeting Muslims as well, especially those Muslims that oppose them. It's true that Christians are targeted by jihadist violence, but what's less clear is whether Christians are targeted more than Muslims and what that violence exactly stems from. Are they targeted because of their faith? Ethnicity. Is it land disputes? Is it resource scarcity like water? Or is it all of the above? The Trump administration claims that Christians specifically have been targeted by the ongoing conflicts in Nigeria, which led, to Trump declaring Nigeria a country of particular concern with respect to religious freedom during his first administration. So this is not necessarily something new. This is a designation he made during his first administration. The Biden administration then removed Nigeria from the CPC list in 2021. This was a decision which critics argued was unjustified, but the Biden administration said it didn't believe at the time that Nigeria met the legal threshold for the CPC. designation. That revocation by the Biden administration came one day before then Secretary of

State Anthony Blinken arrived in Nigeria as part of an African tour. So the Biden administration revoked the designation. Then last month, Trump restored Nigeria's CPC status and most recently over the weekend threatened military action and the revocation of military and humanitarian aid. So basically, the Trump administration sees this as a situation where Christians specifically are being targeted and are therefore being denied the religious freedoms that they're owed. The Nigerian government, on the other hand, has denied that the fights are primarily motivated by religious affiliation and has denied that Christians specifically are being targeted. So the discrepancy is whether Christians specifically are being targeted and

whether they're being targeted because they are Christian. Some say that Christians and Muslims are being killed amid Nigeria's security crises and that the victims are usually determined by their locations and not because of religion. But then others say that this is purely Christians being targeted and that they're being killed because of their religion. So we don't know what the truth is. As far as whether the United States military can take action in Nigeria at President Trump's discretion, the answer is yes, but only under specific conditions. So under the Constitution and the war powers resolution, the president does have broad power to deploy U.S. forces for short-term or emergency missions. Remember that the president is the commander-in-chief of the military,

so he has very broad power there. The war powers resolution, though, says that the president only has the power to deploy the military himself if he notifies Congress within 48 hours of deployment and if the troops withdraw after 60 days. So after 60 days, so after 60 days, Congress has to either approve of the troops staying wherever they are or declare war. Otherwise, the troops have to come back. So the president could order limited action, like let's say air strikes or rescue operations, whatever it might be, but the president cannot sustain a long-term deployment in Nigeria without congressional approval.

So that's how that would work. Let's do some quick hitters. people are claiming there has been a government cover-up after a crash outside Area 51 a few weeks ago. A group of residents in Nevada say they've been left in the dark after a mysterious object fell from the sky and crashed just outside the Area 51 military base. A local investigative reporter reported that on September 23rd, an object had crashed to Earth. The reporter now says the crash has been, quote, quickly covered up, and quote, A spokesperson for Creech Air Force Base, which is nearby Area 51, confirmed the mishap involved in aircraft assigned to the 432nd wing, which operates unmanned aerial vehicles. Following the crash, there was reportedly a base lockdown, flight restrictions, sealed off areas of the valley by armed patrols, and apparent tampering at the crash site.

When locals went to check out the area a few days later, after the armed patrols had left, the site had reportedly been buried. buried under a thick layer of dirt. The Air Force said investigators discovered signs of tampering during a follow-up site survey on October 3rd, including an inert training bomb and an aircraft panel of unknown origin that were placed there after the crash. According to the 432nd Wings Public Affairs Office, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the FBI have launched a joint probe into the matter. Per usual, I've included a couple of links in the sources section for this episode if you want to read more. This is one of those stories that wasn't quite long enough for a full story, but also not necessarily short enough for a quick hitter. So I just want to direct you

to those links if you do want to read more about that. Moving on, tomorrow is November 4th, which means it might be time for you to go cast a ballot. Various states are holding various elections, including ballot measures, state legislative seats, mayoral races, special elections to fill newly vacant congressional seats. So be sure to see what's going on in your state or city to see if there's anything that you need to get out and vote for. Obviously, we know that New York City has its big mayoral race. Texas's 18th district has a race for a vacant seat in Congress. Pennsylvania is holding a state Supreme Court election. California is voting on Prop 50. So again, just be sure to be aware of what's going on in your area. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in two challenges to

Trump's imposition of tariffs. This case will determine whether Trump has the power to impose tariffs under the IEPA or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The challengers argue that unlike other laws that directly deal with tariffs, the IEEPA does not mention tariffs or duties at all and that no precedent before Trump has ever relied on this law to impose tariffs. The administration, on the other hand, argues that tariffs fall squarely within the text of the law. So I'll be sure to give you an update on Thursday once we learn a bit more about how the justices are feeling about this issue. And Wednesday is a notable day for another reason. If the government shutdown does not end by Wednesday, which it presumably won't, it'll be the longest shutdown on record.

Currently, the longest shutdown on record is the 2018- 2019 shutdown, which lasted 35 days. But Wednesday will mark the 36th day of this shutdown. And speaking of the shutdown this past weekend, Mark, the worst weekend for air traffic control staffing since the shutdown began. Between Friday morning and Saturday night, there were 98 staffing trigger reports at FAA facilities, which means air traffic controllers had to alter operations in some way to keep the airspace safe with fewer people working. These changes can include rerouting planes or delaying flights when there's not enough controllers to handle the normal workload. Don't forget, I will have even more quick hitters going out in

tomorrow's newsletter, so be sure to subscribe if you haven't already. It's completely free. You just need an email address. You can always find the link to subscribe in the show notes of each episode. Let's finish the episode with some critical thinking and revisit the story about ACA premium tax credits. As we've talked about, Congress has already extended these tax credits twice, but they can't keep doing that forever, right? The Affordable Care Act was supposed to make coverage affordable on its own, yet more than a decade later, premiums are still rising almost every year and many middle-income Americans just can't afford health insurance. So I want you to think about what the long-term fix is. In other words, if Congress stopped stepping in, what do you think

should happen next? Should we find a way to bring down the actual cost of health care, so premiums naturally fall? Or is there another approach entirely that no one's talking about? What would a sustainable solution look like to you? And then, this is your final question. In your opinion, Should subsidies be tied to personal health choices like maintaining a healthy lifestyle? So the healthier you are, the bigger the subsidy you get. Or should they remain purely income based? Whatever your answer is, why is it that and not the other? That's what I have for you today.

Thank you so much for being here. As always, have a fantastic next couple of days. And I will talk to you again on Thursday. You know, I'm going to be able to go.